Propose system Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Propose system - Essay Example I would ensure that a constitutional democracy is set up consisting of three-tier system of government similar to that of the United States. However, I shall make some changes in the judicial system that will have to be autonomous and publicly elected by the people to ensure impartiality in the delivery of services. Consequently, in order to reduce the workload in courts, I would establish two independent courts: the constitutional court and the Supreme Court operating independent of each other. In this case, the Constitutional court will only be concerned with cases pertaining to constitutional matters while the Supreme Court will serve as the highest court dealing with appeals independent of constitutional matters. For lawmakers, I would create a Congress house made up of several representatives to serve the interest of everyone from provices. However, I will ensure that the representation is distributed in accordance with the population of the provinces. This implies that provinces with few people will have low representation. The population density will be determined using census report, which will be conducted within a span of 10 years, (Bardes, Shelley, and Schmidt, 2008). Like the federal system, the party with the majority of congress representatives will establish the government of the day, elect its president, and the vice president. I will also make sure that there is a national Council of Religion similar to the U.S. Senate where each religious faction is given equal representation as noted by Wood (2002). This will certainly help reduce any conflict that may result if the distribution is not equitably allocated. I will also ensure that there is the executive branch that controls the religious council, the power, which I will vest upon the vice president. The political parties will play a major role in ensuring that bills are passed by the Council and

The Making of the Korean War and Its End Term Paper

The Making of the Korean War and Its End - Term Paper Example With the help of communists, North Korea was sure of a swift win in South Korea and never thought that the United States would come to the assistance of South Korea in time. However, the South Korean communists had been suppressed harshly with no chance of helping North Korea forces. After successfully defeating the South Korean army and on the brink of winning, a combined United States and United Nations forces attacked North Korean forces successfully pushing North Korean forces past the 38th parallel. Kim had grossly underestimated the United States armed forces capacity in the region and the U.S commitment to Ryee’s government. North Korea invaded South Korea starting the civil war in which Koreans fought each other on their own soil. Had Kim not invaded the south the civil war would not have started but still it could not have been fought if the communist Russians and the United Nations had not divided the country at the 38th parallel splitting the country into an industr ial north and an agricultural south after World War II. North Korea had a superior army and quickly overwhelmed the South Korean Forces. With military support from Stalin and blessings from Mao, South Korea could not hold long, and they did not; they had a weaker army and were not prepared for war. North Korea’s leader had unified his country with swift reforms and nationalistic policies, which increased his popularity in contrast to Ryees government, which had embarked on a campaign to root out communists. It was his unification ambition and his brutal leadership that had prevented the United States from strengthening his military strength. Kim’s army had the support of the Soviet Union and without Stalin’s support; he would have delayed his attempts at unifying Korea through military means. Why Did United States and Russia Interfere In The War? Failing to unify their country due to bad communications and different ideologies, Kim and Ryee had to involve extern al powers to unite Korea. Stalin initially did not support Kim in attacking South Korea, he changed his mind when China’s communist took china’s leadership and the Soviet Union acquired and tested their first atomic bomb. NATO was established when Russia’s relation with the west was very poor. They could not support the war because the country’s sovereignty was threatened by the west and he did not want to aggravate the situation1. The atomic bomb made the Soviets more secure and hence they stopped being concerned with the reaction of the United States if they actively supported the war. The United States could have attacked the Soviet Union from the south but through Acheson statements America weakening involvement in Asia was evident. Russia wrongly interpreted this as a weakening of the United States military capabilities and influence around the region. If Russia did not have the capability to defend itself against the west, Stalin would not have cons ented to the war. The increasing communist successes in the region concerned the United States government. Communist governments spread would weaken their influence in the region. If South Korea had suppressed North Koreas attack, Washington would not have a valid reason to attack. By defending the South Korea nationalistic government, it would empower the people through democracy, but Bruce Cumings disagrees claiming that the United States and South Korea committed sustained atrocities during the war. He claims that many unarmed civilians were shot

