Let's Talk About The Order Of Things For Academic Purposes

Lets Talk About The Order Of Things For Academic Purposes To Look

Let's talk about the "order" of things, for academic purposes, to look at politics and government in an evolutionary fashion. Most human social and scientific activity has been characterized by this progression, so why stop with government? Essentially, what is evolving in terms of government’s structure is a distillation of the society it presides over. From the bottom up, politics is organized into smaller, highly specific groups and organizations. This brings us to local government.

The core concept here is PARTICIPATION. This involves examining mechanisms like voting, electioneering, lobbying, and internal benefits, including modern platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which serve as contemporary participation tools. Chapter 21 addresses factors influencing voter participation. Chapter 3/21 discusses interest groups, which are organized around the economic and political goals of the general population, representing a level above individual voters.

Next, we consider elections, detailed in Chapter 22 (chapter 4 in the e-text), which serve as the link between political, economic interests, and the formation of government. Elections are not mere administrative processes—they embody the right to participate and confer legitimacy on governmental authority, its functions including taxation, protection, bank regulation, and civil liberties. When election integrity is compromised, government legitimacy is challenged, sometimes leading to political paralysis, as in highly contentious or disputed elections.

Instances such as the 2006 Texas congressional runoff between Henry Bonilla and Ciro Rodriguez, and the 2000 presidential election involving the Supreme Court decision, exemplify how electoral disputes can halt national progress and impact economic stability. These cases illustrate the importance of electoral legitimacy; when it’s questioned, political stability suffers to the extent that government functioning and public confidence decline.

The legitimacy of elections has been historically challenged, with significant debates surrounding the judicial and political processes. The Bush administration’s 2000 election, for example, was marred by legal controversies that questioned the legitimacy of the presidency. Similarly, recent primaries in 2008 and 2012 faced issues like disenfranchisement of voters in Michigan and Florida, affecting delegate distribution and the nomination process. ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, exemplifies ongoing efforts to influence voting rights and election administration at the legislative level.

The discussion transitions into the functioning of political parties and the electoral system in the U.S., focusing on primaries and general elections. Primaries serve as preliminary contests, with the general election functioning as the decisive “championship” event. However, in many states like Texas, primaries often determine the election winner due to the dominance of one party within the state, thus raising questions about true democratic competition.

This situation prompts the question: What does this say about American democracy? Options include that national politics are dissimilar from state politics, that there is a shortage of qualified candidates, that the two-party system is ineffective, or that Americans switch parties depending on trending popularity. This is a reflection of the current political landscape, which often limits meaningful electoral competition.

Additionally, the concept of voting barriers—both de jure (by law) and de facto (by fact)—is central to understanding voter participation and electoral integrity. De jure barriers are legal restrictions like poll taxes or literacy tests, though many are largely abolished. De facto barriers are indirect obstacles such as voter intimidation, misleading voter rolls, or procedural hurdles that effectively disenfranchise voters without explicit legal prohibition.

Historical examples, such as the 2000 Florida votes or the 2012 Ohio and Pennsylvania voting issues, highlight how systemic barriers can distort electoral outcomes. For instance, the "grandfather clause" historically disenfranchised African Americans by linking voting rights to ancestors who had been enslaved, using race-neutral language but effectively serving as a racial barrier.

For this assignment, you are asked to create a unique scenario illustrating both a de jure barrier and a de facto barrier to voting. These scenarios can be fictitious or virtual but should demonstrate how formal legal restrictions and informal, indirect barriers can impact voter participation and electoral fairness.

Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of voter participation and electoral integrity, understanding the distinction between de jure and de facto barriers is crucial for grasping how democratic processes can be hindered despite legal frameworks designed to ensure fairness. De jure barriers are explicit legal restrictions that prevent specific groups or individuals from voting based on statutes or constitutional provisions. Examples include poll taxes, literacy tests, or laws requiring certain types of identification that disproportionately affect marginalized populations. These barriers are often challenged in courts and gradually dismantled, but remnants may persist or be replaced by other restrictive measures.

On the other hand, de facto barriers are informal obstacles that, while not codified in law, effectively impair or prevent voting. They include practices such as voter intimidating tactics, purging voter rolls based on error-prone data, or offering limited polling stations in certain neighborhoods—often affecting minority or low-income voters more severely. These barriers are trickier to identify and combat because they are embedded in administrative procedures or societal patterns rather than statutes.

An illustrative scenario involves a hypothetical jurisdiction where a law mandates strict photo ID requirements as a de jure barrier. This law explicitly states that voters must present a government-issued ID with a current address to cast a ballot. While seemingly neutral, in practice, it disproportionately disenfranchises elderly, low-income, or minority voters who may lack such IDs, thus functioning as a de jure barrier that intentionally suppresses votes from these groups.

Complementing this, imagine that the same jurisdiction employs a de facto barrier through irregularly closing polling stations in predominantly minority neighborhoods, while maintaining accessible polling locations elsewhere. This scenario results in longer wait times, greater transportation challenges, and increased voter frustration in those areas—indirect obstacles that impede voting participation without any explicit legal restriction, thereby exemplifying de facto barriers.

Both barriers conspire to reduce voter turnout and skew electoral outcomes, undermining the legitimacy of the democratic process. Recognizing these obstacles highlights the importance of safeguarding electoral fairness through vigilant monitoring of both lawful restrictions and administrative practices that may unintentionally or intentionally disenfranchise certain populations.

References

• Abrams, S. E. (2018). The Soul of Democracy: The Battle for the Character of Our Political Life. Cornell University Press.
• Brennan Center for Justice. (2020). Voting Laws Roundup. New York University School of Law. https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/voting-laws-roundup
• Coleman, C. (2009). The Voting Rights Act and Racial Discrimination. Journal of Political Science.
• Gordon, S. (2017). Voter Suppression and Electoral Integrity. Stanford Law Review.
• Hain, P. (2012). De Facto Barriers to Voting. Election Law Journal, 11(4), 370-382.
• Lyons, C. (2014). Disenfranchisement and Voting Rights in America. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.
• Smith, D. (2019). Electoral Barriers and Democratic Participation. Journal of Democracy.
• U.S. Department of Justice. (2013). Voting Rights History and Laws. https://www.justice.gov/crt/voting-section
• Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who Votes? Yale University Press.
• Zittoun, P. (2015). Electoral Barriers and the Question of Access. Politics & Society, 43(3), 447-472.