Electoral College Essays (669 words) - Electoral College, John Adams

Electoral College The Electoral College is the collective name for the electors who choose the president and vice president of the United States. The electoral system was developed by the drafters of the Constitution, to entrust the responsibility to people whose choice would be unaffected by partisan politics. In Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, the method of selecting electors is delegated to the separate state legislatures. When a voter chooses a candidate in a presidential election that person is not directly voting for that specific candidate. The voter is actually voting for the electors in their state to vote for that candidate. Each state is allotted a certain number of electoral votes based on population. Presently the fifty states and the District of Columbia have a total of 538 electors. A simple majority of 270 votes is necessary for a candidate to win the election. With this system it is possible for a candidate to have enough electoral votes to win the election, while loosing the popular vote. The issue is whether or not the Electoral College should be eliminated. There is no doubt that the Electoral College is a very important part of the election process, and therefore should continue to be used. First, turning to a nationwide popular vote to pick a president would give less power to the smaller states and lesser populated regions. Voters from smaller states, already struggling for attention in presidential races, worry about being ignored altogether by candidates who choose to campaign exclusively in a highly populated region. If the president were elected by popular vote, it wouldn't matter what the less populated regions wanted. For example, the 2000 election is so close that loosing the three electoral votes from a smaller state, such as South Dakota or Rhode Island, could decide the whole election. With a popular vote the only places that would really affect the outcome of the election would be very highly populated, such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago. For this reason, a candidate would campaign in these cities and try to p lease them instead of the country as a whole. The Electoral College is meant to require that a candidate have a broad geographic reach. In addition, changing to a popular vote would require an amendment to the Constitution. There have been several attempts to change this part of the Constitution in the past, and all have failed. It is very difficult to amend our Constitution, since both the House and Senate must pass a two-thirds majority vote for a change to be made. Then legislatures in at least thirty-eight of the fifty states must ratify it. Even if the amendment passed in the House and Senate, thirty-eight of the states would not ratify it because of the fact that it takes power away from the smaller states. We have a Constitution that has lasted for two centuries because its framers knew how to make the document apply to situations like voting years in the future. The presidential election was meant to be a vote of the people in each state, not a vote of the country as a whole . This is not the federal republic of America, it is the United States of America. Our sense of union is based on the Electoral College. Finally, the voters of a state choose whom they want to represent them, and they also tell the electors how they should vote. Although an elector doesn't have to vote the way their state wants them to they usually do. A few times in the past an elector has not voted the way his state did, but it has never changed the outcome of the election. Because the electors are chosen by the people, every state is represented fairly in the Electoral College. For these reasons, the Electoral College is as effective today as it was two hundred years ago. The president of the United States should never be elected by a popular vote. Political Science

