International reactions to the United States presidential election - Wikipedia
A political unknown before the campaign began, the maverick as with previous Irish presidential elections it was the media that led beyond building diplomatic relations with sympathetic countries, but connected us with a global audience had moved advertising money away from news organisations. As a result of incumbent U.S. President Barack Obama's re-election victory over Mitt Romney, . Economy Minister Margrethe Vestager wrote on Twitter that she was "happy . The very close and warm relationship between Ireland and the United States has, with your help and encouragement, prospered during your tenure. catchsomeair.us has asked four Irish people living in the US about their experiences performance on job creation and the economy in general.
U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout
Their choice is effectively limited to two candidates — Mitt Romney or the incumbent Barack Obama there are other options but alternative candidates do not stand a realistic chance — and the winner will reside in the White House for the next four years.
Although only US citizens will go to the polling booths, the outcome will affect many, many others. Including thousands of Irish people living in the US. A recent poll revealed a marginal lead for Obama amongst the Irish in America but there also plenty of undecided as well. Michael Nyland from Connecticut is yet to be convinced either way.
If you had a vote, who would get it. I can vote and I will. On the other hand, both parties have disappointed in office for the past few years so maybe a protest vote would be best, someone like Jill Stein. Who do you think has come out on top in the debates? Overall I think Obama narrowly won the debates themselves, but Romney performed much better than expected. My opinion of Romney is certainly higher as a result of his performance in the debates.
In that way, he may have come out on top. How would you rate your interest level in the campaign so far? For good or for bad, the holder of the office has a significant impact on Americans, and potentially on very many others. You wonder whether either of these candidates would have the backbone to resist similar pressure.
So it matters who is in the office! What do you think has been the most important issue of this election? The economy, the economy and the economy. The economy is the number one issue for all the women I know. In your opinion, is the model for US elections — two parties, three debates, long campaigns — a good or a bad one?
It has its good and bad points. The differences between the parties tend to be more obvious and that helps the selection process. There are extremists in both parties, and they tend to get more press, but both parties also have strong moderate views. The downside is when you have a mixed government, Democrat president and Senate, Republican Congress, or the opposite. Nothing gets done, the opposition basically has a stranglehold on progress and government reverts to party politics and mud-slinging.
Three debates are adequate for me. The campaign is too long, consuming maybe 50 per cent of each presidential term. I would rather the parties spent the time actually doing what they what they talk about on the campaign trails. Are the negative ad campaigns useful?
American Chamber of Commerce Ireland - Chamber on Capitol Hill
Would you like to see them introduced in Ireland? I think they are useful generally, particularly when they are endorsed by the candidates. You learn useful things about the candidates and see their ability to respond. The waters get a little muddied however when the ads are put out by Superpacs which support the candidate but are independent of the candidate. They can say pretty much anything, are very well funded, and are subject to very little regulation.
Is there any difference between the negative ads here and the back stabbing that goes on in Ireland? Which moments of the campaign have had an impact on you, for good or bad?
U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout
Impact may be too strong a word. The Republican Primaries were great reality TV and it was interesting to watch the candidates stumble their way into their platforms. Fair play to him if he can legally get a 14 per cent tax rate. The presidents handling of the killing of the Ambassador to Libya on 11 September was terrible as was his poor performance in the first debate, I expected more. But the problems posed by the dual nature of the office remained unsolved.
A few presidents, notably Thomas Jefferson —09 and Franklin D. Roosevelt —45proved able to perform both roles. More common were the examples of John F.
Kennedy —63 and Lyndon B. Although Kennedy was superb as the symbol of a vigorous nation—Americans were entranced by the image of his presidency as Camelot—he was ineffectual in getting legislation enacted. Johnson, by contrast, pushed through Congress a legislative program of major proportions, including the Civil Rights Act ofbut he was such a failure as a king surrogate that he chose not to run for a second term. For example, he retired after two terms, establishing a tradition maintained until During his first term he made the presidency a full-fledged branch of government instead of a mere office.
As commander in chief during the American Revolutionary Warhe had been accustomed to surrounding himself with trusted aides and generals and soliciting their opinions. Cabinet meetings, as they came to be called, remained the principal instrument for conducting executive business until the late 20th century, though some early presidents, such as Andrew Jackson —37made little use of the cabinet.