France In The Franco Prussian War

France In The Franco Prussian War Three wars determined the fate of Germany, the first one early in 1864 with Denmark, then in 1866 Austria, the final one, France. The last one, Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71 directly led to the founding of Germany after French defeat. The Prussian victory was due much to the isolation of France. A.J.P Taylor commented that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦France was isolated in 1870 as Austria had been in 1866, and actually, these two isolation was the arts of Bismarcks foreign policies. There is no doubt that the favourable international circumstances benefited Bismarcks foreign policies, but like what Taylor had commented that it is inadequate to explain Bismarcks success solely by the mistakes of his opponents, acknowledging his contribution to the isolation of France in the Franco-Prussian War. This essay thus includes the architects of the Iron Chancellor to isolate France before this war. After the defeat of Austria in Seven Weeks War, the Franco-Prussian rivalries were more apparent. While Napoleon III was suspicious of Prussia due to her growing influence in Central Europe, he called for reward for French neutrality in the Austro-Prussian War. Bismarck, however, cleverly utilized his ambition to isolate France. To do so, Bismarck was intended to keep British isolation of France. After Prussian victory in the Austro-Prussian war in 1866, Napoleon III of France looked for the purchase of Luxemburg as compensation for neutrality in the war. French diplomat Vincent Benedetti even proposed a draft treaty of Franco-Prussian alliance to Bismarck, which was called the Benedetti treaty, proposing French annexation of Belgium. He later used them as a means to discredit France before the Franco-Prussian War by disclosing this treaty in The Times on July 25, together with the conspiracy of Napoleon III towards Belgium. This move was to arouse the discontent of British and to ensure her isolation on France. It is true that Britain was always suspicious of France right from the start of the 19th century owing to the Napoleonic Era and her strong nationalism, but this is not enough to explain British neutrality. It is Bismarck who utilized British fear to isolate France. British practical concern was Belgium. The Treaty of London in 1839 Britain guaranteed Belgian neutrality. During the Belgian Independence War(1830-9), British had resisted French intervention, since she had to prevent the spread of French influence there. Bismarck was wise to publicize the ambition of France in this region to gain British neutrality in times of war against France. This showed Bismarcks manipulation of international circumstances in foreign policies. The Iron Chancellor, on the other hand, tried his best to keep Russia neutral in the war to isolate France. He tried to get Russian goodwill first by offering the help for the chase of those Polish rebels, though it was rejected by Tsar Alexander II. Bismarcks later foreign policies finally succeed, especially during the period 1866 and 1870, when the Near East Crisis revived. Bismarck did not get involved in it, but he looked to peaceful ways to solve this. For instance, in 1869, Bismarck called a conference in Paris to solve the Cretan Crisis by acting as an honest broker. Actually, the relationship between Russia and Prussia was going on the right track. The Russo-Prussian Agreement was issued by Tsar Alexander II to station 100000 troops on the Austrian frontier to keep Austria in check. This showed that Bismarck in fact won the goodwill of Russia at that time, and it is not surprising Russia would stay neutral in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. Of course, Bismarcks foreign poli cy was only one of the reasons contributing to the Russian neutrality. In fact, Russian military weaknesses led to her neutralization. She just lacked military power in Galicia to mobilize, let alone intervention. However, one cannot deny the effectiveness of Bismarcks foreign policies, which won the goodwill of Russia, avoiding her intervention in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71. Bismarck was well-aware of the Austrian foreign policy. Prussia had just defeated the Austrian in 1866 in the Seven Weeks War. However, Bismarck knew clearly that Austria was crucial to German unification due to the fact that he did not want a Greater Germany, but a Little Germany to ensure Prussian domination in Germany. Bismarck cared much about Austrian neutrality in case of a Franco-Prussian conflict. Actually, he was trying to recover the relation between Austria and Prussia after handing the former a lost in the war in 1866. He forced William I to treat Austria leniently by a threat of suicide. At last, this previous dominant power in the Central Europe lost only Venetia, Holstein and the presidency in the German Confederation according to the Treaty of Prague. She was still remained a power in the Central Europe. However, the above policies by Bismarck did not result in the neutrality. Actually, Austrian intention to take revenge on Prussia was not diminishing until 1870(Struggle for Mastery in Europeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.. p169), which could be seen in the attempt to seek a Triple Alliance between Italy and France in 