Political Science

Unemployment occurs when a skilled, unskilled or semiskilled individual is available and ready to do a job, but he or she is without work presently. Economics believe in the inevitability of unemployment. The natural rate of unemployment may be helpful because it prevents inflation. The current rise in unemployment is worsened by the existing worldwide economic crunch. Economies are doing poorly, therefore goods and services have inefficient demand. When producers do not have a ready market for their output, the demand for the labor input will be reduced so as to maximize profits at the lowest cost possible. Firms have been forced to layoff workers due to the existing restructuring programs aimed at dealing with the current economic crisis. Structural issues or hick ups and inefficient labor markets have also reduced the demand for labor force. The mismatch for laborers demand and supply may cause the skilled workforce not to get employed due to the disruptions caused by technologies and globalization. The use of technology is reducing the need for the labor input in production processes. Machines are said to do the work which could have been done manually by individuals and this lowers the demand for labor.

(Sloman, 2006 p.16-24)
Rigidities from outside, for example unionization, taxes, laws for minimum wages or other government regulations are discouraging employers from recruiting people. Labor unions force employers to respect workers rights and privileges. Employers will therefore tend to avoid unionized workforce, because they prove to be expensive to any business entity. The payment of taxes on the labor forces salaries may prove to be a burden to the organizations and they may therefore want to limit their labor force as much as possible. Voluntary decisions by the unemployed and the time taken to get a new job, have also been contributing to unemployment greatly. May professional laborers are choosy and may take sometime before they get a hob as per their career.

HOW TO REVERSE UNEMPLOYMENT
On the demand-side solving, government funds are necessary to trigger off employment. The government should bailout needy firms that may be faced with serious liquidity problems causing massive layoffs. Huge companies that have been greatly affected by the current economic crisis need to receive government donations for them to remain in operation and keep their labor force at work, avoiding an increase in unemployment. The government should also guarantee jobs at a living wage. This may be in the form of public work systems but it is a temporary measure. Government funding solution can only be utilized at times of crisis, because the private sector is considered superior in the employment field. Government bailout plans will cause an increased demand for goods and services, which causes an increase in the demand for labor resulting in high employment with increased wages.
Monetary policies can drive short-term economic growth causing an increased labor demand and this reverses the state of unemployment. The demand side solutions involve the eradication of minimum wages and the reduction of labor union powers. Firms should be allowed to hire at the wage that they can afford, considering that the economy is doing badly at present. The workforce should also be encouraged to consider career growth and development. Advancing in education helps one to have a competitive advantage for the limited jobs in the market. The supply side approach causes a long term growth in employment, because more workers are utilized. Cutting down of corporate taxes and reduction of regulations help in creating jobs hence reversing unemployment.

During the Cold War era anti-communism emerged in the U.S. as an ideology that formed the basis for making sense of a complex international community and its contrast with U.S. socio-economic and political conventions.  Communism was perceived by US policymakers as a threat primarily because it could not be distinguished from the USSRs thriving power.  Communism was perceived as a broader threat to the ideology of open and free markets and protection of private properties, political traditions that the U.S. cultivated and supported.  In this regard, during the Cold War, anti-communism emerged as a guiding principle for not only US domestic policies, but also a signature strategy in US foreign policy (Painter 1999, 19).  This research examines the ideology of anti-Communism in the US and its consequences for foreign policy during the Cold War.

US Anti-Communism During the Cold War
Anti-communism in the US was not a new phenomena during the Cold War era.  Prior to the Cold War era and prior to the Second World War, anti-communism was very much on the minds of Americas (Boyle 2001, 324).  Anti-communism however, was always somehow associated with the USSR rather than on the ills of domestic communism (Boyle 2001, 324).  There was however some focus on domestic communism during the depression era of the 1930s which resulted in a hearing before the Congressional committee after the publication of I Confess The Truth about American Communism by Benjamin Gitlows in 1939.  The Congressional hearing was an investigation of what it characterized as an un-American activity (Boyle 2001, 235).

In general, anti-communism was a relatively minimum policy or fear in the American political and social psyche and did not catch on to a greater extent during the Second World War.  The Grand Alliance between the U.S., the U.K. and the USSR function to constrain any real anti-communist themes in the U.S. government policies both at home and abroad.  Consequently, the US came out of the Second World War relatively ambivalent toward the threat of communism.  As Boyle (2001) explains
the American public emerged from the war neither overly cautious towards anti-communism appeals nor obsessed with the Communist threat (325).

The Cold War emanated from the close of the Second World War in 1945 and gained momentum in the ensuing years, finally coming to an end by 1990.  The Cold War involved almost every member of the international community but was spurred and driven by a power struggle between the U.S. and the USSR (Kort 2000, 3).  At its core, the Cold War was an exercise in promoting conflicting political ideologies to the extent that both the U.S. and the USSR viewed the others social, political and economic systems as a threat.  These two conflicting ideologies was the Soviets communism and the U.S.s democracy (Kort 2000, 4).

From the U.S. perspective, the USSR was pursuing an expansionist vision in which it attempted to spread Communism as far and as wide as possible.  Therefore the U.S. assumed a containment policy which commenced with the introduction of the Truman Doctrine (Bardes, Shalley and Schmidt 2007, 529).  Anti-communism took its place during the Cold War as the U.S.s most formidable political ideology and one that gave MaCarths failing political aspirations a second chance when he took the podium as an advocate against communism.  The fact is, ever since the introduction of the Truman Doctrine, the dangers of communism occupied virtually every mind in the U.S. administration (Li and Hong 1997, 86).

U.S. Foreign Policy During the Cold War Era
The Truman Doctrine
The U.S. containment policy which characterized much of the U.S. anti-communism policies in its approach to foreign affairs was essentially introduced by U.S. President Harry Truman on March 12, 1947 when he addressed a joint session of Congress (Paterson 1991, 449).  Truman was addressing Congress on the Greek civil war which was a conflict in which a communist group of insurgents attempted to oust what was characterized as a pro-Western government (Murrin, Johnson, McPherson and Gerstle 2008, 701-702).

