2. 职称英语
  3. Democracy is so much a part of our national identity that it almost seems a

Democracy is so much a part of our national identity that it almost seems a

游客2023-12-24  66
问题     Democracy is so much a part of our national identity that it almost seems a birthright. But the irony is that, even as we hope to spread democracy elsewhere, we risk preaching the virtues of a form of government we no longer practice ourselves. The upcoming elections, our proudest celebration of democracy, will highlight some of the threats to our government "by the people".
    Technically, every vote is counted. But will the ballot you cast really make a difference? Not likely, unless you live in one of about 17 battleground states where the contest between President Bush and Senator Kerry could easily go either way. If you come from a state that is already locked up by one of the parties and most of us do — your vote won’t carry much weight. That’s because of our idiosyncratic electoral college system.
    Rather than being elected directly by the people, the President would be chosen by a group of electors appointed by the state legislatures — with the number of electors determined by the state’s total number of representatives to Congress and U.S. Senators. By allotting two Senators to each state, our founders enabled small states to wield an influence greater than their populations alone would warrant, ensuring that the most populous states wouldn’t decide every Presidential election. But here’s the rub: When it comes to those electoral votes, it’s winner-take-all (except in Maine, and Nebraska). Get more popular votes, even if only by one, and you grab all of the state’s electoral votes.
    There’s yet another way that the electoral system undermines our vote. In 2000, the Presidential campaigns largely ignore the 33 states that weren’t up for grabs. Even California, Texas and New York — states offering many electoral votes but little partisan competition — fell by the wayside. If victory or defeat depended on the popular vote, then candidates would have to work for each one. Instead, they decide which states are in play, and go after the voter there. They rarely visit other places and the majority of us don’t experience a real campaign.
    Here’s one idea that could help us in future Presidential elections. In a number of countries, they have a system of direct popular vote, but with a critical provision, in the event that no one wins by a majority, they hold an "instant runoff". That’s done by allowing voters to register not only their first choice among the candidates, but also their second and third, if a run-off is needed (say, if the winner among several candidates has less than 50 percent of vote). You can eliminate the candidate with the lowest tally, and transfer his or her supporters to the second choice on their ballots. This process can play out until there is a clear victor. This system give weight to every person’s vote — something our system of electors will never do. Only a Constitutional amendment, however, can bring about this change.  [br] Which of the following is the best title for this passage?
选项 A、Is Popular Vote More Democratic?
B、Our Election System: A True Democracy
C、How to Battle Threats to Our Democracy
D、How Much Does Your Vote Really Count?
答案 D
解析 这是道主旨题。文章第一段其实已经点出了这篇文章的主题和基调。“But the irony is that, even as we hope to spread democracy elsewhere, we risk preaching the virtues of a form of government — we no longer practice ourselves. The upcoming elections, our proudest celebration of democracy, will highlight some of the threats to our government ’by the people’.”根据全文的解释，美国的选举制度并不是民主的，这和美国宣扬的民主政府形成了鲜明的讽刺效果。根据文章的整体内容，可以发现它主要讲述的是选举的内幕和不公正性，故选D。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3300091.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)