Referendums offer the general public a choice, they are not only good for helping the public feel more involved but they are good for deciding important decisions such as changes to the constitution. Referendums help the politicians to know what the public wants and they help the public to voice their opinions on major issues. Referendums also stop the government from having so much power, and therefore maintains a democratic system as there is less chance of having a dictatorship. If there is an issue which divides parties’ on key issues which affect the public the public can have their say. 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 a certain group of people do not feel that they are being represented then a democracy has to be able to recognise them for anything to change. Political parties cannot provide adequate representation for the full range of diverse interests and opinions in a modern democracy and pressure groups enable particular
Democracy was and still is used today by many countries. It is a popular choice of rule because it is rule “by the people, for the people.” Some advantages of democracy were that there were many freedoms that were assured to you; such as the freedom of speech, freedom to congregate ext. For example the freedom of speech, someone may not agree with what you have to say, but they cannot take away your right to say it (Doc. 4). Also in Democracy, no one man could get too powerful.
A question put forward by the government to be decided by the public with either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ verdict cannot be tampered with or imply any confusion to the people/public deciding on the question. For instance, there was a referendum held in the North East in 2004 proposing setting up more assemblies in the region. The majority vote was ‘no’, winning by over three quarters of the population that participated - because the winning vote was from the majority, it represented a true manifestation of the peoples needs. A disadvantage of using referendums is a reverse argument of the first advantage. 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.
Explain three strengths of representative democracy (10 marks) * The elected representative will have expert knowledge and they will always do what is in the best interest of the whole population rather than do what just a few people actually want. What the representative may do at the time may not please everyone, but because of their knowledge which no on else actually has they make the right decisions that in the long run, are beneficial * You can change representatives at election times. The voting tends to be every 5 years. The act of voting every few years means that if the party with the power hasn’t done what they said they were going to achieve or no longer does what the people want, they can elect a new government to be
A voter could switch from voting for the Conservatives to vote for the Labour Party at the next election because they decide according to single issues. In general the public today is not really aligned to parties anymore. I would say that party allegiance is something which is nearly vanished in Britain’s voting behavior. There are still groups which are strongly related to one or the other party but that is not as common as was in the 50s and 60s. 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.
Pg.95). These absentee voting methods are implemented because they can help cut administrative cost and well as making voting easier on everyone in California. These efforts were created in order to increase participation by making it easier to vote (State and Local Politics. Pg.95). When it is easier to vote, people have more incentive to
Democratizing the Federal Reserve would have some advantages and some disadvantages. One of the benefits would include the ability to vote in a candidate who would have a large responsibility in the nation's finances. Running the Fed is a huge task, and having a say in who would do so would be beneficial to the nation's people. Candidates could run for this "office" and thus, the American people would have more of a say in how our financial decisions are made. In almost all other aspects of major decisions made in the United States is done so through voting in candidates.
Within the UK’s society there are many things which make it democratic, having free and open elections is one, enabling the choice of who represents the citizens. It is usually that a single party forms government, and this is due to the fact that since single party governments are stable and cohesive, and they are generally able to survive for a full term in office. Also, this is because the government is united by common ideological loyalties and is subject to the same party discipline. This is why the electoral system shouldn’t be reformed. The AV system means that voters vote preferential order, if no candidate reaches 50% then the candidate who received the fewest votes is dropped, and then the 2nd preferences are used and so on until a candidate reaches 50%.
First we will take a look at the positive outcomes for citizens and society as a whole if this type of program was set up. First citizens would have more say in the process of laws being decided and may actually help in the process since many government officials do not have the time or resources to go over every page in the laws they are reviewing or signing in. Also citizens would have more control over something they may completely disagree with, for example the recent decisions to insert more stimulus money towards the economy would more strongly be rejected by a citizen based vote than a Democratic majority based Congress. Also a system like this would bring our system closer to a federalist based system on which our founders wanted our society to be and would take away some control of our government branches and would give states even more say in crucial decision making processes. This would make it much more difficult for governments to grow and enact more control over its citizen's daily lives, issues and