Greece was under the influence of the British who eventually pulled out of the conflict maintaining that it was impossible to sustain its previous strong presence in Greece and all of the Middle East as well (Murrin, Johnson, McPherson and Gerstle 2008, 702).  Truman was advised however, that the insurgents victory in Greece could spill over into Turkey, its neighbor and this would comport with the USSRs expansion strategies.  Truman responded by lobbying Congress for US aid to Greece and Turkey.  According to Truman, the fate of the worlds free people were in jeopardy which was directly relevant to the U.S.s national security interests.  Truman told Congress that if the U.S. did not lend aid to nations that were resisting attempted subversion by armed minorities or by outside pressures, there was an increased danger that communism would penetrate the entire world and this was a direct threat to the U.S. (Murrin, Johnson, McPherson and Gerstle 2008, 702).

Despite some skepticism, Truman was successful in his plea to Congress and was rewarded with approval for US400 million primarily for military aid to Greece and Turkey.  This approval was a manifestation of bipartisan support for national security policy which eventually took the name containment (Murrin, Johnson, McPherson and Gerstle 2008, 702).  The term containment however was coined by George Kennan who was the Soviet expert in the U.S. Department of State.  Kennan used the term in an article he wrote anonymously in the Foreign Affairs journal in 1947 in which Kennan wrote that the primary factor for U.S. policy both at home and abroad must be that of a long term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies (Kennan, 1957, 566).

Containment therefore became the all-encompassing rational for both domestic and foreign policy security policies.  It was popularly believed that containment as a policy connected all left wing insurgencies regardless of where it occurred to a totalitarian movement which was influenced and controlled by the USSR and was in turn a direct threat to the US security interest (Murrin, Johnson, McPherson and Gerstle 2008, 702). 

The Truman Doctrine which gave birth to the containment policy had profound consequences for anti-communism approaches to domestic policies both at home and abroad.  Truman introduced a Loyalty Program which was designed to identify and oust from public employment any person suspected of having communist ideology and connections.  On a foreign level, policies were implemented by virtue of the National Security Act 1947 and the Marshall Plan which came in response to the Berlin crisis.  There were several bureaucracies emerging under this new anti-communism regime that would have significant influences on U.S. foreign policy.  These political instruments would create the National Security Council who had a broad discretion for the planning and implementation of U.S. foreign policy. One of its most important accomplishments was the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who would use funds provided secretly to encourage anticommunist activities around the globe (Murrin, Johnson, McPherson and Gerstle 2008, 703). 

The CIA would create and cultivate ties in Eastern Europe to circumvent the success of communists movements.  The CIA would also facilitate campaigns to disrupt the Italian Communist Party coming to power via general election in 1948.  The CIA was ultimately responsible for anti-communists movements in many parts of the world including France and Japan (Murrin, Johnson, McPherson and Gerstle 2008, 702). 

In furtherance of its anti-communism containment policy on a foreign level, Truman turned his attention to the economic situation in Western Europe.  Believing that the declining economic situation in that region would only bolster communist sentiments,  George Marshall, Trumans Secretary of State took steps to address the economic situation in Western Europe.  Under the auspices of the Marshall Plan which was enacted in 1948 funds were therefore directed to Western European nations and amounted to approximately US13 billion by 1951  (Murrin, Johnson, McPherson and Gerstle 2008, 703). 

US Containment and Anti-Communism in Foreign Policy Strategies Following the Truman Era
Bostdorff (2008) explains that the undertones of national security and containment would become a recurring theme in US foreign policy long after Truman vacated office (147).  These foreign policies which were rooted in the anti-communist containment strategies were manifested by the Korean War which started during Trumans presidency and carried on through the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower the Vietnam War under  successive US Presidents, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard and Gerald Ford (from 1959-1975) Cuban Missile Crisis under President John F. Kennedy  the 1984 Grenada invasion under Ronald Reagan among other similar conflicts (Bostdorff 2008, 148).

Lyndon Johnsons 1965 administrations foreign policy during the Cold War era was characterized by the concept that that U.S. would not permit the implementation of another communist government in the Americas.  The Nixon administration in 1969 demonstrated a somewhat reluctant commitment to containment, perhaps borne out of exasperation with the ongoing Vietnamese War and announced that the U.S. was trying to extract itself from Vietnam and that the US would offer aid to other countries by virtue of economic and military assistance rather than with American troops (Kort 2000, 115). 

President James Carter in 1980, a bit more reluctant than Nixon, but still committed somewhat to the anti-communist rhetoric promised that the US would use force to defend the Persian Gulf from a Soviet takeover.   The final Cold War president, Ronald Reagan in 1985, declared that the US would offer its support to anti-communist freedom fighters who took steps to overthrow communist regimes in the Third World (Kort 2000, 115). 

By the 1970s, the tensions between the US and the USSR had intensified to such an extent that there was a period of dtente (Shabad 1976,  96).  Dtente was characteristic of relaxations in East-West relations following intense periods of conflict, a pattern which marked the consequences of the U.S.s anti-communism and the apparent USSRs expansionism policies (Schlotter 1983, 213). For example, in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s U.S. President Kennedy and USSR leader Krushchev commenced a period of dtente which was short-lived as a result of Kennedys assassination and a Kremlin power change which vacated Kruschchevs office in 1964.  Leonid Brezhnevs rise to power in the USSR saw a renewal of the Soviet expansionist ideology when the Soviets Red Army invaded Czechoslovakia and as a result, the U.S. renewal of its containment policies (Bryne 2004, 74).
While Lyndon Johnson, Kennedys successor made no progress with respect to dtente, Nixon with the aid of Henry Kissinger made significant progress.  This renewed approach to dtente came as a result of Nixons commitment to ensure Washingtons leadership in the West.  Europe in particular had become disenchanted with U.S. foreign policy following the US War with a former French Colony, Indochina.  Frances President Charles De Gualle responded by withdrawing from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and went to Moscow in 1966 to meet with Brezhnev in 1966. Moreover, West Berlin was introducing a Eastern Policy known as Ostpolitik in which it took steps to improve its relations with communist East Germany (Taubman 2004, 396).

In any event, each of these stalemates and crises that brought the conflicting ideologies between the U.S and the USSR into direct contact with one another, the U.S. was able to somehow claim globalization of its containment policies (Harrell, Gaustad and Boles 2005, 1011).  In an ironic way, the struggle for world domination via the U.S. containment policies and the USSRs expansion policies between the two super powers prevented mass destruction, something both sides were more than capable of accomplishing. 

The Korean War for example, although very much a by-product of the US anti-communist rhetoric during the Cold War era, also function to offer proof of the consequences of the balance of fear perpetuated by two competing ideologies that drove foreign policies in Moscow and Washington.  The Korean War with all its potential to lead to a Third World War and the end of humanity was a limited war because it had the potential to destroy the world (Harrell, Gaustad and Boles 2005, 1011).

The conflict in Korea was demonstrative of all the complex consequences for world peace as a direct result of U.S. foreign policy under the auspices of anti-communism and the USSRs expansionism strategies.  Both countries had equal nuclear powers, none more formidable than the other.  Although the U.S. could have used its nuclear arsenal against North Korea and China it dared not for fear of Soviet nuclear retaliation (Harrell, Gaustad and Boles 2005, 1011).  This kind of nuclear stalemate would characterize all of the containment and expansionism foreign policies arising out of the Cold War era.  It limited the USs reach in terms of spreading its anti-communism strategies and it limited the USSRs ability to expand.

Conclusion
The fall of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany and the first Persia Gulf War during 1989-1991 had a profound impact on U.S. anti-communism sentiments and therefore changed the geopolitical alignments upon which anticommunism and American national identity rested for the duration of the Cold War (Zeskind 2009, 219).  Nationalism in the form of ethnic and political identities in the U.S. were founded on new principles that were far removed from anti-communist rhetoric. 
The U.S. attention is currently turned to its recent declaration of war against international terrorism following the September 11 terror attacks in the US.  Even so, there is a sufficient connection between these anti-terrorism policies and anti-communism foreign policies to substantiate an argument that U.S. foreign policies are always vested in national security.  The underlying goal of both of these foreign policies are essentially provide a sound national security framework.  Whether or not it means securing its borders or its political ideology, the U.S. ultimately seeks to secure for the US the concepts of democracy.  In this regard, the Cold War anti-communism foreign policies are just as relevant to that goal as the current declaration of war against international terrorism.

The fall of the Soviet Union brought the end of the Cold War and the transition to democracy in Eastern Europe. The end of the Cold War, in essence, brought the collapse of traditional studies of communist system of government as popularized by Karl Marx (Marxism). The European concept of Euro Communism however is totally different from liberal democracy the former as an offshoot of socialism while the latter of representative democracy.

In essence, the end of cold war is said to be the start of democratization process in Eastern European countries like Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The transition towards democracy offered encouraging political models for former Soviet-controlled countries. As a result, an air of revolution rocked Eastern Europe, starting in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany and Bulgaria. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, former Communist countries adopted democratic models of government.

In Poland, the transition to democracy highlighted the basic assumptions of the Polish revolution. This peaceful character can be traced to the Solidarity movement popularized by Lech Walesa and supported by Catholic Church hierarchy. Thus, it goes without saying that the successful democratization of Poland after 1989 is based on the determination of the Polish people to reform the countrys political structure. In a sense, the overwhelming international petition for the Solidarity movement was due perhaps to the struggle for democracy and human rights together with its active defense of social justice and workers rights. The Catholic Church supported the Solidarity because of its positive impact on the attitude of Polish society in promoting a peaceful transition from Communism to democracy.
In Hungary, the transition to democracy only occurred after the Cold War. According to Crepaz and Steiner (2010), this shift to democratic form of government and free enterprise economy depended solely on the nature of the military controlled under civilian authority. This transition to a Western-style parliamentary democracy was the initial and the smoothest abandonment of Stalinist communism. Moreover, the full transition to democracy finally attained its perfection after the first free parliamentary election was held in May 1990, where the Democratic Forum (MDF) won over Free Democrats (SZDSZ). Jozsef Antall was elected as the new Prime Minister.

On the 1st of July 1991,  Warsaw Pact was officially vanished at a meeting in Prague (in Czechoslovakia) when President Gorbachev of Soviet Union and President Bush of United States make a strategic partnership which decisively ended the Cold War. As the Soviets rapidly withdrew its forces from Eastern Europe, the leftover of the 1989 Disruption began to reemerge in many parts of the country. This led supporters to call for the election of candidates who opposed the Communist government. These movements were further strengthened by the rapid disintegration of the Soviet economy, making Moscow (capital of Soviet Union) the scapegoat of economic suicide. A coup attempted to replace Gorbachev.

This attempt failed because of the opposition of the people. President Boris Yeltsin rallied the people to support the defunct Gorbachev. The coup eventually subsided and Gorbachev returned to power. Months later, Gorbachev announced the disintegration of the Soviet Union, marking the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union disbanded into fifteen constituent parts. This marked the end of the largest and most influential communist state (Soviet Union), leaving China to be the foremost successor state of Marxist ideology.

These political revolutions which rocked Eastern Europe included the Spring movement in Czechoslovakia or the 1968 Revolution, the Fall of Communism in 1989, Orange Revolution in 2004 and many others. The foremost objective of these revolutions was to overthrow the real socialist regimes. The social developments which followed these political revolutions are termed as transition to democracy and market economy. These developments maybe considered as types of social revolutions, although differing in theory, focus, and application. This new theoretical thinking developed as a result of new kinds of power relationships. Crepaz and Steiner (2010) argued that the end of Cold War between the West and Eastern Block is part of a general political revolution which resolved the issues of power, legitimacy, and theory appropriateness. This thinking also opened new social reconstruction programs which emphasized political empowerment and market autonomy.

Democratization therefore is a transition from totalitarian forms of power relations to representative forms of government. During the Cold War, this was a notion that most people fought for, including the Freedom House. Various patterns of democratization are used to strengthen political and economic structures. The objective was to attain political flexibility and economic growth. The failure of the Communist state to achieve this objective highlighted a major theoretical flaw. Economic development was slower in Communist countries than in democratic countries.

It can be argued that the expansion of economic reforms had mixed effects on democratization. In many ways, it is said that some forms of democratic governments are general constraints to the expansion of international capital markets. However, this conclusion is far from an accepted claim.