1868. Notwithstanding, Bismarcks policy to deliberately weakened Austria by stimulating the Hungarian revolt against the Hapsburg Empire during the Austro-Prussian War was the reason for Austrian neutrality. The dual monarchy, Austria-Hungary, was an indirect cause of Bismarcks plot. This led to internal instability in Austria because the newly-founded monarchy had too much to settle, for example the multi-racial sentiment like the demand for equal national rights by the Czechs in Bohemia since 1868, and the compromise with the Magyars, that is, Hungary, on the organization of the government. Austria-Hungary after 1866 defeat faced a chaotic situation, with complicated internal affair s remained unsettled. She was not ready for intervention. She was afraid of repeating Custoza rather than revenging Sadova. In this case, credits should be given to Bismarcks foreign policies, making Austria weak politically and militarily, resulting in her neutrality in Franco-Prussian War in 1870. Uniting with the Southern Germany was a highly serious matter considered by Bismarck. The Prussian Minster-President after the Austro-Prussian War in 1866 faced a difficult task in unifying these Southern German states. Nationalism among these four southern states, Baden, Bavaria, Hesse-Darmstabt and Wurttemberg, were not strong enough to unite with the North German Confederation. Though Bismarck had tried several times to unite with the Southern Germany, these were not successful. The most important one is the setting up of a Zollparlament after 1867, including all the delegates from all German states, regardless of Northern or Southern one. Most deputies from those Southern German states were only inclined to discussions of commercial problems, not political one. On the other hand, the four southern states were hostile to Prussia, and they were different from Prussia in terms of their religion. Prussia was a Protestant state, while others Catholics. Adding to it, there was a danger of these four southern states falling into the hands of Bismarck also due to the demand of Napoleon to get all territories of the left bank of the Rhine. Bismarck was in a headache not only in getting the unification with Southern German states, but to keep them in Prussian side. However, Bismarck turned impossible to miracle. He, intentionally quarreled with France, used her to generate a great force of nationalist emotion and, through inviting foreign French intervention to unite the North and Southern Germany. He wisely exposed the ambition of France in the discussions with the Southern German states to frighten them. This was effective. Secret military alliances were signed between Prussia and the four Southern German states respectively in August 1866. These were crucial, not only did these facilitate the development of close personal contacts with Prussians, but also in 1870, when the Franco-Prussian war was imminent, the Southern Germany took up their arms to help Prussia in the war. In this case, Bismarcks foreign policy manipulated the certain circumstances in the isolation of France before Franco-Prussian War in 1870. Italy, the most ineffective sixth power in Europe, however, was still a concern for Bismarck. He, before the Austro-Prussian War, signed an alliance with the Italians, promising to win her Venetia if she cooperated with Prussia against Austria in the war. At last, though it was France forcing Austria to cede Venetia after the Battle of Sadova in 1866, it was Bismarcks Treaty of Prague confirmed it. This foreign policy by Bismarck was part of the reason leading to the neutrality of Italy in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. But it is arguable whether the neutrality was all of Bismarcks work. Truly, it is the long-time hostility of Italy towards France that caused this neutrality. Actually, France, since 1849, had troops in Rome, and the Italians would not co-operate until France had withdrawn her garrison there. (Bismarck and Germany 1862-1890 p.?) Therefore, those circumstances favoured push Italy away from France, even though an alliance with Austria and France was offered, she found it pointless to cooperate with France. Therefore, Italian neutrality in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 was not only due to Bismarcks foreign policies, but also the favourable circumstances internationally. But Bismarcks work should not be regarded useless, but crucial since Bismarck as least tried his best to win Italian friendship. This was a smart decision. Italy strove to complete her unification. Prussian help in ensuring the return of Venetia won much Italian appreciation. Italy, thankful to Prussia, would not easily take action to stop her in the Franco-Prussian War. So, Bismarcks foreign policy was valuable in the isolation of France. To say Bismarck created circumstances is simply a joke. One can say Bismarck as an opportunist, as he made use certain international circumstances to isolate France. In a period when all the powers in Europe longed only for achieving their own needs, Bismarck was still able to play out his tactics in it. The Austrian neutrality was his playing, the Russian was, and even the Italian was. However, we cannot deny the fact that Bismarck was an architect, planning for the alliance with the Southern German states, for the Ems Telegram. Bismarck was a diplomatic genius. His cruel blood and iron policy earned him, and William I, an entire new and Prussian-led German Empire.

