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. To conclude I would say that neither Partisan Alignment nor party allegiance related to class is what convinces the electorate of the presence. For sure both of these factors are still there in the voting behavior of the United Kingdom but very rare. The modern, educated and open-minded voters do not want to be related to a party because of their social class, they want to decide completely uninfluenced by social factors which party they vote
Handing over the responsibility of making and amending laws to politically inept i.e. the general public is generally not advised. It is misguided to assume that all people are rational enough to choose the decision that is best for them. Most people tend to vote on issues based on their emotional response to them, charismatic campaigns and the opinion of the masses. The results of the referendum will therefore not be based on individual opinion and defeats the whole point of having
However, this does not always happen, which can be seen in the current government. Since the election in 2010, the UK have been under a coalition government with the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, with David Cameron as the Prime Minister and Nick Clegg as his deputy. First Past the Post is also a simple process, where each electorate has only one vote, meaning that the time taken to count the votes is very short, making it a quick and efficient process. The First Past the Post system also keeps extremist parties, such as the BNP party, away from power, so they cannot carry out their manifestos. For example, in their 2010 manifesto, the BNP party stated that if they were voted in as the leading party they would “The BNP will ban the burka, ritual slaughter and the building of further mosques in Britain” and that they would “reintroduce capital punishment for drug dealers, child murderers, multiple murderers, murderers of policemen on duty and terrorists where guilt is proven beyond all doubt”.
If an individual does not vote, then that individual cannot argue or comment on the outcome of what our politicians do. Even though voting just seems to take up a brief moment of time, it is the most effective way to voice our opinion and choice for all decisions made by our government. America needs to change if America aspires to become a better country. One of the most important rights of an American Citizen is the right to vote. One thing I like about America is that America is a place where one can debate and discuss issues.
Things would run better with no competition for office. The program would have problems. The people of the state might not agree with the program. Philosophers may refuse to take up office because the life of a philosopher would be better than that of a ruler. It would be hard for this program to work in a democracy since the people may not agree with it.
Matthew Carney Final Exam Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 6 W1. The United States isn’t a democracy in fact it’s actually a democratic republic. In a contest between a direct democracy and a democratic republic I would have to choose the latter. In a direct democracy people would tend to vote more along the lines of how they feel rather than by law. Electing representatives that can spend their time going over budgets and bills as their job is being more efficient.
It is liked due to its simple structure and clear link between electorate and representative. However opponents argue that the overall outcomes are disproportional and unfair and that they perpetuate a two party system. Supplementary Vote This system is a shortened version of the Alternative Vote. Under SV, there are two columns on the ballot paper one for voters to mark their first preference vote and one in which to make a second supplementary vote. Voters mark one ‘X’ in each column, although voters are not required to make a second choice if they do not wish to.
The right to represent your constituent has no government influence or interference; this allows the MP to focus entirely on the good of his constituency and the people within that area. MP’s are free to vote any way they wish on legislation. The government uses their whips to exercise influence on the way their party members vote, but MP’s are able to defy the whips and vote for what he/she truly believes in. In some instances, it’s acceptable to vote against 3-lined whip legislation, but this is only acceptable if it’s against religion. There are certain MP’s that vote against their party’s instructions with no good reason.
Elected public officials gain office by earning the trust of the majority to represent a wide range of their interests in governmental matters. During the course of an election, many discussions on the morals of different topics will be tossed about but in the end the moral arguments have no bearing during the course of legislation. Dorn states that “the role of government in a free society is not to legislate morality . . .
But casual speech will be to a immediate audience (the person the speaker is speaking to) and does not have to have a lasting effect. Due to the different audiences, different techniques are used in each type of speech. The spontaneity of casual speech means that many techniques such as fillers and false starts would be found. This is because the speech has not been prepared and the speaker hasn’t practised what they are going to say in advance, they would have to think about what they are going to say whilst saying it, resulting in the speaker saying ‘umm’ and ‘urr’ . On the other hand in a political speech you would not find these as they have prepared the speech and learnt it ahead of the speech they are giving.