This then meant better employment and better work. The extent of Britain's growth in democracy was also due to economic change. This meant better pay at work therefore more people could get the vote with a higher wage. Also there was more production which meant more workers and more tax. Both of these points played an important part in the growth of democracy in
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.
Supporters would argue that referendums should be used in the UK. This is for many reasons, such as allowing the public to have control over decision making. In doing so, making that decision is far more representative because it would be the popular choice, therefore making it far more legitimate. Also, because they’re secret ballots it means the voters can be non-partisan furthermore granting the final outcome to be a more justifiable choice due to f the vast amount of voters. In addition, referendums are a form of direct democracy, consequently giving the public control over decision making.
Part of the system is the introduction of proportional representation that meant parties in the Riechtag would gain seats depending upon the number of votes they got in the most recent election. The consequence of this was that it brought a number of parties together with the help of another key feature of the constitution, the “Bill of Rights”. This meant that parties could express their views, as the “Bill of Rights” was a law that gave people the freedom of speech. This union made representation of many opposing parties very open, which effectively made the Weimar constitution more democratic. 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.
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.
Because people that do not vote can be disadvantaged it is important to understand who is more likely to vote to better help them. According to Harder and Krosnick (2008) there are many different demographic, psychological and social factors that can cause a person to vote or not to vote. Indicating factors such as race, education, income and age are some of the standout reasons of why a person chooses to vote or not to vote. Understanding why people do not vote could be of specific interest to elected officials because they are tasked with representing the entire population. By understanding why a person chooses to participate in the electoral process it could help officials to increase voter turnout so that public policy benefits all of the population, not just a select
For example: Welfare More partisan competition you have the broader the appeal for voter support. So that one party will advocate redistributive
I definitely think that the American primary system should be reformed. There reason why I think this, is because after analyzing the benefits of the current primary system and a potential reform I see more benefits for the citizens in selecting their presidential delegates in a national level than in the current method. It is true that the current primary system allows the American people to familiarize themselves with the potential candidates and that is a good featured.
Pluralists would say that Pressure Group power is democratically based and so the larger you are the more spread that power is. The bigger you are it's generally felt you represent public opinion more. Government doesn't want to upset a large group of people and so their vote carries some weight. RSPB, NSCPCC, and National Trust. Large membership so perhaps they carry some
Citizens must be engage in the decision making because this will have great impact on their life, therefore they should vote to express their opinion in the government. Voting is a privilege and a responsibility to citizen to participate in public affairs and choose those who should govern them. In the democratic process an election allows people to be represented in the political institution and now with the modern technology, it is easy to communicate and investigate the candidate and to make a decision on the party that will provide better services. Whether a citizen is voting individually or belong to an interest group donating funds will help him play a role in the influence on political