Border patrol can be described as a group of designated officers patrolling the border of a country (Stana, 2007).  Its main responsibilities include monitoring roads and some airports where illegal immigrants are known to concentrate.  Border patrol normally assist in reduction of crime in border communities and in the process improves quality of life for a countrys citizens, they deter illegal entries through improved enforcement, apprehend terrorists and terrorist weapon as well as detect and apprehend human and drug smugglers (LeMay, 2007).  However, in order for the Border Patrol to perform its work effectively and efficiently, it needs to be motivated into giving its very best.

The most important aspect of any organizational success towards realization of its goals is the human resource and therefore every worker needs to be motivated in performing hisher assigned tasks (Romeero  Kleiner, 2005).  For this reason, reinforcement strategies must be implemented and continuously conceptualized for employee motivation to be sustained in the course of performing hisher function (Podmoroff, 2005).  Employees who are constantly motivated are vital for ensuring the success of an organization and are considered necessary in modern day rapidly changing workplaces. 

Managers are therefore expected to understand what exactly motivates their employees within the context of the tasks they engage in (Griffin, 2006).  However, they also need to keep in mind that since the workplace is rapidly changing to suit the modern day demands of individuals, those elements that motivate employees also keep on changing (Maril, 2006).  In addition, as workers get older, they should be assigned more interesting work as a motivational source as compared to performing the daily routine tasks.

RESEARCH
Reinforcement Strategies used by Management to Motivate Employees
The term reinforcement can be defined as a term in behavior analysis meant to deliver a stimulus, either immediately or shortly after a response, resulting in an increase in future rate or probability of the response (Latham, 2007). It is a mechanism used to reward good behavior and remind the individual of the behavior, enhancing its application in future.  Border Patrol employees are constantly and faced daily with numerous challenges where they are at times forced to employ force while combating illegal immigrants or smugglers (Maril, 2006).  However, they are also rewarded for good performance while handling them.  It has been observed that those managers who are able to find the key to their workers inner motivation are in a better position to tap a vast source of productive energy, leading to an organizations success (Griffin, 2006). Therefore, factors causing, channeling and sustaining employees behavior should be learned and used by an organizations management together with other reinforcement strategies in order to motivate the workers in attaining the desired objective of the organization (Podmoroff, 2005). 

There are a number of different reinforcement strategies that management can use to motivate employees for instance provision of good salaries and wages, promotions and making them feel they are a part of the organization and that their ideas and concerns are important (Romeero  Kleiner, 2005).

These reinforcement strategies can be categorized into positive reinforcements, continuous reinforcements and negative reinforcements.  Organizations may choose to use different forms of reinforcement strategies or choose not to employ any at all.  While an organization may use negative reinforcements to discourage those behaviors perceived as not being in line with the organizations policies, it may use positive reinforcements to reward and encourage repetition of the desired behaviors (Griffin, 2006).  As concerns continuous reinforcements, these are those reinforcements employed to ensure sustainability of employees desire to complete their assigned tasks in the organization.

Positive Reinforcements
These forms of reinforcements are similar to rewards although the behavior is more likely to occur in future because the consequence is presented dependent on the behavior (Latham, 2007).  Positive reinforcements have been observed to be the most effective tools available in an organization for the motivation or direction of the actions of other individuals in addition to being an explanation of behavior (Stana, 2007).  When a positive reinforcement is employed, the desired result is that the behavior is reinforced and that the employees understand the importance of the desired behavior, making them want to repeat it for the rewards (Griffin, 2006).

An example of a positive reinforcement that management can use to motivate its employees is that of the management greeting employees.  In a situation where employees of a small manufacturing plant wait until the last minute to clock in thereby causing them to report to their duties late, the manager of the firm may decide to greet as well as meet with those employees who clock in on time (LeMay, 2007).  By smiling at them and making pleasant conversation with them while they clock in, this procedure will cause the rest of employees to start clocking in on or before deadline just so they can get an opportunity to chat with the manager (Podmoroff, 2005).  In the case of Border Patrol officers, management can make a point of checking in on them personally from time to time, getting to question them on how they are progressing and encouraging them not to hold grudges.  By so doing, the officers will feel motivated by the fact that the management is personally concerned about their individual well-being and therefore will put more effort and have a  positive attitude in their assignments (Romeero  Kleiner, 2005).

Negative Reinforcements
These reinforcements are usually used to discourage a particular undesired behavior and also employed for reform or education (Latham, 2007).  They strengthen a particular behavior by removing an aversive stimulus.  Negative reinforcements have often been confused with punishment despite their being different.  While negative reinforcement strengthens a particular behavior by removing the undesired stimulus causing the undesired behavior, punishment is meant to weaken a particular behavior as a consequence of the negative behavior (Griffin, 2006).

An example of negative reinforcement is whereby an employee criticizes his employees performance.  As a result, the employee will feel humiliated, embarrassed by hisher low performance, and will therefore be forced to work harder and put more effort next time to avoid the situation (Maril, 2006).  Another example is that of negative reinforcement is that of demotion.  By so doing, an employee is motivated to work harder to get back to hisher previous position and it also serves as a lesson to other employees who might want to lag behind (Stana, 2007).  The same case can apply in the case of Border Patrol.

Continuous Reinforcements
Continuous reinforcements ensure that desired behaviors in individuals are reinforced every single time they occur (LeMay, 2007).  They are usually employed during the initial stages of learning so as to create a strong link between the response and the desired behavior. Once this is employed, the reinforcement can now be partially or completely withdrawn since the intended behavior will have been reinforced (Griffin, 2006).

An example of continuous reinforcement is provision of interesting work.  During the initial stages of employment, it is crucial that the management personnel assign interesting work to the new employees in order to ensure that they put as much effort into the assignment as possible, giving their best since the work is interesting (Stana, 2007).  After a while, managers can then decide to either not assign another interesting work until they observe any negative changes in the employees input into the task.  This form of reinforcement can prove helpful in Border Patrol since the employees have to handle different cases and different individual attitudes in the course of performing their assignments (Maril, 2006).

