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.
But what is this feeling that marginalizes Americans? How can Americans discern this feeling from any other if their entire lives all they have known is a two party system? Arguments from supporters of any emerging third party are only speculations of a better system, in reality there is no concrete proof that in America a multi-party system would work. Americans know this and whatever the desire for change is the current system provides democracy that has been seen, felt, and lived. The two-party system is so resilient because it has become a part of politics that no amount of speculations will
Political communication and political rhetoric enable citizens to administer an imperfect world. As stated in lecture, politics is important because we live in a world with scarce resources. Though rhetoric may not be intrinsic in every political system, democratic or not, it helps the political process move smoothly and efficiently. Additionally, even if one does not agree that political rhetoric is helpful, it is important to recognize that it exists and understand it, so as not to become a victim or apathetic citizen. It is helpful to ask, “Where would we be and what would we do without political communication?” First, it is important for politics to remain future directed and open to possibilities.
This gives them opportunities to participate in a democracy as it encourages interest in the parties running for power. It allows them to see the different parties, for those who vote for the same party every election. Parties also help people participate by party political broadcasts, canvassing, conferences and policy forums. These allow the public to understand more about the parties individually and could potentially encourage them to vote for the party that best represents them. Having conferences gives them the opportunity to participate in democracy because from listening to speeches by leaders, voters are more likely to be informed of what policies are going to be implemented by that party if they gain power which would encourage them to vote in the general election.
* Having control of the past allows the government to have control of the future. * The future is a direct consequence of the past. * The party will feed them lies about the past, to gain more support for their political agenda by portraying the past in a negative light. * Limiting memory, to limit knowledge of the past. * Makes control of people easier, as they will be more like to support the Party if they think the party has brought positive changes.
Firstly, back bench MPs are effective because they are a good way of increasing legitimacy and representation in terms of their constituency as they have been voted in by their electorate and therefore should represent the views of those in their constituency. They also hold ‘surgery’s’ where people from their constituency ask the MP questions. This gives the MP an idea of what the people in his constituency are concerned about, meaning they can try and bring up these issues in Parliament, making them effective. However, not all MPs are effective because they do not necessarily represent the views of the people in their constituency who didn’t vote for them. They also are ineffective at representing their constitution because out of 650 MPs, only 147 of them are female, and even fewer are ethnic minorities which means they are not effectively representing the population.
In some cases, the pressure groups even undermine their internal democracy as the minority (the leaders) voices are heard rather than the majority (the members). Pressure groups could be said to promote democracy by educating the electorate. They do this by making them more educated and more informed through political discussions and debates. Pressure groups widen the information available to the public. Without the media and pressure groups, the public would have to rely on information given from a narrow range of sources with limited viewpoints; mostly from the major political parties e.g.
No More Need for the Electoral College It makes a person wonder why the United States has kept the Electoral College when there appears to obviously be more negatives to it, rather than positives. Personally I find it to be a lot more fair and logical to all together rid of the Electoral College and replace it with a much simpler alternative. I feel this alternative would be easier on the people and the candidates. It would especially mean a lot more to the winning candidate. This system is known as Direct Election and includes instant runoff voting.
Introduced by government when we need to change our constitution or make a decision on a controversial issue where government needs approval of electorate. If the party in power's mandate was not very big, the party didn't have enough support. If a Referendum is held makes the government look stronger. Extending the wider use of referendums will affect democracy in the UK, this essay will explain if using referendums more often will improve democracy in the UK. Increasing the use of referendums will help make the system more like a direct democracy.
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