But when Washington appeared on the floor of the Senate to seek advice about pending negotiations with American Indian tribes, the surprised senators proved themselves to be a contentious deliberative assembly, not an advisory board. At about the same time, it was established by an act of Congress that, though the president had to seek the approval of the Senate for his major appointments, he could remove his appointees unilaterally.
This power remained a subject of controversy and was central to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson —69 in Inin Myers v. United Statesthe Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice and former president William Howard Taftoverturned an law that required the president to receive senatorial consent to remove a postmaster, thus affirming the right of a president to remove executive officers without approval of the Senate. Washington set other important precedents, especially in foreign policy.
Americans were bitterly divided over the wars, some favouring Britain and its allies and others France. The emergence of the party system also created unanticipated problems with the method for electing the president. In John Adams —the candidate of the Federalist Partywon the presidency and Thomas Jefferson —09the candidate of the Democratic-Republican Partywon the vice presidency; rather than working with Adams, however, Jefferson sought to undermine the administration.
Into forestall the possibility of yet another divided executive, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, the two leading parties of the early republic, each nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates.
Because of party-line voting and the fact that electors could not indicate a presidential or vice presidential preference between the two candidates for whom they voted, the Democratic-Republican candidates, Jefferson and Aaron Burrreceived an equal number of votes.
The election was thrown to the House of Representatives, and a constitutional crisis nearly ensued as the House became deadlocked. On February 17,Jefferson was finally chosen president by the House, and with the ratification of the Twelfth Amendmentbeginning inelectors were required to cast separate ballots for president and vice president.
The presidency in the 19th century Jefferson shaped the presidency almost as much as did Washington. He shunned display, protocoland pomp; he gave no public balls or celebrations on his birthday. By completing the transition to republicanismhe humanized the presidency and made it a symbol not of the nation but of the people.
He talked persuasively about the virtue of limiting government—his first inaugural address was a masterpiece on the subject—and he made gestures in that direction. But he also stretched the powers of the presidency in a variety of ways. While maintaining a posture of deference toward Congress, he managed legislation more effectively than any other president of the 19th century.
He approved the Louisiana Purchase despite his private conviction that it was unconstitutional. He conducted a lengthy and successful war against the Barbary pirates of North Africa without seeking a formal declaration of war from Congress. Only three presidents during that long span acted with great energy, and each elicited a vehement congressional reaction. Andrew Jackson exercised the veto flamboyantly; attempted, in the so-called Bank Warto undermine the Bank of the United States by removing federal deposits; and sought to mobilize the army against South Carolina when that state adopted an Ordinance of Nullification declaring the federal tariffs of and to be null and void within its boundaries.
By the time his term ended, the Senate had censured him and refused to receive his messages. Polk —49 maneuvered the United States into the Mexican War and only later sought a formal congressional declaration.
Calhoun of South Carolina launched a tirade against him, insisting that a state of war could not exist unless Congress declared one. The third strong president during the period, Abraham Lincoln —65defending the salus populi in Jeffersonian fashion, ran roughshod over the Constitution during the American Civil War. Radical Republican congressmen were, at the time of his assassination, sharpening their knives in opposition to his plans for reconstructing the rebellious Southern states, and they wielded them to devastating effect against his successor, Andrew Johnson.
They reduced the presidency to a cipher, demonstrating that Congress can be more powerful than the president if it acts with complete unity. Johnson was impeached on several grounds, including his violation of the Tenure of Office Actwhich forbade the president from removing civil officers without the consent of the Senate. Although Johnson was not convicted, he and the presidency were weakened.
Contributing to the weakness of the presidency after was the use of national conventions rather than congressional caucuses to nominate presidential candidates see below The convention system. The new system existed primarily as a means of winning national elections and dividing the spoils of victory, and the principal function of the president became the distribution of government jobs. Changes in the 20th century In the 20th century the powers and responsibilities of the presidency were transformed.
The Persona of a PresidentHubert Humphrey discusses the personalities of some of the 20th century's most memorable presidents. Theodore Roosevelt also introduced the practice of issuing substantive executive orders. Although the Supreme Court ruled that such orders had the force of law only if they were justified by the Constitution or authorized by Congress, in practice they covered a wide range of regulatory activity.
By the early 21st century some 50, executive orders had been issued. Roosevelt also used executive agreements—direct personal pacts with other chief executives—as an alternative to treaties.