The delegate model of representation poses a threat to the form of representative democracy used on the UK as the public will have more say on issues which undermines the Burkean model. Likewise it undermines parliamentary sovereignty as parliament is already bypassed by the government, referendums only make it worse. An example of this is when Labour were voted in and in their manifesto contained a referendum on devolution however the result didn’t turn out in their favour in contradiction of the government, further undermining their power. Moreover the public may not be well advised/trusted to make decisions on issues such as capital punishment as the polls show a majority in favour of it, however MPs can see the faults in the use of the death penalty and vote against it. Also the public may not be educated on some of the deeper issues such as the role of central banks in relation to a single currency.
Some issues put forward by the government may be too complicated for the people to understand, which means they may have difficulty deciding on their opinion due to lack of knowledge. Referendums may encourage giving power to the people, however, making important decisions should probably be left for the elected MP’s to conclude, simply for the fact that they are experts. Another advantage of using referendums is that they stop the government from making decisions which aren’t suited, or are unpopular with the public when an issue raised has had a large population vote ‘no’. If the government change a referendum’s verdict, then the public are less likely to conform to it which means the government have no choice in which to carry out their final decision. The second disadvantage of holding more referendums is that
Each branch has its own powers in the government, but the system of checks and balances keeps each branch from gaining too much power and overstepping its bounds. The checks and balances were originally put in place to protect the newly formed democracy from turning into another monarchy. Though stalemates do occur, for the most part, the three branches work together to promote the will of the people. Stalemates are bound to happen with differing opinions. 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.
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.
The FPTP electoral system doesn’t allow fair representation as it only allows the winner to take the seat in any constituency, this means that parties that have a large share of the votes, don’t win seats accordingly. However it allows for a better link between MP’s
The initial difficulty is the Electoral College, which makes it possible for the president to be selected without being the choice of a popular majority. Levinson believes that the composition of the electoral college gives unfair advantaged to states with small populations Article II also makes it much too hard for the public to remove a sitting president from
Pressure groups activity in the UK presents a major threat to democracy. Evaluate the arguments in favour of this view (25 marks) Pressure groups aim to influence government policy without seeking election itself. The actions of pressure groups challenge and influence democracy as well as being beneficial to democracy in the UK as pressure groups challenge policies and put pressure on the government to change them. On the other hand pressure groups only represent a minority of people’s views and aren’t considered a major threat to democracy. Robert Dahl and Charles Lindbolm suggest a pluralist view of democracy suggesting that pressure groups are beneficial to democracy.
Despite of this, Labour decided not to move ahead with the reforms. This shows that first past the post benefits the government in power because the party has majority of the votes in parliament in which makes it difficult for the other party to be heard if they want changes. Furthermore, tactical voting on first past the post encourages voters to vote for a candidate who has a better chance of winning. It prevents the election of a candidate representing the most disliked party. Example for this is in 1997 many Lib Dem and Labour voter tactically voted to get sitting Conservative
If this is “a government of the people” then there should have been a referendum on tuition fees as this was a controversial subject that affected a lot of people. If there was a referendum then people would either choose no to a rise in tuition fees or for a rise in tuition fees. The fact that the government just implemented this rule on us is what made this topic controversial as in a democracy people should have a choice and should be able to have their say. If there was a referendum on tuition fees then maybe there would have been fewer protests, as the people would feel that the politicians had listened to them. On the other hand using referendums to improve democracy in the UK has a lot of disadvantages.
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.