Harper Lees To Kill a Mockingbird :: Harper Lee Kill Mockingbird Essays

Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird is a highly regarded work of American fiction. The story of the novel teaches us many lessons that should last any reader for a lifetime. The messages that Harper Lee relays to the reader are exemplified throughout the book using various methods. One of the most important and significant methods was the use of symbols such as the mockingbird image. Another important method was showing the view through a growing child's (Scout Finch) mind, eyes, ears, and mouth. There is another very significant method that was used. In the novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee utilizes the effects of irony, sarcasm, and hypocrisy to criticize a variety of elements in Southern life. Harper Lee employs the effects of irony in To Kill a Mockingbird as a way to criticize the deficiency of public education. "Now tell your father not to teach you any more. It's best to begin reading with a fresh mind." (pG. 22) Instead of praising Scout's ability to read at an advanced level, Miss Caroline discourages it. This ironic example set by Miss Caroline seems to demonstrate the inadequate training that she had received for her occupation. Miss Caroline seems to have been instructed upon a strict standard on how her students are expected to behave, but when she encounters something different, such as Scout's advanced ability to read, she advises Scout to stop being advanced, whereas a modern-day schoolteacher would capitalize on Scout's ability to read and encourage her to read more. "You won't learn to write until you're in the third grade." (pg. 23) The strict, recipe-style, rubric method of teaching that Miss Caroline uses is once again emphasized here. Miss Caroline once again discourages Scout's advanced abilities and regards Scout's ability with contempt. "The Dewey Decimal System consisted, in part, of Miss Caroline waving cards at us which were printed 'the,' 'cat,' 'rat,' 'man,' and 'you.'" (pg. 23) The Dewey Teaching Method was supposed to place an emphasis on "active" learning, yet the irony in Miss Caroline's "use" of it was that her teaching method wasn't "active" at all. It was, in fact, extremely passive. The students in the class didn't do anything. They became extremely bored and learned very little. As I have established, the use of irony clearly reveals the deficiency of the public education system in the 1930's. Teachers did not seem to be trained enough to handle the vast abilities of their students.

Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated Communications Essay

â€Å"On the Internet, no body knows you’re a dog. † Herring (2003, p. 205) mentioned this caption of a cartoon bearing published in the New Yorker (July 1993). May be in this age with the internet evolution it’s hard to know it’s a dog, but what about distinguishing user’s gender in computer-mediated communication (CMC) is it easy or not. This essay tries to shade the light on some of these gender differences in computer-mediated communication (CMC). This essay gives an idea about computer-mediated communication (CMC) modes and the gap between CMC expectations and the fact that there are gender differences in CMC. Then it gives an idea about gender differences in traditional communication followed by exploring gender differences in CMC. First, it’s important to have an idea about CMC different modes. According to Herring (2003, p. 205), â€Å"computer mediated communication (CMC) comprises a variety of interactive socio-technical modes†. She gave some examples of these modes such as: e-mail, discussion lists and newsgroups, chat, MUDs (Multi-User Dimensions) and MOOs (MUD, Object Oriented), IM (Instant Messaging). Dalampan (2006) classifies CMC modes into: synchronous and asynchronous (Figure. 1). The synchronous mode requires communication in real-time. However, the synchronous mode doesn’t require interlocutors to be online at the same time. (p. 59) According to Dalampan (2006), the field of computer-mediated communication (CMC) continues to generate interest from sociolinguists who are concerned with whether the traditional gender differences in face-to-face interaction are carried over into online discourse (p. 59). The problem that all studies tried to investigate is the gap between earlier high expectations for CMC concerning providing an environment that creates equity and the fact that gender differences still existed even in CMC environment. Li (2006) saw that many educators and researchers had high hopes for CMC, believing that it provided more equal access to information and communication and would ultimately lead to greater equity. Also, Hendry (2001, p. 3) mentioned that earlier research in computer-mediated communication (CMC) found that CMC promoted social equity. She explains that this could be due to predictions by many researchers that CMC would democratize communication and mitigate gender differences. Despite these claims that the relative anonymous communication on the Internet would break down traditional gender binaries, research has identified gender differences in computer-mediated discourse, similar to differences observed in spoken discourse. (Herring, 2006) In order to determine whether the language used by males and females in computer-mediated communication (CMC) reveal gender related differences or not, many studies were conducted. However, according to Li (2006) research findings concerning gender differences in CMC are mixed. However, this essay will explore some of these gender differences in CMC in some related studies. Linguists have long recognized gender as a factor that may affect person’s linguistic productions (Baron, 2005, p. 8). â€Å"Sociolinguists have written extensively about stylistic differences they have observed between males and females in spoken and written language† (p. 4). Based on these previous studies, Baron (2005) mentioned some gender linguistic differences such as: females tend to use more politeness indicators than males, whereas males more frequently interrupt woman than vice versa; in general, women tend to use language as a tool for facilitating social interaction, whereas males are more prone to use language for conveying information; on average, women’s speech reflects standard phonological, lexical, and grammatical patterns more than men’s does (p. 8). Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has attracted more and more researchers’ attention as a due to the dramatic increase in the use of the Internet in recent years (Li, 2005, p. 382). According to Baron (2003) linguists and other scientists have been studying CMC for we over a decade (p. 4). The essay now will give some examples for gender differences in CMC. Herring (2006, p. 4) reported a tendency for women to be more polite, supportive, emotionally expressive, and less verbose than men in online public forums. Conversely, men are more likely to insult, challenge, express sarcasm, use profanity, and send long messages. Also, Baron (2003) listed some gender differences such as women tend to use more affective markers, more hedges, more politeness markers, and more tag questions. However, men are likely to use more referential language, more profanity, and fewer personal pronouns than women. (p. 9) A study conducted by Li (2006) showed that gender is a considerable factor in the context of mathematics and sciences learning using CMC. Concerning gender communication patterns, findings show males students are more likely to present their opinions and explanations, but less likely to make specific suggestions; whereas female students tend to ask for a lot of information, but are less likely to provide explanations or opinions. Also, female students tend to initiate conversations, while male students are more likely to enter the dialogue at later stages and respond to previous discussions. Li (2006) presented a meta analysis for some studies in gender differences in CMC. Her analysis provided answers for three main questions: first one, what are gender differences in users’ communication patterns in CMC? Results show that on average, female users had a significantly higher frequency of collaborative instances using CMC than males. Also, females had a significantly higher frequency of challenging others and were more personal oriented. Males, on the other hand, used more authoritative statements. Second one, to what extent do male and female differ in their interaction pattern in CMC? Results indicated that, on average, there was a small but significant gender effect on users’ participation pattern, male users had a significantly higher frequency of posting messages or having longer access to the Internet than female users, also, male users have better access to CMC environments. Third question, who would enjoy CMC environment, males or females? Results showed that, on average, there was a moderate but significant gender effect on users’ enjoyment of CMC. Male users enjoyed more CMC environments than their female counterparts. According to Bernard (1998), males tend to dominate group discussions, even when they are in the minority. They even tend to generate more aggressive and often caustic interactions to the extent that they often marginalize female communications to the point of being excluded from the CM interactions. Savicki and Kelley (2000, p. 817) examined whether men and women communicate differently using CMC. They found that gender composition of the groups is the variable that has the strongest relationship to communication style. Results found that women in small task group developed a significantly different style of communication than men did using CMC with other men. They explained that women in female-only groups were able to overcome the limitations of the text-only format of CMC with self-disclosure, use of â€Å"I† statements and through directly addressing their message to other group members. On the other hand, they found that men in male-only groups ignored the sociomotional aspects of group functioning and were more likely to engage in a collective monologue approach to discussion with the addition of mild flaming. Men in MO groups were less satisfied with the CMC experience and showed lower levels of group development. (p. 817) Herring (2003) (Baron, 2005, p. 15) found that on many-to-many asynchronous CMC mode (listservs and newsgroups), males tended to be more adversarial and to write longer messages than females, whereas females tended to be more supportive in their postings with shorter messages and more apologizes than males. On the other hand on synchronous many-to-many CMC mode (chat and social MUDs and MOOs), males were more aggressive and insulting, whereas female had more aligned and supportive discourse. By studying IM conversations of college students, Baron (2005) concluded that there are significant gender differences in IM conversations. She found that male-male conversations tend to be shorter and have more of a spoken character, while female-female conversations tend to be longer and have more of a written character. Males use more contractions than do females. (p. 14) On the other side, Dalampan (2006) added the context factor or dimension he concluded that males and females language use seems to be influenced more by the context of use than their gender this may be because both males and females in his sample were scholars so they were acting like scholars not as males and females. He also concluded that despite the claims of previous research that females used more linguistic