Implications of the 2012 US elections for the policy making bodies in Essay

Implications of the 2012 US alternatives for the policy making bodies in the US federal government - Es hypothesise vitrineFurthermore, the analysis will seek to at least minimally explain to what extent the election expirys get to impressed upon the shareholders (inclusive of the President and legislators) of the need to either seek compromise or push single-mindedly towards a highly tendencious solution to each and every issue that may face them in the glide slope years leading up to the next election. As a means to understand this, the key changes that claim been effected before and after the November 2012 election will be analyzed. Due to the intrinsically liked personality of the way that the Electoral College and the popular vote within a given state or kingdom is linked, the twain have a way of tracking with one some other albeit representing two somewhat diametric variants (Brown 419). For instance, the 2012 presidential election saw Mr. Romney accrue around 47% o f the popular vote and carry 23 states whereas President Obama obtained 51% of the vote and carried 27 states. This of course translated to a victory for President Obama and the subsequent throng of Electoral College votes that propelled him to re-election. Naturally, as compared to the two other forms of election dissolvents which will herein be discussed, the election for president does not have the same level of nuance. For instance, the overall fundamental number of states won is not cardinal overall victory of course is. Unlike the Senate or the House of Representatives where an increasing number of put gives another party a proportionate increase in the power it yields within much(prenominal) a chamber, the victory of the president is less nuanced. In this way, the overall nature of whether the president won in a landslide or won election by a very small margin matters little for the oversight that the given president might chose to pursue policy goals and implementat ion within his term. Of course this is not to say that a first term president will not be mindful of the extent to which he experiences broad based support quite the contrary. Rather, it is merely meant to serve as an indication that the presidential election is a much different type of election than those which take place to make up the two houses of legislature. With respect to the Senate, a great deal of change was not incorporated as a result of the election results of 2012. For instance, the 2012 elections incrementally bettered the Democratic position in the Senate by increasing their mass by two seats (53 as compared to 51 previously), it did not provide a fundamental shift in power such as would allow either party to approach issues from a primarily different method of action. Conversely, the result of the US House of Representatives was somewhat different than the result that has thus far been discussed in the Senate. Compared to the last election, the Republi disregards anomic 8 seats to settle at 234 whereas the Democrats of course picked up these 8 seats to settle their total at 201. This of course combined to ensure that the Republican party still maintained a majority within the House however, it is of course not a super majority or one that can be used in concert with the Democratically controlled Senate to affect any real level of partisan goals. With respect to the overall policy implications that the aforementioned situation is likely to entail, it will necessarily be a divergence from