They also have a number of hereditary peers (although there will no longer be any hereditary peers appointed. There have been many calls to make the House of Lords into an elected chamber as people say that the fact that it is unelected reduces the democracy of the United Kingdom and that it is unfair to have an unelected as the peers may not actually represent the views of the people. However, there are also many arguments as to why the House of Lords should remain unelected. The first and possibly most convincing argument is the fact that an elected second chamber would actually be completely pointless as it would be exactly the same and the House of Commons. 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.
There are many arguments as to why we should or shouldn’t have more referenda in the UK. Both arguments are fair and it is simply a matter of opinion. There are also many reasons as to why we should have more referenda in the UK. Referenda are a device of direct democracy, giving the public some decision-making of the country. This makes sure that the public’s views and interested are truly presented, rather than being distorted by politicians who want more people to support their party.
It gives a chance for popular independent candidates to be elected. This may be particularly important in developing party systems. First Past the Post system doesn’t require complicated calculation unlike the Single Transferable Vote system which needs calculation to achieve the final results. This also confuses the voter as well on how the system works and that what impact will their vote have on the final results. This leads the voters in hesitation on whom to vote for.
Public participation in the presidential nomination process in the USA has only the norm since the 1970’s, after the recommendations from the commission for the Democratic Party. These led to the use of primaries in almost every state, and caucuses in a few states. There are many arguments to say that this does not advance democracy, however there are also numerous that say that public participation does in fact advance democracy. In this essay I will be assessing whether public participation hinders or advances the presidential nomination process with the most convincing argument being that public participation hinders democracy. One arguments showing that public participation advances democracy is that it allows a wider range of candidates to run for presidency that are not part of the Washington establishment.
Whereas if the representatives were to vote on their behalf it may be based on their views and interest, having referendums prevents the government from making unpopular decisions. This will improve the UK’s democratic system as the views of the citizens are clearer and representative of citizens who are affected by the decision being made. However others argue that the general public is not educated enough to make these big decisions therefore it would lead to the wrong decisions being made which
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.
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
This would actually increase the level of democracy in effect but may completely defy the objective of politics. If elections were every 2 years, parties could not make any long term goals for the country in fear of losing the next general election. All policies would be short term and therefore not made for any good running of the country and just to gain popularity in the short term. This in turn may not enhance democracy, but lead it to a failing economy and government and may even lead to anarchism. Another potential way of increasing and enhancing democracy would be a compulsory vote.
UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest. In light of these developments many UK citizens now want to be protected from the frequently exposed dangers of an uncodified constitution. On this basis it is fair to evaluate citizens need for safety overcomes the need for flexibility, thus a codified constitution is now needed to a large extent. Some argue the UK does not currently need a codified constitution because they already have a fragmented constitution. Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed.
Because some populations are so high in certain areas, a large amount of the representatives elected to the House, anti-federalists feared, would be only the prominent and wealthy men of the area. This meant that even more power would be given to the government with the titles the men already had before being elected. Not only did the power of the government make the anti-federalists nervous, the lack of a bill of rights kept them agreeing with the constitution. They wanted a set rights guaranteed so that the central government didn’t have all the power that the anti-federalists were afraid of. The anti-federalist’s opposition to the constitution was