INEFFICIENCY OF ELECTIONS
McConnell is a Republican, in the year 2014 he received a lot of votes in the contest of the U.S. senate general election. He took this and believed that it is a positive thing because only it could bring freedom and prosperity in the United State of America (Ohm P & Frankle J, 2018). To him individually it was a positive thing because it provided him a lot of power and influence in the country. Mitch McConnell is a very popular person, this brought a lot of hatred to him because of him being known well politically. This type of behaviors of hatred to a politician did not bring benefits to common citizens.
Inefficiency of elections was taken by McConnell as a positive thing because firstly he never supported the decision of reinforcing the voting system security. Inefficient system never benefited them either in any way, not politically nor economically. He took it as positive because during the Obama’s regime of leadership McConnell worked hard to withhold Republican support for many presidential initiatives such nominees. During the current Trump administration judicial nominees in senate republicans under the McConnell leadership has broken record. This was brought by inefficiency of election and nomination thus making McConnell to take the inefficiency of elections as a positive thing.
McConnell's inefficiency of elections was really a positive thing to him because he was elected to the senate first in 1984 and has been re-elected to this seat for five times since. This first election and the several re-election was brought by inefficiency of election thus making him to take the inefficiency of election has a positive thing (Carvalho A & Guimaraes B, 2018). Not only being elected senate but also he was elected as a majority whip in 108th congress and re-elected again to the same post in 2004. He happens due to the inefficiency of election thus taking it as a positive thing.
Ohm, P., & Frankle, J. (2018). Desirable inefficiency. Fla. L. Rev., 70, 777.
Carvalho, A., & Guimaraes, B. (2018). State-controlled companies and political risk: Evidence from the 2014 Brazilian election. Journal of Public Economics, 159, 66-78.