However P.R made it difficult for a lot of parties to gain a majority of seats in the Reichstag, which made it harder for one major party to take control of the country. This P.R system made it a coalition government whereby the country is ruled by many parties together having to make joint decisions, therefore made it more difficult to compromise and lead to a weaker government resulting to further elections, making the constitution unstable. Furthermore Universal male suffrage enabled men over the age of 20 to vote in an election. This included the upper, middle and working classes, which made parties competitive. However as there were so many parties only the ones with the most convincing views and issues that effected the general population became major for example, the Communists, Socialists and Democrats, which were aimed for, change and equality.
Do political parties help or hinder democracy in the UK Political parties can be seen to help and hinder democracy in the UK, however in my opinion I feel that they help democracy more than hinder it, as political parties give the electorate a varied range of choice along with many other democracy enhancing factors. One of the main reasons as to why I believe political parties help democracy is because they provide the general public with a diverse choice of ideologies that can gain power, ranging from the conservative party to the monster raving loony party. The electorate can vote for a candidate in a party that they feel shares their beliefs. However, some people may argue that the three main parties (conservative, liberal democrat and labour) have all moved very central and now share similar ideologies detracting from the idea of “choice”. 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.
Representative democracy is basically when there is a competition between leaders to earn as much votes as possible. It's the most common form of government used today. The other interpretation or meaning is known as direct or participatory democracy. This kind of democracy is when a government has all or the majority of its citizens participating in some way, either making policy or holding office. Economist Joseph Schumpeter's definition of democracy is that in order to become a leader, you have to go into a competitive struggle with someone else and gain the citizens votes.
Liberals are probably the strongest advocates of democracy. Democracy solves a problem described by an old adage: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." When power or wealth concentrates too heavily in too few hands in society, democracy is useful for dispersing much of that power back to the people. In other words, when enough voters become discontented with the status quo, they vote to change it. Of course, those already in power bitterly resent this; that is why there is such a strong anti-democratic streak in wealthy conservatives and business owners.
A voter could switch from voting for the Conservatives to vote for the Labour Party at the next election because they decide according to single issues. In general the public today is not really aligned to parties anymore. I would say that party allegiance is something which is nearly vanished in Britain’s voting behavior. There are still groups which are strongly related to one or the other party but that is not as common as was in the 50s and 60s. The important things today are which party has at the moment the right promises for the single voter and which party is better in delivering policy goals.
The most important question here is what should be done about this problem in our current voting system? Even though the two-party system arguably creates a more stable government than a multi-party system, the two-party system is very unfair. The two-party system contrives an inequitable system where primary parties are afforded significantly larger power, social influence, and consequently crush their third party competitors in every presidential election. The two-party system makes government less democratic, and large power gap between political parties. As opposed to a two party system, a multi-party system creates a much more effective government.
As with most political systems primaries and caucuses have their strengths and weaknesses that come about not only because of the system but because of the way they are used and the environment in which they are used. It must be taken into account the American political culture and how primaries and caucuses fit into that, while both are of great importance within the US election system. Since the 1950’s America has universally used the primary system to decide which two candidates will compete for the Presidency. Through a series of state votes the contenders for their party’s nomination gather delegate votes, the candidate with the most delegates going forward to the general election. The system arose gradually as states began to feel that the previous method of allowing party officials to decide was undemocratic in a modern society.
On the other hand, the single-issue parties, they only focus on only one public policy matter. The chapter also talks about President’s party is almost always more solidly united and better well-organized compare with other major party. However, competition often caused the leadership group in the party out of power. Federalism is a major reason for the decentralized nature of the two major political parties and also the nominating process is also a major cause of party decentralization. Often, the parties will fight with each other and compete with each other within their party during the nominating process.
3) What is the influence of demographic changes on government funding decisions? 4) Explain the difference between Presidential election and other elections: 5) Explain the contributions of third parties [pic][pic] [pic] PART TWO Appealing- well-liked Eligible-
This is one of several reasons for the splitting of powers between the different branches of government and as well as between the states. The population could get involved in “free and fair elections” (Magleby & Light, 2009 Brief Edition, p. 21) to oust those that they felt were abusing their powers of office. The framers also wished to give the majority and the minorities an equal say in the government so that the minorities wouldn’t be deprived of their rights under the new