Strengths and Shortcomings of the Reinforcements
Recent studies conducted on reinforcement strategies used by management to motivate employees have revealed that application of different reinforcement strategies have their strengths and shortcomings within an organization.  For instance in the example of the manager greeting hisher employees, even though it may have a positive outcome in that the employees will feel encouraged and motivated to report earlier or on time, its shortcoming might be that they may become familiar with the manager (Griffin, 2006). As a result, they may tend to think that since they are familiar with the management, they may get away with certain mistakes, which might prove disadvantageous for the organization in meeting its goals.

In the case of reinforcing negative reinforcement as is in the example of demotion, although it may positively encourage employees to put more effort in their assigned tasks in future, it may also discourage the demoted employee to a point of resignation (LeMay, 2007).  A similar case applies in continuous reinforcement whereby even though employees may have the morale and zeal to work hard during the initial stages, its shortcoming may be that they may tend to feel cheated once the reinforcement has been partially removed or completely removed, making them put less effort in future (Latham, 2007). These examples can be applicable in the case of Border Patrol.

CONCLUSION
An individual is inclined to feel more motivated when they have an opportunity to perform tasks that are considered moderately challenging in competitive circumstances whereby performance is determined by an important skill, providing feedback regarding the performance.  Even though there is no perfect strategy to motivate an employee, managers should ensure that they employ available reinforcement strategies in order for it to achieve its set objectives in future.

In this paper we are going to look back on one of the declassified presidential directive of former president George W. Bush, the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction also known as HSPD 4. We are going to discuss its major components, evaluate it and relate it to our present situation.

In our contemporary environment wherein the use of weapons of mass destruction is the biggest and most dangerous threat to the existence and integrity of a nation and its population, the National Strategy for Weapons to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-4) is a multi array response of the government of the former president George W. Bush to an impending threat and crisis due to the existence and use of weapons of mass destructions (WMD). The HSPD-4 defined and outlined the different measures, preparation and course of action the United States government is ought to do in case of this imminent danger. Discussed below are the major components of HSPD-4 and the overview of its major components.

Major Components of HSPD-4
Counter Proliferation
With the basic assumption of the directive that it is impossible to contain and prevent the proliferation of the use of weapons of mass destruction by hostile states and terrorist groups, the HSPD-4 outlines the following measures for counter-proliferation.

Interdiction. Interdiction prevents the transport of materials, technology and expertise that hostile states and terrorist organization can use in the construction of weapons of mass destruction. This includes the mobilization of the military and local and national law enforcement agencies together with the improvement and innovation in intelligence and technology that can detect such movements. (NSCWMD 2002 p. 2)

Deterrence. As a response to the growing diversity and less predictability of the threats of weapons of mass destruction, the United States is adopting new ways in deterring hostile states and groups. This includes effective military forces and strong declaratory policies together with the full range of political tools that will persuade political actors and adversaries not to seek the use and development of weapons of mass destruction. The deterrence measure of the United States also emphasizes its right to respond with overwhelming forces including full range of options that includes conventional and nuclear response to hostiles that will use WMD against the United States, its forces abroad, together with its friends and allies. (NSCWMD 2002 p. 3)

Defense and Mitigation. With the possibility of failure of both interdiction and deterrence that can produce devastating effects, the United States government prepares an outline for the defense and mitigation initiative that can protect its citizen and its military forces. In this respect, both civilian and military agencies are armed with the capability to defend against adversaries that uses weapons of mass destruction. This includes the detection and destruction of WMD assets prior to its use. It also deals with the active disabling and destroying of WMD that are fired to United States and its allies. Lastly, the defense and mitigation component of HSPD-4 is strengthening the United States military forces and domestic law enforcements to be able to stand ready to disrupt attacks or attacks in progress and the elimination of the threat in the future. It also emphasized the necessity of post-conflict operations that will destroy and dismantle the residuals of the capabilities of hostile states and terrorist networks. (NSCWMD  2002 p. 3)

Non-Proliferation
Aside from the use of military force to be able to control the existence and use of WMD, the United States government is also pursuing active diplomacy that will be able to reach the same goals aimed by counter proliferation.

Active Non-Proliferation Diplomacy. The United States government will dissuade the states that have the capability to supply and cooperate with the proliferating states. It will encourage and induce states that are pursuing WMD and missile programs to end such actions. This will include the building of coalitions that will support the United States and its goal for nonproliferation of other states. (NSCWMD  2002 p. 2-3)

Multilateral Regimes. To encourage the non-proliferation of states, the United States will support the regimes that will support non-proliferation. The government will also promote new agreements and arrangements that will serve its goal in the non-proliferation of other states to be able to come up with an international environment that is fertile in non-proliferation.

This will include the support for strengthening of agencies and reinforcing and legislation of treaties such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, Nuclear Suppliers Group and Zangger Committee (NSGZC), Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Australia Group and International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. (NSCWMD 2002 p. 3)

Threat Reduction Cooperation. With the availability of the large volume of the late Soviet missiles and weapons, the United States will support programs such Nunn-Lugar that is designed to address the proliferation threat stemming from the Soviet-legacy WMD and missile related expertise and materials. This will include extensive and efficient threat reduction assistance to Russia and other former Soviet states. This component will also encourage the support and contribution to G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. (NSCWMD 2002 p. 4)

Controls on Nuclear Materials. In relation to this, the United States will also discourage the accumulation of separated plutonium and the use of highly enriched uranium. This will entail collaboration to international partners that will develop an alternative to this kind of energy sources that is clear and more efficient and more resistant proliferation. (NSCWMD 2002 p. 4)

Export Control. The trade of American business will now be supervised by existing authorities to be able to support the governments goal for non-proliferation. This will limit truly sensitive exports to hostile states or proliferation states but ta the same time will remove unnecessary barriers in the global trade. (NSCWMD 2002 p. 5)

Sanctions. With the acknowledged inability and limitation of sanctions to be a valuable component in the governments goals due to its inflexibility and ineffectiveness, the government will now develop a comprehensive sanction policy that will serve the goal of the government in the non-proliferation of other states. (NSCWMD 2002 p. 5)

Consequence Management
With the failure of earlier components of HSDP-4, the United States government defines and outlined measures and course of actions in case of the detonation of WMD in the United States soil or military forces. Most of these programs will deal an integrated and comprehensive training, planning and assistance to state and local governments. Respondents will be armed with the necessary protective, medical and remediation tools that will help to ease the situation.

