Individual members have little or no power, how accurate is this statement? (25marks). Some people believe that individual members are not important in party politics, as they have little or no power, but different party members have different responsibilities than others. In the Labour party the members, union and MP's can vote for the leader of the party, they all have 33% of the vote so they all have equal amount of power in that aspect of party politics. The election of the leader is very important part of political parties as people now vote more for a prime minster than governing party, for example conservative’s won over Labour because David Cameron was seen as more enthusiastic and inspirational then Gordon brown, where he was seen as dull and boring.
Reality is that the electoral college can produce an undemocratic outcome, even if only rarely. Therefore, the electoral college should be ended because it has the potential to be undemocratic. Secondly, it is also the case that votes do not, constitutionally, have to be allocated to the winner of the vote in that state. Citizens believe, for example, that they are casting a ballot for Obama or Romney in November, but in actual fact they are voting for electors who will meet in December and then vote
When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity. Cameron on the other hand would expect less of this as he had entered a coalition from the very beginning, which suggests that the cabinet is naturally divided. With different ideologies, it is inevitable that there will be times of disagreements, which suggests that he would not be able to dictate
Another advantage of the FPTP system is that it manages to marginalise extremist and revolutionary parties such as UKHIP and BNP as they are unlikely to win overall constituencies. This was demonstrated well in the 2010 election as BNP and UKHIP did not even come close to winning any seats in the House of Commons. One of the general advantages the FPTP system has been known for is its ability to produce single party governments that aren’t a minority vote or a coalition. This is due to its ability to
Discuss the view that the UK no longer has a two party system. Previously the UK has been criticised for having a two party system. This means that the voting system of First Past the Post favours two parties, these being Labour and Conservatives. However, now it appears that this is in decline. It can be argued that FPTP has created a clear two party system.
They are dependent on a coalition government because so far they have never had a majority in Parliament. Without the Conservatives choosing to form a coalition with them in order to create a majority, the Liberal Democrats would never have been able to come into power. Furthermore they’re becoming increasing unpopular in power due to breaking promises and being accused of ‘turning Tory’. This suggests that they have no political strength by themselves and that many potential voters will turn to alternatives, such as the Labour party, who could ultimately gain popularity due to the failures of the Liberal Democrats; therefore the UK is still a two party system favouring the Conservatives and Labour party. However on the other hand it is argued that the UK could not possibly be a two party system because the Conservatives wouldn’t have been able to come into power without the Liberal Democrats.
This system tends to favour and give more opportunities to smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who currently feel that the first past the post system is unfair towards them and numerous other parties. The system also tends to result in a coalition government being formed, which in some respects can be seen as a good thing, as proportional amounts of power are spread evenly between parties according to the amount of votes received. Northern Ireland, Germany, Australia and France all use different proportional systems at this current time however it is also a key issue in the UK at the moment, as we can see from the recent AV referendum which was held this year. Subsequently it was the decision of the Liberal Democrats to hold the election. Proportional systems are already currently being used in some parts of the UK, and is quite successful where it is in place.
This means that instead of making the House of Lords elected, it would probably be more practical just to get rid of it all together and just have the House of Commons. Also, the fact that the current chamber works perfectly well would suggest that it is very unnecessary to make the second chamber elected. Another argument against an elected second chamber is the fact that you would lose all of the expertise that the members of the House of Lords have built up over the years. This knowledge has made them very good at making political decisions that will be for the good of the whole country. However, the fact that they cannot actually prevent a bill from being passed but only delay a bill slightly contradicts this because their expertise can’t be
To what extent is the Westminster electoral system in need of reform? The current system used in the UK general elections is the First Past the Post electoral system. It is a simple plurality system- meaning a candidate only needs one more vote than his/her opponent in order to win a constituency seat in a single member constituency. Although the First Past the Post system has a strong constituency link and nearly always produces a majority government which means a strong government, its negatives include many wasted votes and a lack of clear representation. This is why some argue that the current Westminster electoral system is in desperate need of reform.
Contrary to what appears on the surface, the exit poll numbers from the 2008 election show the American “political culture” didn’t actually change all that drastically between the 2004 and 2008 elections, and it was more the American “opinion” and the want for “change” that shifted heavily and altered the vote and ushered the new Democratic president. It seems that a full political party “realignment” may not be as inevitable as some would assume, and based on numbers, it looks like just strictly popular approval (or lack thereof) in such key issues as the economy, the war in Iraq, the war on terror, foreign policy, and race, that caused the significant lean towards the left. Now this is not to say that the election of a liberal, African-American from the north was not groundbreaking, just that the election does not predicate the emergence of a new dominant party. One has to keep in mind that the 2008 election was one that involved a highly unpopular Republican