qualifiers, hedges, and personal pronouns, the associations were not found to be strong. (p. 65) Another study conducted by Abdul Kadir and Din (2006) shows that there are no significant gender differences in CMC learning mode orientation and learning style. (p. 50) At the end, however research findings may appear to be mixed but findings showed that computer-mediated communication (CMC) couldn’t eliminate gender differences as expected after all it is another communication environment. These gender differences are somehow similar to gender differences in spoken and written language. Some findings didn’t show significant gender differences this could be due to other factors such as the presence of the instructor in the Dalampan (2006) study. Also, findings were different depending on CMC mode either being synchronous/asynchronous or one-to-one/one-to-many. References Abdul Kadir, R. & Din, R. (2006). Computer Mediated Communication: A motivational strategy toward diverse learning style. Journal Pendidikan, 31, pp. 41-51. Retrieved March 16, 2008 from http://pkukmweb. ukm. my/~penerbit/jurnal_pdf/jpend31_03. pdf Baron, N. S. (2003). Instant Messaging by American College Students: A case study in computer-mediated communication. Retrieved March 16, 2008 from http://www. american. edu/tesol/Baron-SeeYouOnlineCorrected64. pdf Baron, N. S. (2005). See You Online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Retrieved March 16, 2008 from http://www. american. edu/tesol/Baron-SeeYouOnlineCorrected64. pdf Bernard, M. L. (1998). Gender Interaction Differences Using Computer-Mediated Communication: Can the Internet serve as a status equalizer?. Retrieved March 16, 2008 from http://psychology. wichita. edu/mbernard/articles/Gender&Internet. html Dalampan, A. E. (2006). Gender Issues in Computer-Mediated Communications. TESL working paper, 4 (2). Retrieved March 16, 2008 from http://web1. hpu. edu/images/GraduateStudies/TESL_WPS/10Dalampan_Gender_a17241. pdf Hendry, J. (2001). E-gender or Agenda: Are women getting what they want?. ANZMAC 2001. Retrieved March 16, 2008 from http://smib. vuw. ac. nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2001/anzmac/AUTHORS/pdfs/Hendry. pdf Herring, S. C. & Paolillo, I. C. (2006). Gender and Genre Variation in Weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4). Retrieved March 16, 2008 from http://www. blogninja. com/jslx. pdf Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and Power in Online Communication. In: J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff (Eds. ), The Handbook of Language and G

Political Parties and Unfair Elections Essay

This party system was the first ‘truly national system’, consisting of the Democrats (followers of Jackson) and Whigs (opponents of Jackson) fairly balanced in most regions (Wilson and DiIulio, Jr. 196). The Civil War split the political parties in several ways. There was a deep difference in opinion between the parties over the issue of slavery and sectionalism. Both parties tried to ‘straddle the issues’ to avoid dividing their followers and losing the election to their rival (Wilson and DiIulio, Jr. 196). But the old parties divided and new ones emerged. As a result of the Civil War the modern Republican Party began as a third party. The Republican Party’s strength lay in the North; Abraham Lincoln did not receive a single electoral vote from a Southern state in 1860. The Democrats in the North divided into War Democrats, who supported the war effort but claimed the Republicans were doing a poor job of leading the Union, and the Peace Democrats, or Copperheads, who opposed the war and were suspected of disloyalty to the Union. To win the election of 1864, the Republicans reorganized themselves as the Union party to attract votes from the War Democrats and nominated War Democrat Andrew Johnson for vice president. When Lincoln was assassinated, Democrat Johnson became president. Following the Civil War, Republicans moved quickly to consolidate their control of the United States government. They quickly added a series of Western states to the Union, states that they expected would remain firm in their support for Republicans. The Republican Party’s pro-business positions played well in the industrial North and Midwest, while the Democrats held the â€Å"solid South. † The large number of immigrants who came to the United States, together with the growing industrial workforce, laid the basis for strong, largely Democratic political machines in New York, Chicago, and other large cities (CliffsNotes. com). So at this point there were basically two political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats dominated national politics for the next 20 years. Democratic dominance collapsed in the 1960s in response to the Vietnam War. There was unprecedented rioting against the principles of the war and Democrats blamed their party for the riots and the rise in unlawful behavior and protests. Due to that fact, support of the Democratic Party sharply declined. From the 1968 election of Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory, only one Democrat attained the White House: Jimmy Carter, whose term spanned 1976 to 1980. The Electoral College is a major factor in sustaining a majority two-party system, but does not necessarily keep elections fair. If the popular vote in a state is very close, the winner gets all of the state’s electoral votes. This makes it extremely difficult for a third party to win, i. e. the two-party system is reinforced. In many cases the Electoral College system has failed so far as keeping elections fair. Two instances in particular reveal the inadequacy of the Electoral College procedure. An example of a popular third party candidate that was denied any serious validation as a Presidential candidate