With these things in mind, the Office of Homeland Security will supervise the necessary arrangements to state and local governments. In addition to this, the National Security Councils Office of Combating Terrorism will deal to the attack outside the United States including its military forces, allies and friends. (NSCWMD 2002 p. 5)

The HSPD-4 and the Previous Strategies against WMD
The difficulty of assessing and evaluating earlier strategies of previous presidents lies on the great number of classified presidential directives that are hidden or partially hidden to the public. This includes Ronald Reagans NSSD 3-82 or US Policy and Negotiating Position for Strategic Arms Reductions Talks, NSSD 7-82 or US Nuclear Testing Limitations Policy Bush Sr. NSR 28 or United States Policy Toward North Korean Nuclear Weapons Program and Clintons PRDNSC 8 Missile Non-proliferation policy and PRDNSC or Biological Weapons Response. (FAS n.d.)

However with the review of declassified or partially declassified presidential directives, we can induce the following characteristics of previous policies when compared to HSPD-4.

Less emphasis and acknowledgement to the dangers of weapons of mass destructions to the United States and its allies. NSSD 1-82, 1982)

A narrower perspective in the case of which countries (i.e. Soviet Union) should be watched for proliferation. When compared to HSPD-4, the latter will refer generally to all states that has the possibility to proliferate.(NCR 12, 1989)

Designation of the task of proliferation to bigger departments such as the Department of Energy and Department of Defense in contrast to HSPD-4 assignment of the majority of the task to the newly created agency of Homeland Security (PDDNSC 27, 1994)

Inability to provide a comprehensive outline some of the major components of HSPD-4 including consequence management and diplomatic measures. (PDDNSC 27, 1994)

With only the recent threats of weapons of mass destruction pursued by both hostile states and terrorist network, it is no wonder why the HSPD-4 is more comprehensive and more specific when compared to earlier presidents directives.

Assessing and Evaluating HSPD-4

Strengths of HSPD-4
According to Robert G. Joseph (2005 p. 2), former undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, the strength of the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction lies on the directives broad, diverse and uniting characteristics. It managed to merge the three most important elements to counter weapons of mass destruction in the name of diplomacy, intelligence and power. While the preventive measures are emphasized and specified it also acknowledges the possibility of failure of this preventive approach.

With this in mind, it placed a necessary emphasis on protection that includes deterrence, detection, defense and destruction of WMD that are under the control of hostile states or terrorist networks. Finally, it also emphasized the importance of managing consequences in case an attack was executed in the United States soil or abroad. These three important elements are recognized and specified in the HSPD-4 making it a viable action plan in the situation of imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. (Joseph 2005 p. 3)

Recommendations for HSPD-4
One of the most significant criticisms against the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction that is worth mentioning in this paper is its non-discriminating treatment on different kinds of weapons of mass destruction. In an article published by Allison Macfarlane (2005) of the MIT Security Studies Program she argued that the HSPD-4 is making a huge mistake by treating all weapons of mass destruction namely nuclear, chemical and biological as equal in terms of its capability to inflict casualties.

In her article entitle All Weapons of Mass Destruction are not Equal, she argued that nuclear weapons remain the most dangerous threat in any nation. In terms of a nuclear strike, the attack when executed in a densely populated area, the casualty can reach to hundreds of thousands. However, chemical weapons when carried out under ideal climatic conditions would result only in a few thousand of deaths (p.3). Lastly, a biological attack has undetermined numbers of casualties. This is because of our limited data sets of this kind of situation since a large-scale biological weapons attack has never occurred. Different estimations range 66 deaths to 88 billion deaths per kilogram of anthrax used. This concludes uncertainty of the lethality of these weapons (p. 2.).

With the equal treatment of nuclear weapons to chemical and biological weapons in nature, large funds are diverted to produce defense measures against the imminent attacks of biological weapons. In FY 2005 and 2006, the United States government spends only 2 billion for different measures against nuclear proliferation. This is 3 or 4 times smaller than the expenditures in the governments measure against biological weapons proliferation (p. 4).

For MacFarlane (2005 p.4 ), nuclear weapons still remains the biggest threat against the security of the United States and its allies yet it receives a lesser spending when compared to the measures against the proliferation of biological weapons. Lastly, she argued that the government must take a stronger position against nuclear attacks rather than what she calls ghosts of biological weapons.

Obama and HSPD-4
Even before Obama became a president, he already co-authored a Senate bill that is comparable to the earlier Nunn-Lugar program which description is mentioned in the earlier part of this paper. Obama together with Lugar authored a bill that will authorize the president to carry out a program to provide assistance to foreign countries to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This will includes nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The bills provisions were incorporated into a House bill that passed later that year and was signed into law in January 2007.

In his presidency, proliferating nations such as Iran and North Korea continues to face sanctions that includes US companies from investing and trading with these countries, financial restrictions to its government leaders, and permission for countries to search ships on the high seas, etc (BBC 2009  Wilson 2009). In relation to this President Obama is also encouraging the international community to execute the same sanctions to these proliferating countries (Montopoli 2010). The government of United States is also reassuring non-proliferating allied country such as South Korea against the hostilities of its northern counterpart. (Wilson 2009)

In many respects these concludes the continuation of the Obama administration in the fundamental principles of HSPD-4.

The cause of immigration from Afghanistan to the alien lands is the danger and insecurity that the Afghan boys face in their own country by multifarious forces and also the hope of a better future that might lay for them in some foreign land. As Imogen Foulkes describes the case of Abdullah, an Afghan boy, whose migration from his native land was preceded by the threats by the Taliban to the ethnic minority of Hazara to which Abdullah belonged  (Foulkes, 2003). As the Afghan boys are denied to live a normal life in their own country they leave their homelands, a 15 year old Afghan boy reports the cause of leaving his country because there was bombing and killing and it was impossible to have a normal life  (Foulkes, 2003). The second cause of immigration is the hope of a normal life as an Afghan immigrant expresses his wish to go to London because I think life will be easier there (Foulkes, 2003). The subsequent effects of immigration include the dangers a migrant faces during his journey, the exploitation at the hands of the smugglers, prevention of basic facilities by the authorities of foreign countries and the endless journey towards the European countries.

