Race in election
Part 1: War on drugs
Drug abuse is a global menace that has ravaged most countries, and the USA is not exceptional. One of the critical strategies that the USA has employed in dealing with the drug menace is mass incarceration (London, 2005). For instance, according to Nadelmann, the head Drug Policy Department in 1984, out of the 2 million people incarcerated in the USA prison, 500,000 were charged with crimes relating to drug abuse (London, 2005). Further, the department argues that it is important to create an environment where drugs are legalized, but it causes less harm as it helps in creating a realistic objective (London, 2005).
Since the USA has failed to win the fight against drug abuse, the focus should shift towards reducing deaths or suhttps://essaygroom.com/minority-rights/ffering that people incur because of drug abuse (London, 2005). Thompson (2014) notes that the aggressive policy that the USA has incorporated to fight drug abuse has cost the country US$ 1 trillion (Thompson, 2014, p. 59). Arguably, over the years, there has been a steady increase in the number of people serving prison time for casual drug abuse. Thus, the study asserts that the most effective way of reducing drug abuse is regulating its use rather than criminalizing. This failed policy has made it challenging to fight drug abuse because of the emergence of different drug cartels within the country (Thompson, 2014, p. 63).
London (2005) opines that legalizing drugs such as marijuana could reduce crimes relating to drug abuse. Nadelmann states that marijuana should be treated like alcohol, which is considered a taxable product, but the use is relatively regulating by placing an age limit on its use (London, 2005). Further, his extensive knowledge of the use of marijuana calls for the decriminalization of marijuana use. Thus, the above analysis illustrates that legalizing marijuana would help reduce crime rates (London, 2005).
Part 2: The 2004 campaign: The Hispanic vote
Over the years, the number of Hispanic voters in the USA has significantly increased. The article indicates that minority groups equally influence the election outcome within the USA (Kershaw, 2004). For instance, Democrats have enjoyed the Hispanic support due to their liberal approach; however, this was not the case in 2004. Notably, in 2004, George Bush shared the Hispanic votes with the Republicans to about 40% (Kershaw, 2004). Thus, this indicates that morality equally affects voting patterns in the USA. For instance, it changed the Hispanic perspective and opting to vote Republican be founded on the ideology that based on their catholic faith. They could not support the provisions of gay marriages under the George Bush administration (Kershaw, 2004).
The minority community votes help in determining the actual winner after an election. For this reason, most presidential candidates took the initiative to integrate into the Hispanic community, such as speaking Spanish during the campaigns (Kershaw, 2004). However, the role of minorities during elections has not changed since their voter turnout adamantly determines the winning team (Kershaw, 2004). This scenario was replicated in the 2008 and 2012 election when the Hispanic and black votes significantly cemented the presidency leading the Obama administration to rule for two terms. Studies indicate that the 2012 election was a replica of the 2004 elections (Kershaw, 2004).
This analysis is premised on the fact that in 2004, the republicans managed to sway the minority voters (Cillizza & Blake, 2012). Equally, in as much as Obama won, the shift of minority voters to supporting the republican team had significantly increased. Additionally, just like the 2004 elections, the minority community had a significant influence in choosing the president (Cillizza & Blake, 2012). For example, upon the Obama administration realize that they had the Hispanic and black voters on their side, their campaign agenda equally incorporated strategies that would favor such communities. Thus, in both the 2004 and the 2012 elections, the minority community influenced the voting patterns (Cillizza & Blake, 2012).
Part 3: Comparison between the USA political system and Russia, Spain, and the U.K.
The system of government in both the United Kingdom and Spain is a parliamentary monarch. Hence, Kings and Queen rule the country who are not elected as the monarch is hereditary from one generation to the next (Collins, 2016). In retrospect, the USA has a federal government in place that means that the people vote for the head of state. Nonetheless, both the U.K. and Spain have governments, and the sovereigns have a right to vote for the prime minister. The prime ministers in both countries are responsible for policy and decision making since the monarchial power is ceremonial (Collins, 2016). However, in as much as the prime minister regulates the power of the executive and legislature, they are still accountable to the monarch. On the other hand, in the USA, the president is the head of state, and he or she is answerable to the public in the instance they fail to attain the set objective (Collins, 2016).
Notably, the USA has a federal system of government as it is divided into different states, and the governors have powers to make decisions affecting their state (TeleSur, 2018). However, the Cuban system of governance differs significantly since it is a single system of governance. Essentially, this means that most important decisions are made at the state level. However, in both Cuba and the USA, the president is the power holder (TeleSur, 2018). This study believes more in the USA political system as compared to those of other countries since the sovereign has an opportunity to choose their leaders, unlike in a monarchial state or a dictatorship country such as Cuba.
References
Cillizza, C. & Blake, A., 2012. Is the 2012 election the 2004 election all over again?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/is-the-2012-election-the-2004-election-all-over-again/2012/07/19/gJQAaaU2wW_blog.html[Accessed 5 August, 2020].
Collins, P., 2016. Studying Abroad: Differences between Spain, the U.K., and the USA. [Online]
Available at: https://blog.universidadeuropea.es/es/experiencias-internacionales/destination-spain/studying-abroad-differences-between-spain-uk-and-usa#[Accessed 5 August, 2020].
Kershaw, S., 2004. The 2004 Campaign: The Hispanic vote; a vital Bloc, realizing its power, measure its suitor. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/us/2004-campaign-hispanic-vote-vital-bloc-realizing-its-power-measures-its-suitors.html[Accessed 5 August, 2020].
London, R., 2005. Is the war on drugs succeeding? S .l.: Harvard Law Today.
TeleSur, 2018. A Comparative Analysis of U.S. and Cuban Democracy. [Online]
Available at: https://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis/A-Comparative-Analysis-of-US-and-Cuban-Democracy-20180303-0005.html[Accessed 5 August, 2020].
Thompson, O., 2014. Slowly Learning the Hard Way: U.S. America’s War on Drugs And Implications for Mexico. Norteamérica, 9(2), pp. 59-63.