When the executive branch is made of a majority of one party and the legislative branch is made up of a majority of a different party. Stalemates on policies may happen, but for the most part, the system protects against that. In 2011, the national debt ceiling debate resulted in a stalemate. House Republicans and Senate Democrats halted legislation when they could not reach a compromise (Bingham, 2011)). Even though the representatives are elected to promote the will of the people, sometimes is seems as if they are working towards their own agenda.
Advisers have always received less accountability than MP’s as advisers do not represent constituencies which provide scrutiny, advisers on the other hand funnel accountability onto the Prime Minister such as Tony Blair. With this done, there is increased media attention on the Prime Minister. With increased attention on Prime Ministers, presidential factors such as style of leadership and charm come into play which are not requirements for Prime Ministers. These spin doctors have also been placed as advisers such as Steve Hilton who was known for working for David Cameron as a think tank. By replacing experienced civil servants with appointed advisers David Cameron created a customised department which suits him.
Analyse the view that the Labour and Conservative parties are dominated by their respective leaders. In recent years there has been much debate as to whether party leaders have too much power over their parties. Many do believe that the two main party leaders in the UK do not dominate their parties as the structure of their party does not allow them to do so, but many more believe that party leaders have great authority over their parties and are fully committed to driving their parties policy with little delegation or use of their cabinet ministers. Historically the Conservative Party leader has been more powerful than the Labour Party leader. People believe this is down to the party’s history; the Labour Party originated from the trade union movement at the turn of the 20th century and originally had a chairman of the Labour MPs in the House of Commons, but no leader.
While some citizens would prefer that governmental leaders implement spending cuts while others would favor an increase in revenue, as a practical matter the country’s precarious financial situation cannot be addressed exclusively by just one of these options. (Bartels). The electoral process is rather difficult due to its complex organization. It requires the parties that share it to create valid political campaigns that would be quite persuasive. Usually, the election represents the competition between two major parties – the Democratic and Republican.
Should the Westminster electoral system be reformed? The Westminster electoral system has been a target for reform for a long time. Despite the loss in the 2011 referendum, reform is still wanted by a number of people especially the Liberal Democrats who will benefit the most. First Past the Post is the system that Westminster uses for election to the Houses of Commons it is a simple majority or plurality system that requires a candidate to get more votes than anyone else. One argument that the Westminster electoral system should be reformed is that First Past the Post doesn't give the social representation that other system gives, for example in the Parliament elected in 2010, women, 51% of the population, are represented by 22% of Parliament therefore an under representation, however, university educated are overrepresented, 91% of the Houses of Commons represent 31% of the population but having PR doesn't guarantee that the social composition of Parliament only making the percentage of votes more proportional towards the seats.
They’ll have less time in office to develop money ties to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby weakening the threat of lobbyists being able to influence legislation. The current system in Congress tends to lead to a system of seniority, meaning those who have spent the most time in office have the most power (in committees, procedures, etc. ); so, politicians focus on staying in office. Districts & states don't receive equal power in Congress, and fresh new elected officials have limited ability to make changes. If Congress has term limits in place, their power will also be limited.
To this I would say that the parties may have centralised slightly, but their core values still exist, which is what most people are interested in. For example the conservative party is attempting to decrease benefits, whereas the labour party wants to keep them. Another argument for political parties enhancing democracy is that parties are pluralist. This means they allow party members to influence decisions within the party, including who will be the leader. This pluralism is shown well in the party conference that is held once a year.
This is very important in their job as they will only look for views to help the country, even if those are unpopular. Whereas if there was an elected second chamber their views would always be held accountable, but more importantly then some of their revisions may not be what is best for the country, but what the populous believe to be important, which removes the whole objectivity of the revising chamber. This issue could have been questioned under many unpopular parliamentary decisions such as with the Iraq War in 2003, where many of the voters would likely be against it as seen by the many demonstrations, whereas an expert in the Military in House of Lords may believe that it is possible to win the war, however at the next vote his skills would likely be lost when he wouldn’t be re-elected. A wholly elected upper chamber would also pose several problems in regards to the Lords’ expertise. As at the moment, the upper chamber is comprised of experts in their fields leading to high quality debates, if not higher than in the Commons.
Because of the concern over the high campaign costs people have tried to find solutions. In 1938 Common Cause tried to have Congress pass a law so that PAC’s wouldn’t be so financially involved in elections. Elections are very expensive and when campaigns are privately funded it gives them an unfair advantage. It becomes unfair because the wealthy candidate will most likely win. Another thing is the candidate will be under the control of the elite.
Synthesis Essay The impact of the television on the people of this country has greatly increased throughout the years. However, the influences portrayed from the televisions are not always for the better. The media tries its best to send information to the people, but on the topic of presidential elections, there is always controversy. It seems to appear that the television has had “unsuspected” help to make the presidential elections focused more on which candidate is more impressive on screen, then who is presenting the finest ideas. The president’s image is important in a campaign, but it should not be the main factor to which they deserve to be sworn into office.