The first effect of the immigration is the perils that one is exposed to while proceeding towards the destination in the very beginning of the journey. The young Afghan immigrants have to face severe hardships during their journey that some of them loose their lives. The journey is carried out through lorry and other vehicles which lack sufficient facilities for the boys. As Abdullah, an Afghan immigrant, reveals horrendous details of his journey to Europe where he hid in the wheels of a lorry on a ferry to Italy and the long journey of 40 hours left him to starvation with no food and only one bottle of water  (Foulkes, 2003). The horrible journey would continue to haunt the memories of the young boy who underwent threats by Taliban owing to his community but as he left for a better future things were not found as easier as he had anticipated.

The second effect of immigration is the exploitation and manipulation of the immigrants at the hands of the smugglers. As the young boys commence their journey in hope of a better tomorrow they are vulnerable at the hands of the exploiters who misguide them in order to make money through ill means. The young immigrants especially the Afghan boys are told by the smugglers that a certain country would offer them the facilities and would make their dreams come true in lieu of the country they are currently staying. The reason of the vulnerability of Afghan boys greater than other immigrants is that they often stay just a few weeks, says a social worker Paolo Sola, they want to continue their journey to the U.K or Scandinavia. Some hear that schools in Norway were good or the existence of Afghan community in Britain, and various other reasons which make them take decision to continue their journey yet further. In Greece, says Laura Boldrini of the U.N refugee agency, the Afghan immigrants are told it is better in Italy, in Italy they are told it is better in France, and so on. In the end it is the smugglers who make money out of this (Foulkes, 2003).

The third effect of immigration is the absence of provision of the basic requirements of living hood by the government of foreign land where the immigrants decide or wish to stay. In some countries, not all, the immigrants are subsided to the extent that they are denied the basic facilities of food and shelter at the basis of certain laws of a country. Not only this but also the immigrants face persecution at the hands of the law enforcement forces which deal with them with a hard hand. The immigrants, as a result, are down graded below the standard of a human being without adequate provision of food, shelter, clothing, etc. Foulkes, for example, reports Calais misery faced by the Afghan boys as the authorities in France have taken drastic steps to supplement the miseries of the poor Afghan boys. The French authorities have not only closed jungle, an unofficial migrants camp, but also determines to prevent any more such camps springing up which implies the prevention of the supply of food and shelter and the removal of the migrants by police (Foulkes, 2003). In certain countries the not only migrants but also the helpers of the migrants are persecuted. Foulkes reports of the introduction of the crime of solidarity in France according to which those(among local population) who determine to help migrants could be persecuted  (Foulkes, 2003).

The fourth effect of the immigration in hope of a better future is the absence of consistency of the Afghan boys in their stay in a particular land and subsequent continuation of the journey towards Europe. While most of the migrants tend to leave their country in search of a future absent in their home lands, the Afghan boys are found more determined to seek their destiny than other migrants therefore they are found inconsistent as they do not stay more than a few weeks as many want to continue their journey to the U.K or Scandinavia. Everyone belives, says Foulkes, that somewhere in Europe, life must be better (Foulkes, 2003).

The petty migrants especially the Afghan boys leave their country in order to escape the threats posed by various forces. Another cause for leaving their country is the hope for a better future. The subsequent effects of the causes of immigration are the dangers into which the immigrants including the Afghan boys are encircled during their journey which prove to be so terrible that some of the boys are destined to face demise. Another effect being the manipulation of the immigrants at the hands of the smugglers while the absence of provision of basic needs to the immigrants is another effect of the immigration. Another effect of the cause of immigration for finding a better future is the continuance of their journey towards more distant European countries.

The American electoral system is essentially based on political efficiency and partial representation. Political efficiency may be defined as expedient balance between imminent interests. Partial representation means instructional politics. These two principles govern the interest-aggregation process, and in general, political dynamics in democratic countries.

Background
At the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan was used as the basis for discussion and debate. The Virginia Plan called for the executive to be chosen by the legislature (by open ballot). Delegates from the majority of states agreed to this method of election. However, the so-called Committee of Eleven formed to labor out details which included the mode of election of the executive. The committee recommended that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as representatives in the US Congress. This group of people would be chosen by each state, in a way determined by the Legislative branch.

Gouverneur Morris explained the factors for the change. Among the factors were as follows 1) fear that the president would be chosen by a small group of men who met regularly in evening sessions, 2) equal parity among states, and 3) popular elections as mediums for extreme and irresponsible demagoguery. On the 6th of September 1787, the Convention approved the Committees proposal with some opposition from delegates who preferred popular election. The move was based on the belief that the state government must be a derivative of state sovereignty. As ONeil argued

The theory of State sovereignty was assumed as true and valid by all states. The Massachusetts constitution of 1780 declares that the people of that commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State with certain limitations there laid down (3).

The move was also based on reactionary ideology. Southern politicians feared that the popular vote method would lead waste of ballot. As ONeil correctly observed

One reason, purely sectional, existed which made a popular election impossible. The slavery problem was an important element in the framing of any plan. The Southern states, with their system of slave labor, would be threatened with the loss of their relative influence in the nation, because a large portion of their population could not be trusted with the ballot (4).

During the framing of the Constitution, the electoral system was institutionalized, with its efficient guiding principles and framework. However, it was not without opposition. Some of the founding fathers opposed the move, declaring it as an offshoot of aristocratic ordeal  the fruit of reckless political estimation. However, as ONeil noted

A slight reflection, however, will convince them that this mode is in perfect harmony with the spirit of the United States Constitution. With the exception of the members of the House of Representatives, no person holding office under the United States government derives his appointment directly from the people (2).

The Term Electoral College
The term Electoral College was never used to describe the general vote of the electors. It was not until in the 1800s that the term electoral college came into use as the shared designation for the electors chosen to cast votes for the President and Vice President. In 1845, it was formally written into law.

The Nature of the Electoral College in its Early Conception.
The composition, nature, and role of the Electoral College are defined in the US Constitution, prior to the passage of the 12th Amendment. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In Section 1, Clause 4, the Congress is tasked to determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall cast their votes. Note that the day shall be the same throughout the country. In Clause 3 of the same section, it is determined that

The President and Vice President were to be chosen by the electors. Unlike the present system, each elector voted for two people for President, rather than one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. To become President, a candidate had to have more votes than any other and must have received votes from a majority of the electors. After the choosing of the President, the person with the most electoral votes among the remaining candidates would become the Vice President. If no one received a majority of the votes, the decision would be made by the House of Representatives.

