Suchergebnisse

A popular columnist for The Weekly Standard, conservative journalist Jay Cost now offers a lively, candid, diligently researched revisionist history of the Democratic Party. In Spoiled Rotten, Cost reveals that the national political organization, first formed by Andrew Jackson in 1824, that has always prided itself as the party of the poor, the working class, the little guy is anything but that-rather, it's a corrupt tool of special interest groups that feed off of the federal government. A remarkable book that belongs on every politically aware American's bookshelf next to Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism and The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, Spoiled Rotten exposes the Democratic Party as a modern-day national Tammany Hall and indisputably demonstrates why it can no longer be trusted with the power of government.

Considers the efficiency of Barack Obama's voters in producing more delegates than Hillary Clinton's voters in the Democratic Party nomination process. It is contended that Obama was favored by the delegate allocation system, which assisted his supporters in generating delegates. To begin, the rules of delegate allocation are examined in terms of social choice. Obama's & Clinton's voting coalitions are next reviewed across geographic regions, & the rules of the delegate allocation process are scrutinized to determine how these voting coalitions produced delegates. Figures, Charts. D. Edelman

AbstractCost‐benefit and cost‐effectiveness analyses have not been used extensively in program evaluation, despite their obvious value when public and private resources are limited and several courses of action are feasible. Future developments in this area will require consideration of multiple objectives, limited information, and lack of proficiency of decision makers in the use of these techniques.

The 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be an interesting debate about the direction of the US. It is a rare event in American electoral politics that the country is faced with such a stark choice between two competing visions for the government's role in the society. Using a strict standard, there have really only been two such elections, those in 1832 and 1896. It is an extremely unusual event in the nation's public life that the people are posed with such a straightforward question of ideology -- 1832, 1896 and now perhaps 2012. On the one side is a nationalist coalition dedicated to advancing the public interest by sponsoring American commerce. On the other side is an egalitarian faction that believes that those pro-business policies undermined the republican character of the government, and instead offers proposals to redistribute political power, economic resources, or both. Adapted from the source document.

"How do you place the people in charge without creating a democratic tyranny? By the time of the American Revolution, nobody in the history of the world had yet answered this question. In recent years, the Constitution has become a source of political controversy between conservatives and progressives. While the Right defends our founding document, the Left argues that it's an antiquated plan of government that goes against basic principles of democratic sovereignty. Democracy or Republic? The People and the Constitution argues that the Constitution is being misunderstood. Its plan of government is for a republic, not a democracy. In both types of government, the people alone possess sovereignty, but republics go further than this. The point of the Constitution is to ensure that the people rule for the good of all, not just those who happen to make up a majority. Our Constitution does this by promoting consensus. The larger, broader, and more considered a majority is, the more able it is to govern under our system. America, then, is not merely a democracy. It is something greater. It is a republic"--