Majoritarian democracy is a democracy based upon majority rule of a society's citizens. Countries such as the UK, USA and Canada operate on the basis of representative democracy where the people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives. Other countries such as Uruguay, Switzerland and Latin America operate on the basis of direct democracy where people decide upon policy initiatives directly. Source A suggests that the people (voters) are sovereign and what that they have the final say whereas Source B suggests the opposite in that the people feel “politicians are failing and disconnected from the British people”. Democracy means “power to the people” and Source A suggests that this is what is happening and the people are happy with the voting system.
However, there are inevitably some questions arising about the electoral college and whether it still works best for the US today. Some say it should be completely scrapped, with a more democratic direct election taking it's place; others day that it can be mended by reforming it, and the final argument is to defend it, and leave it as it is. One reason to end the electoral college system is because it is not democratic enough. The winner of the nationwide vote could in fact lose the election because of the way the electoral college works. Popular vote winners have been denied the presidency in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
I believe that this principal of the Constitution is very important because without this put into effect the senate of the president could become much too powerful and overthrow the whole government and we would be in a dictatorship or we would be in a direct democracy or some other form of government. The second principal of the Constitution that I believe that is the most important is that of Checks and Balances. This Principal makes it so that each branch of government has some different control over another type of government. This principal is important to society today and I believe that our government would fall apart without it, because without it the branches of government would be able to do what they wanted and they would easily be able to become much to powerful that’s why veto’s and overrule veto’s were created. Also that is why the President is able to appoint judges in the court and how the courts are able to declare other branches unconstitutional.
One main point is that without voter identification laws, such as registering in your home state, Americans will try to vote in several states in hopes of increasing their candidates chance of winning the election. This would create in unfair advantage to the candidates at the polls and would not result in an honest election. Another argument is that these laws reduce the chances of Americans voting under fake names or under deceased names. If someone is using another person’s identity or making up a name, it can only be concluded that they do not want their actual identity discovered or known for whatever reason. Not only is it dishonest but it’s also against the law to use a deceased persons information for any reason.
To conclude it helps the system in a way that it stops there being a dominance of one person or party which is good in a way that the parties have to find compromised and there want me dictatorship. However it limits the power of the president so much that it hinders him from doing his work which can be seen as very
And while it may increase the number of voter turnouts, it could also possibly take away the significance of an individual’s vote all together. It could also very well discourage the level of political education among voters, rather than develop it. After all, is a government really more justifiable if the high voter turnout is against the will of the voters? It has been proven that forcing people to vote only results in an increased number of invalid and blank votes, compared to countries with no mandatory voting laws. People who
As your freedom of speech can be heavily hampered if you do not operate within the law; or you are voicing racist or offensive opinions, or your speech is threatening to “breach the peace” this is too say, what you are saying could be grossly offensive to some groups or individuals. The United Kingdom is definitely a democracy though (referring back to the definition) as in the UK we have free and fair (and regular) elections, and there are always 2 or more (3 main) parties to vote for. This prevents the UK from moving from a democracy into a dictatorship, as there are always other options to give your vote. The democracy also calls for competitive elections in which every adult is allowed to vote. There are further features of a Liberal Democracy which need to be held by the UK for it too fall into the category; Elected representatives and the government should be held to account by the people, something which is true within the UK as members of parliament are held accountable to the people, if they don’t do what they promise the people will not re-elect them, they are also held to account by legislature.
However, Parliament is sovereign and civil rights and liberties have been put suspended but only in the interests of law and order or national security. Unlike many other democracies, the government retains control over rights and freedoms of citizens. Democracy can lead to the abuse of power and there are fears that if those who govern are left to their own devices, they may claim substantial amounts of power and begin to abuse their position. By making governments accountable to the people, this can be prevented. Governments must submit themselves regularly to re-election and by guaranteeing that they are controlled by elected representatives, the people can feel safe from the corruption of power.
An elective dictatorship would also have the power to overrule the entire parliament as they tend to have the majority resulting in extreme left or right views, such as the right to buy schemes under the Tory governments. This leads too many people believing that we only have the constitution of the time as the governments can change any policies that they wish to. Elected dictatorships are creating from the fact that the parliament is controlled by the whips and leaders forcing them to vote among strict guidelines. The Thatcher governments had followed this policy well as they had managed to have 3 consecutive terms of office in which dramatic changes were placed. Such as that of the poll tax which she did after she was elected for the final time to make sure that she had remained in till then as it was extremely unpopular with the public.
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