would be Ross Perot in the 1992 election. Perot garnered almost 20 percent of the popular vote across the country but did not receive a single electoral vote due to the Electoral College rules. This discrepancy between electoral and popular votes has led to many wanting to put an end to the Electoral College system and replace it with popular voting. Another example of the failure of the Electoral College system was exemplified in the 2000 election, when Al Gore was not chosen to be president although he had the popular vote of the country. A systematic conspiracy to heavily manipulate the vote in the critical state of Florida to favor Bush in the 2000 Bush-Gore presidential election ultimately resulted in a Bush victory. The blatant manipulation methods used were enough to swing the election to Bush and away from Gore. The evident fraud in the voting process and the failure of the courts to intervene in a proper and non-partisan manner cost Gore the Presidency. When it became apparent on November 8, 2000 that neither Gore nor Bush had the majority of the electoral votes required to win the Presidency, the state of Florida became the focus of attention. Both candidates needed a majority in Florida to win the White House, but voting irregularities prevented the final tally from being reached for over five weeks. What voters didn’t realize was that the voting procedure wasn’t the only problem in Florida, but that the process to insure George W. Bush’s victory had been in place for over two years before the election. Florida Governor Jeb Bush, George W. Bush’s brother, was elected in 1998. He immediately put a plan into action that would help his brother gain the Florida electoral votes in the 2000 election. Gov. Bush let special interest groups know that they expected political donations of $2 for every $1 donated to Democrats or defaulters would lose access to the governor and the legislative leadership, and their businesses would tank. The Governor also began replacing   Ã‚   Democrats throughout Florida state government, his first purge of Democratic voters. Governor Jeb Bush’s next step to eliminate Democratic power in Florida was to appoint staunch Republicans to control Florida’s educational system, including state senator Jim Horne as Florida’s first Secretary of Education and most of the individual university presidents. He accomplished this feat by eliminating the Florida Board of Regents. The board was replaced by separate boards of trustees at all ten of the state universities According to Lance deHaven-Smith, in his book entitled The Battle for Florida, â€Å"the governor was given the power to make all the trustee appointments†. This created an enormous source of new patronage and also undermined the political neutrality of the state universities. With the Board of Regents out of the way, Republicans quickly replaced many of the university presidents with political insiders. (deHaven-Smith, 2005) The Florida Republican Party then began a drive to disenfranchise Democratic voters. They paid a private company to purge the voter registry of all ex-felons, even though Florida courts twice ruled that ex-felons whose civil rights had been restored before they came to Florida were entitled to vote. This would benefit the Republicans because blacks made up more than 50% of the ex-felon list and 9 0% of the black Florida population voted Democratic. In 1999, newly-elected Secretary of State Katherine Harris paid Data Base Technologies (DBT) $4. million to compile the most extensive scrub list possible. Race was a big factor in compiling matches for the list. After the election, DBT testified before a congressional committee that Florida officials had ordered them to eliminate voters by making incorrect matches. The information was gathered from the Internet and no verifying telephone calls were made. Five months before the election, Harris (who coincidentally was co-chairing the Bush presidential campaign) sent the list of 57,700 names to all the precincts with instructions to remove those voters from the rolls. Greg Palast revealed the story of the scrub list in The Observer, London, November 26, 2000. The story was ignored by American mainstream press. Palast has since provided irrefutable, hard evidence of fraud. His most recent estimate of qualified Florida voters barred from casting a ballot in Election 2000 stands at 90,000. On January 10, 2001, NAACP lawyers sued and won their case against DBT, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and Bush loyalist Clay Roberts, Director of the Division of Elections. (Palast, 2003)   On Election Day 2000 in the state of Florida, however; Republican voters stood in short ines and used up-to-date equipment. The machinations of the Republican Party paid off in black districts. Highway patrol officers flagged down voters at roadblocks and checked their drivers’ licenses while others waited in long lines to vote on ancient machines. Innocent citizens were turned away and informed that their names appeared on the ex-felons list when they showed up to vote. Republicans found other ways to disenfranchise opposition voters. Two-page ballots with misleading directions were printed in Austin, Texas (the center of the George W. Bush presidential campaign), returned to Florida, and distributed in black districts. Some votes were simply later trashed by ballot handlers. In Duval County, 27,000 ballots were discarded, over half of them from black precincts in Jacksonville. No official challenges were filed within the 72-hour time limit, so thousands of mostly Democratic votes were lost. Sixteen-thousand votes for Gore disappeared overnight from the ongoing Volusia County tally and were reinstated only when an election supervisor questioned the subtraction of already registered votes. No