Candidates should be limited on the amount of money they can spend during a campaign. The cost associated with running for public office is expensive, especially in the case of large national scale elections, but also in smaller local ones. The money factor discourages regular middle class individuals from running for office, often leaving the ballot seriously one sided. If spending limits were placed on campaigns, our government could represent the views and issues of the majority of Americans, rather than only those of the wealthy.
Further, if candidates are given a spending limit, they are less likely to take money from supporters who will benefit or profit from a particular view. Candidates then are more likely to make choices based on the good of the community, state, or country, rather than what will bring in the most money. Although mandatory voting could produce both positive and negative outcomes, voting should be a requirement of all Americans. On one hand, forcing people who do not support any of the candidates on the ballot might lead to careless voting.
Those citizens who have no knowledge of the people who are running or no interest in voting at all will most likely cast their votes simply to uphold the law. On the other hand however, if all people are required to vote, and they do so in an educated manner, the government could represent all people of our country, rather than only those who choose to vote. Additionally, if Americans are forced to vote, candidates will spend less money campaigning. The months leading up to election become a time of voicing views rather than persuading people to vote in the first place.
The decreased spending will, once again, ease the chances of a candidate taking a particular stance on an issue due to the influence of those who donate to their campaign. Texas should not hold partisan elections whereby candidates run as a member of a given political party. In these elections, voters are more likely to vote based upon the party that they support in substitution to the views held by the candidate. In a state that is populated by a majority of Republicans such as Texas, a partisan election would limit the amount of Democratic candidates elected to office, resulting in a severely unbalanced government.
Suddenly every public office would be held by a Republican. The only real race in a partisan election would be which Republican to vote for. Furthermore, a non partisan election calls attention to the views of the candidate on an individual level, rather than on the views of the political party to which they belong. Those who do not join parties, or who take a stance that is not supported by any party, are more likely to run for office in a non partisan election. These non partisan elections make holding an office more accessible to a wide variety of candidates, instead of only people who share similar views of Republicans or Democrats.
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email.
Please, specify your valid email address
Topic: he cost associated with running
We can't stand spam as much as you doNo, thank’s. I prefer suffering on my own.
Remember that this is just a sample essay and since it might not be original, we do not recommend to submit it. However, we might edit this sample to provide you with a plagiarism-free paperEdit this sample
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX