how does federalism, us political institutions, and us electoral system present obstacles/opps to minorities?

Question

how does federalism, the us political party system, and the us electoral sysytem present both obstacles and opportunities to racial minorities in their efforts to gain political influence?

Answer 1

Minorities are often underrepresented under a two-party system, but under a system of multiple parties, issues affecting them would play a bigger part in the political process (ie, the threat of losing votes to the green party forces politicians to discuss environmental issues).

The inherent problem of minorities in a democracy, the fact that if people are divided into minority and majority based on anything from race to religion to ideology, if the majority is against the minority they can use democracy as a tool of oppression. But under a Constitutional democracy, there are certain rights which are supposedly meant to be protected for all people, no matter how much a majority wants those rights to be taken away. Unfortunately, the U.S. government's system of self-scrutiny is disfunctional, because the majority of people in government are corrupt or at the very least, self-serving and unwilling to uphold the law. U.S. political institutions should be an opportunity, but they become an obstacle because of the rusty system in need of some major scrutiny on the part of the voters.

Answer 2

By deffinition minorities have no political control in a democracy. The best the can hope for is that they attach themselves to the political party that GIVES (not promises) them not only the opportunity, but also a valid means to success. Federalism & the electoral system have very little to do with this. A racial minority should stick with the political party that has proven to help make that minorty succeed. Promises and opportunity are nothing without success.

Answer 3

Us Political Institutions

Answer 4

there has been talk of the two removing the Electoral college or reforming it, yet no longer something has ever come of it. we've had quite a few disputed elections wherein the loser actual had greater prevalent votes, yet lost the Electoral vote. i do no longer ought to re-open the injuries from the dastardly stolen election of 2000. we are, all too attentive to it. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden had greater prevalent votes than Rutherford B. Hayes. 17 Electoral votes from quite a few Southern states have been in dispute. a particular electoral fee provided all 17 votes to hayes, subsequently giving him a 185 to 184 Electoral Vote win. In 1888, Grover Cleveland, working for re-election, had greater prevalent votes than Benjamin Harrison, however the Hoosier Republican had greater Electoral votes, and subsequently, gained the election. Cleveland got here back 4 years later, and beat Harrison, turning out to be the only president to serve 2 non-consecutive words. In 1824, Andrew Jackson led interior the prevalent vote, yet as not one of the applicants won a majority of the Electoral Vote, the election replaced into thrown into the homestead of Representatives. the 2d-place finisher John Quincy Adams replaced into elected. In 1800, the election replaced into thrown into the homestead of Representatives. In those days, Presidents and Vice-Presidents did no longer run as a team. Whoever have been given the utmost style of votes replaced into elected President, whoever had the 2d maximum replaced into elected Vice-President. the two Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had seventy 3 Electoral Votes each and each. Incumbent President John Adams got here in 0.33 with sixty 5 Electoral votes, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney had sixty 4 Electoral Votes. After 36 ballots, the homestead elected Thomas Jefferson as president and Aaron Burr as Vice-President. The Electoral college surely needs to be reformed. The 'winner take all' device, theoretically facilitates somebody to win the 12 maximum populated states, lose the the rest 38 states and nonetheless win the presidency. The Electoral college must be reformed with one Electoral Vote in line with Congressional District. subsequently, if contained in relation to a state like California with 50 + votes, the vote could be divided as in line with the end results of each Congressional District.

Answer 5

They don't. People may, but institutions don't. Federalism, in particular, has no effect.