voting machine company representative or election official was able to explain what happened. (Dover, 2002) Around 8 p. m. on Election Day exit polls from Voter News Service projected a Gore victory, but Bev Harris uncovered an CBS news report revealing that the erroneous subtraction of Gore’s votes in Volusia caused the election to be called for Bush. For several hours the race was too close to call, but shortly after midnight, Bush’s numbers plunged rapidly and Gore gained the lead. Despite Gore’s numbers, at 2:16 a. m. Fox News announced that Texas Governor George W. Bush had won Florida and the other television networks repeated Fox’s false information. (Harris, 2004) Gore heard the fake news of his defeat, phoned his congratulations to Bush and was prepared to deliver his concession speech to the nation. At that point, Gore’s chief advisors in Florida told him it was much too early to concede formally and advised him to hold off since there were still 360,000 uncounted votes. Out of 6 million votes cast in Florida, Bush’s lead was reported to be a mere 537 votes. The Florida Constitution had no provisions for a statewide recount, so Gore asked for a partial recount in four southern counties where glaring irregularities had shown up. The last thing the Bush team wanted was a fair recount. They complained to the press that Gore was a sore loser, and the press largely agreed. (Posner, 2001)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court overturned a circuit court decision and ordered a manual recount. Based on findings in the circuit court trial, Gore was awarded 393 votes, reducing Bush’s lead to only 154 votes. That’s when the Bush camp went ballistic. (Simon, 2001)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The National Party sent out-of-state operatives to intimidate Republican county clerks to amend over votes in Republican counties, to amend incomplete absentee ballot applications, and to accept late-arriving military ballots lacking signatures. When the recount actually began they became more radical, charged into the county administration building, threatening county canvassers, and halted the recount of Miami-Dade ballots. Despite court orders, eighteen counties never attempted a recount. The Bush campaign team and lawyers circulated misinformation about Florida’s election laws, about the reliability of manual recounts (both Jeb and George W. claimed that only machines could count accurately), and about the likelihood of a constitutional crisis. (Zelden, 2010) The Florida Constitution specifies that the intent of the voter be paramount during ballot recounting. Because electronic machines had repeatedly failed to read, discern intent, and count ballots accurately, manual recounting was mandated. The law was actually quite clear and no constitutional crisis was imminent. That did not stop the Bush team from pressing the issue, for they wanted the U. S. Supreme Court to intervene and prevent the recount. Republican leadership called the legislature into special session while the judiciary branch still addressed election issues, an extraordinary move. Speaker of the House Tom Feeney, Jeb’s bosom political buddy, took the podium and criticized the Florida Supreme Court decisions. He warned that if the dispute continued to December 12, Florida’s electoral slate would be excluded from the Electoral College vote. Florida had submitted its election results as they were certified, so the electoral slate was never really in danger. The Bush legal team, determined to delay or stop the recount, appealed to the U. S. District Court of Appeals, the Florida Supreme Court, and the U. S. Supreme Court. The justices had no business interfering in the election. The U. S. Constitution authorizes Congress to settle election disputes, not the Supreme Court. The first two courts denied the appeal. Then the U. S. Supreme Court gave them the nod. From that moment, the fix was in. Zelden, 2010) Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas had close relatives working for Republican organizations and should have recused themselves. Antonin Scalia’s son Eugene is a Washington law partner of Theodore B. Olson, the attorney who twice argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of George W. Bush. Scalia’s son John is an attorney with the Miami law firm that represented Bush in Florida. Clarence Thomas†™s wife, Virginia, worked for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and had been helping to collect applications from people seeking employment in the Bush administration. But they, along with the three other right-wing judges on the court, issued a ruling instructing the Florida courts to find a recount method that would apply â€Å"equal standards. † The decision came down at 10 p. m. on December 12, 2000, two hours before the deadline to submit voting results. In short, the U. S. Supreme Court ran the clock out on American voters and handed Florida’s electoral votes and the presidency to George W. Bush. (Thoreau, 2007) Reviewing the actual results of the statewide examination of 175,010 disputed ballots, on November 12, 2001 Robert Parry, www. consortiumnews. om, cleared away the media fog: â€Å"So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters — whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won. Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimate d Gore lost because of illegally designed ‘butterfly ballots,’ or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls. Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times. Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida’s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide. † Although the 2000 election was a travesty, one positive outcome was the renewal in the nation’s interest in The National Popular Vote bill.