Power Words In Sorority Recommendation Letters

The reasons for the decline of the congressional caucus

Beyond the contingencies that led to its end, the congressional caucus method had several shortcomings. The most serious problem was institutional. Gere-elect to be a congressional caucus, the candidates for president and vice president were to have the support of representatives and senators in Congress. In other words, the nominations for the positions were decided by the executive power with representatives of legislative power, violating the principle of separation of powers. The congressional caucus tended to subject the President and the Vice President to Congress. The second problem was the degree of representativeness. For the congressional caucus attended by only members of the ruling party in Congress. Geographical areas where for some reason the party was unable to elect MPs, or they just elected, were not represented or were underrepresented. Often local members of the party had very different positions from those delegations that were to represent them in caucus. The variety of positions within the party was not well reflected. Some problems were partially solved by switching to a mixed system, that of an enlarged caucus, which included delegates from the regions who have no elected representatives. It was a small step in the direction of the convention. For example, the last of the Federalist party caucus, when the party was in decline and the members were not many Federalists in Congress, also took part in local leaders from various states. Even in the broader caucus, however, control was firmly in the hands of a small group of elected representatives, political leaders, or agents, who make decisions for all the party.

The other difficulty of the caucus were purely political. The caucus, while he was pleased with a faction, that of the candidate, all other displeased. Inevitably, the supporters of the candidates nominated were put in to campaign for its own account, he spoke directly to the people, challenged in an increasingly open system that penalized them, stirred up popular resentment against it. By a growing number of people on caucus was deemed non-democratic. For them to choose candidates by congressional caucus, enlarged or not, is to deny that the people were able to govern themselves, as well as to prevent him from doing so. Opponents of the caucus complained in particular the lack of public discussion, closing of meetings, the lack of representativeness, the elite control over government. The ironically dubbed "King Caucus." The debate spread throughout the Union. And passionately involved politicians, the public, the media. A North Carolina newspaper wrote that the problem was to decide whether he should be the people to operate or not. An Ohio newspaper called the caucuses a "conspiracy" or a "combine" [2]. He wrote that the people would never have renounced his rights to be controlled by "king caucus". In January 1824 a member of parliament Indiana branded the caucus as a "anti-American, tyrannical, dangerous for our government," which would endanger "the sacred rights, prosperity and happiness of the American people." Even the state caucuses were under attack. in 1824 in Ohio supporters of Henry Clay were branded as "the clique of the caucus, for the investiture of their sovereign leader. All this helped to exacerbate the negative sense that the word caucus brings with it today.

The extension of voting rights to larger sections of the population helped to make manifest the inadequacy of the congressional caucus and lack of representativeness. The Constitution provides that states choose their presidential electors by the method they prefer. The electors were imagined as the wisest people of various states, able to identify the most qualified person to hold the office of president. In the initial phase of the republic some states chose to delegate the appointment of their electors to their respective state parliaments. Other states chose to refer the choice of the people. Other states still use a mixed system. Between 1800 and 1824 the proportion of states that describe the electors by popular vote rose from 16 to 4 on 18 out of 24. The Constitution leaves the were also to determine the requirements for the right to vote. In the first decades of the republic, the restriction granted to white male adults, many states restrict the voting rights to landowners, or on the basis of wealth or religion, or demanding payment of a fee. In the early nineteenth century, suffrage was extended quickly. Some states did vote to all taxpayers. Others experimented with universal male suffrage. In 1810, the last restrictions were removed the right to vote based on religion. Subsequently, restrictions based on wealth and land ownership were gradually reduced. They disappeared completely only in 1856.

should be noted that the founding fathers had in mind a very different direct popular election of the president. They thought that rarely would a candidate obtained an absolute majority of electors, and that in most cases the election was sent to the House of Representatives. This event occurred only in 1824, the only case in history. In fact, over the years, the people took possession of the election of the president. The greater democratic involvement in the election prompted the request for a mirror popular involvement in the process of nomination of candidates. Overcoming a method of nomination of candidates shortly transparent as the congressional caucus became inevitable.

would be naive to believe that opposition to the caucus system was based solely on noble principles of democracy, such as questions of constitutionality and the defense of popular sovereignty. Very often the political agenda is dictated by convenience and opportunism of the moment. Opponents of the caucus simply doing their own interests. They tried to defend a system that clearly damaged. Often, while attacking the congressional caucus, did not scruple to accept the nominations of state caucuses. However, the opportunism of individuals, in this as in many other cases in American history, aroused feelings genuinely democratic and to move towards the best direction.

--------------------------------------

[ 2] The source of the quotes: Thomas Coens, The Congressional Caucus System And The Election Of 1824 , SSHA Politics Network News, 1996.