The form of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions of the Framers of the Constitution 1) each state should employ the district system of allocating electors, 2) independent judgment would be observed in the casting of vote of all electors, 3) candidates would not pair together on the same ticket, and 4) the system would rarely create a winner, sending the election itself to Congress. The framers of the Constitution intended the Electoral College simply as a body that would nominate candidates from which Congress could select a President and Vice President. Each state government was free to have its own arrangements for selecting its electors.

Revision
With the rise of political parties and nationally coordinated election campaigns, the system complicated the 1796 and 1800 elections. In the 1796 election, John Adams was elected President, and Thomas Jefferson, Vice President. In 1800, Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied for the first place. Since all votes were for president, Burrs votes were technically for him even though he was the partys second option. The Congress remained deadlock for 35 ballots as neither candidate received the majority vote. To resolve the issue, Alexander Hamilton declared his support for Jefferson. Congress elected Jefferson President on the 36th ballot.

To avoid this incident from occurring in the future, the US Congress proposed the 12th Amendment. Each elector could only cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. The 12th amendment superseded Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution. It was adopted in 1804.
Constitutional Theory behind the Electoral System

The founding fathers accepted the notion that the President and Vice President are elected as executives of a confederation of independent states. In short, in contrast to popular election of members of Congress, the election of both the President and Vice President must be indirect. James Madison argued that the Constitution was created to be a combination of the state-based and population-based government. The US Congress should have two houses the state-based House of Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. The President would be elected by a combination of the two methods.

Madison was fearful of the growing cynicism of factions within the government. He defined faction as a group of citizens (either a majority or minority) who are united by some common or shared impulse of passion or interest detrimental to the rights of other citizens, in general, to the interests of the community. In Republican governments, factions would be generally curtailed because voter rights and powers are widely distributed. In short, the power of the faction would be lessened under a mixed-state set-up of government. In practice, this was short of impossible. As ONeil noted

A sovereign nation and a limited national government were thought impossible. In rightfully opposing all projects of consolidation of the powers of sovereignty, they naturally fell into the error of opposing plan, which tended to the strengthening of the bonds of union, and the developing of a broader national spirit. Jealous opposition to the granting of too much power to the general government led them to oppose a plan electing a President which would make him the representative of the whole nation (4).
Mechanics of the System

When a citizen votes for a presidential candidate, that citizen is really instructing the electors to cast their votes for the same candidate. Suppose that the citizen vote for a Republican candidate. The citizen, in essence, is voting for an elector who will be pledged to vote for the Republican candidate. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all the pledged votes of the states electors.

Now, each state gets a number of electors equal to its members in the House of Representatives and one for each of its two senators. The District of Columbia gets three electors. State law determines how electors are chosen. In general though, they are selected by the political party committees within the states.

A state with eight electors would cast eight votes. Currently, there are 538 electors. The majority vote is equal to 270 (requirement to be elected). In general, because Electoral College Representation is based on congressional allocation, states with larger populations get more Electoral votes. Suppose that none of the candidates win the required 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment require the election to be decided by the House of Representatives. Combined votes of each state are equivalent to one vote. A simple majority is required to be elected.

It is possible for an elector to defect and not vote for the partys candidate, because the Constitution does not require them to do so. However, such change in political attitude rarely affects the outcome of the election. In some states, defector electors are prohibited from casting their votes.

Nomination, Disqualification, and Meetings of Electors
State political parties nominate candidates for electors months prior to the Election Day. The US constitution delegates to the state the authority for nominating and choosing its electors. In some states, electors are nominated through primaries. In some states, electors are nominated through party conventions. In other states, campaign committees of each candidate name their candidates for presidential elector.

The Constitution prohibits person holding a federal office from being elected or appointed as elector. Note that a person who holds an office has sworn an oath to support the United States Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office. When such person serves in the Electoral College, such individual is in theory rebelling against the United States. The congress though may remove this function by two-thirds vote in each house.

State legislatures determine how its electors are to be chosen. All states choose electors by popular election on the date specified by federal law. Forty eight states and Washington D.C. utilize the winner take all method  each awarding its electors as a single bloc. In other states, state legislatures select one elector within each congressional district by popular vote, and select the remaining two by statewide election.

In the short-ballot system, voters choose among a list of candidates for the associated elector. At present, only a few states list the names of the electors on the ballot. In other states, the voter is required to write-in names of candidates for elector.

On Election Day, the electors meet in their respective state capital to cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for President and Vice President. Unlike the College of Cardinals, the Electoral College does not meet as one body. Congress has constitutional authority to regular the procedures in use. The election certification official opens the meeting and read the Certificate of Ascertainment. The document states the name of the chosen electors. Then, there is the selection of a president of the meeting. Sometimes, the electors choose a secretary, to take the minutes of the meeting.

At the balloting time, the electors choose people to act as tellers. Each elector submits a ballot with the name of a candidate for President. The tellers count the ballots and announce the result. Then the casting of the vote for Vice President follows.

After the voting is complete, the electors certify the Certification of Vote. This document states the number of electoral votes cast for both the President and Vice President. Copies are sent to the Senate President. Staff member from the Vice President collects the certificates for the joint session of Congress. The Certificates are arranged in alphabetical order. The Congress declares the winner of the election in the joint session.

Conclusion
The present electoral system of the United States is essentially based on the belief that the President and Vice President are executives of a confederation of independent states. As such, they cannot be directly elected by the people. The advantages of this system are quite obvious. First, it prevents the concentration of power in urban areas. Second, it maintains the federal character of the country. Third, it strengthens the status of minority groups. Fourth, it encourages political stability (political polarization). Fifth, it isolates election problems. And lastly, it maintains a clear line of succession.

However, the system has not without criticisms. One criticism states that the electoral system destroys the essence of democratic vote, or in general, the true conception of popular sovereignty. A nation without true sovereignty cannot be nation, as what Burke would argue. In essence, the electoral system enhances the aristocratic values of a predicated political system.