The Legal Drinking Age in Canada

The Legal Drinking Age in Canada The legal drinking age in Canada is the minimum age at which a person is allowed to buy and drink alcohol, and right now it is 18 for Alberta, Manitoba, and Quà ©bec and 19 for the rest of the country. In Canada, each province and territory  determines its own legal drinking age. Legal  Drinking Age in Canadas Provinces and Territories   Alberta: 18British Columbia: 19Manitoba: 18New Brunswick: 19Newfoundland and Labrador: 19Northwest Territories: 19Nova Scotia: 19Nunavut: 19Ontario: 19Prince Edward Island: 19Quà ©bec: 18  Saskatchewan: 19Yukon Territory: 19 Growing Concern About Alcohol Overconsumption A growing problem of rising and overconsumption of alcohol, particularly among young adults just at the legal drinking age, has raised alarms in Canada.   Since 2000 and  the release of the Canada Low-Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines in 2011, the first such national guidelines, many Canadians have been on a mission to reduce alcohol consumption across the board. Much research has been done on how harmful even moderate alcohol consumption can be and the  serious long-term effects on  young adults ages 18/19–24, when risky alcohol consumption peaks.   The Effect of Canadian Drinking-Age Laws A 2014 study by a scientist with the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) Faculty of Medicine concludes that Canada’s drinking-age laws have a significant impact on youth mortality. Writing in the international journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Dr. Russell Callaghan, a UNBC  Associate Professor of Psychiatry, argues that, when compared to Canadian males slightly younger than the minimum legal drinking age, young men who are just older than the drinking age have significant and abrupt increases in mortality, especially from injuries and motor vehicle accidents. â€Å"This evidence demonstrates that drinking-age legislation has a significant effect on reducing mortality among youth, especially young males,† says Dr. Callaghan. The minimum legal drinking age is 18 years of age in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quà ©bec, and 19 in the rest of the country. Using national Canadian death data from 1980 to 2009, researchers examined the causes of deaths of individuals who died between 16 and 22 years of age. They found that immediately following the minimum legal drinking age, male deaths due to injuries rose sharply by ten to 16 percent, and male deaths due to motor vehicle accidents increased suddenly by 13 to 15 percent. Increases in mortality also appeared immediately following the legislated drinking age for 18-year-old females, but these jumps were relatively small. According to the research, increasing the drinking age to 19 in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quà ©bec would prevent seven deaths of 18-year-old men each year. Raising the drinking age to 21 across the country would prevent 32 annual deaths of male youth 18 to 20 years old. â€Å"Many provinces, including British Columbia, are undertaking alcohol-policy reforms,† Dr. Callaghan said. â€Å"Our research shows that there are substantial social harms associated with youth drinking. These adverse consequences need to be carefully considered when we develop new provincial alcohol policies. I hope these results will help inform the public and policymakers in Canada about the serious costs associated with hazardous drinking among young people.† High Canadian  Alcohol Prices Tempt Importers There has been a movement to encourage lower consumption by  increasing or maintaining the overall price  of alcohol through interventions, such as excise taxes and indexing prices to inflation. Such pricing, according to the Canadian Center on Substance Abuse, would encourage production and consumption of lower-strength alcoholic beverages. Establishing minimum prices, the CCSA said, could remove inexpensive sources of alcohol often favored by young adults and other high-risk drinkers. Higher prices are seen as a disincentive to youth drinking, but lower-priced alcohol is readily available across the border in the United States. Both  visitors and Canadians are tempted to bring in large quantities of alcoholic beverages bought in the United States, which can be about half the price of such drinks in Canada.   How Much Duty-Free Alcohol Can Visitors Bring?​ If you are a Canadian or a visitor to Canada, you are allowed to bring a small quantity of alcohol (wine, liquor, beer, or coolers) into the country without having to pay duty or taxes as long as: the alcohol accompanies you.you meet the minimum  legal drinking age  for the province or territory at which you enter Canada.   Canadians and visitors  may bring in  only  one of the following.  If larger quantities are imported, the entire amount will assess duties, not just the amount exceeding these duty-free quantities: 1.5 liters (50.7 U.S. fluid ounces) of wine, including wine coolers over 0.5 percent alcohol. This is equivalent to (up to) 53 fluid ounces or two 750 ml bottles of wine.  1.14 liters (38.5 US fluid ounces) of liquor. This is equivalent to  (up to)  40 fluid ounces  or one large standard bottle of liquor.  Up to 8.5 liters of beer or ale, including beer coolers with more than 0.5 percent alcohol. This is equivalent to 287.4 US fluid ounces or about 24 cans or bottles (355 ml or 12.004 US fluid ounces each). For Canadians  returning after a stay in the U.S., the amount of personal exemption is dependent on how long an individual was out of the country. The highest exemptions accrue after stays of more than 48 hours. If Canadians have been on a day trip to the United States,  all the alcohol brought back to Canada will be subject to the usual duties and taxes.  In 2012, Canada changed exemption limits to more closely match those of the U.S. Source Callaghan, Russell. Canadian Drinking-Age Laws Have Significant Effect on Deaths Among Young Males. Matt Wood, Newsroom, University of Northern British Columbia, March 18, 2014, BC Canada. Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction. Youth Alcohol Use and Its Harms: Case Study in the Community of Sherbrooke (Report). Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, 2018, ON Canada.

Miranda Warning, How it changed Police Interrogation Term Paper

Miranda Warning, How it changed Police Interrogation - Term Paper Example The first major change in police interrogation - that is, from following the voluntariness test - occurred in state law. In 1966 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Miranda. The Miranda decision has been the mirror for modern application of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against compulsory self-incrimination in both federal and state criminal cases. Ernesto Miranda was convicted on charges of rape and kidnapping after providing police with a signed confession. Miranda's questioning by police lasted 2 hours and was conducted in an interrogation room without the aid of a lawyer. The three other defendants charged with the crimes experienced similar interrogation situations (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966; see Vignera v. New York; California v. Stewart; and Westover v. U.S., as cited in Oberlander & Goldstein, 2001). The Miranda Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, believed a suspect automatically confronted a "compulsory" situation ("inherent pressure") when place d in a police interrogation environment. The Supreme Court believed there had been widespread abuse throughout the nation by law enforcement personnel, and thereby, †¦ concluded that without proper safeguards for the process of in- ­custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime †¦ [the] inherently compelling pressures will work to undermine the individual's will to resist and [will] compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely (Dunham , 2008: p. 540). Essentially, the Miranda decision established a new approach to the admissibility of suspects' confessions by rejecting a judicial case-by-case determination of whether a confession was voluntarily given. The Court ruled that... The Miranda decision established a new approach to the admissibility of suspects' confessions by rejecting a judicial case-by-case determination of whether a confession was voluntarily given. The Court ruled that any statement resulting from the interrogation of a suspect would be presumed involuntary and thus, inadmissible unless the police first provided the suspect with four warnings. Widely known as the Miranda warnings, these standards first state that the suspect has the right to remain silent. Second, any statements made by the suspect can be used as evidence against him or her. Third, the suspect has the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning. Finally, an attorney will be appointed if the suspect cannot afford counsel. In addition, the court determined that an individual may waive these Miranda rights if the waiver is "knowing, voluntary, and intelligent." Soon after the Miranda decision, police departments developed and instituted Miranda warning statements, the majority of which were patterned after the Court's suggested warnings provided in an appendix to the Miranda decision. These warnings were added to enhance the existing test for admissibility of a confession - the due process voluntariness test.