However, there are inevitably some questions arising about the electoral college and whether it still works best for the US today. Some say it should be completely scrapped, with a more democratic direct election taking it's place; others day that it can be mended by reforming it, and the final argument is to defend it, and leave it as it is. One reason to end the electoral college system is because it is not democratic enough. The winner of the nationwide vote could in fact lose the election because of the way the electoral college works. Popular vote winners have been denied the presidency in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
They are dependent on a coalition government because so far they have never had a majority in Parliament. Without the Conservatives choosing to form a coalition with them in order to create a majority, the Liberal Democrats would never have been able to come into power. Furthermore they’re becoming increasing unpopular in power due to breaking promises and being accused of ‘turning Tory’. This suggests that they have no political strength by themselves and that many potential voters will turn to alternatives, such as the Labour party, who could ultimately gain popularity due to the failures of the Liberal Democrats; therefore the UK is still a two party system favouring the Conservatives and Labour party. However on the other hand it is argued that the UK could not possibly be a two party system because the Conservatives wouldn’t have been able to come into power without the Liberal Democrats.
In theory a Prime Minister is Primus Inter Paras, he has a wide range of powers such as chairing the cabinet, appointing ministers and controlling the armed forces. A Prime Minister only holds the roll because they are a leader of a party. Issues such as policy disagreements and how to remove a Prime Minister will be discussed but ultimately it will be noted that currently the Liberal Democrats limit Cameron more than his own party. A party can remove a Prime Minister from their role as Prime Minister. This can be seen when looking at the two most powerful Prime Ministers in the post war era; Thatcher and Blair were in differing ways removed from their parties.
Discuss the view that the limits on the Prime Minister are too few and too ineffective (28 marks) It can be debated that the limits on the Prime Minister (PM) are too few and ineffective. However, I disagree with this view. David Cameron, the current PM of the United Kingdom, is arguably limited by the evolution of a Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. For example, Cameron is forced to consult ministers under the joint government or face backlash and in extreme conditions, ultimate rejection from ministers within both of the political parties. This shows that the PM, whether he feels that it is necessary or not, must ask advice of his cabinet ministers and especially of those who are Liberal Democrats in order to prevent unfairness in the cabinet.
The ratification of the Constitution marked the beginning of the Early National Period. The ENP was filled with change. Everything from transportation to cooking became more efficient and changed the way ordinary Americans lived. The advancements in technology had a profound impact on American culture. Jack Larkin’s book, The Reshaping of Everyday Life, and the essays in A Shared Experience support Fischer’s thesis that “deep change” was happening in the ENP.
Britain and Australia share so much history together; it would be disgraceful just to ditch them. If we were to become a republic, what will change? If that was to happen, only our head of state wouldn’t be a monarch but a president and we wouldn’t have a governor general. Now that’s not much, and there would be so many things affected from this. Maybe if we did become a republic, our national flag might change because of the Union Jack on the top-left hand corner.
If they get a majority in favour of non-confidence, then the prime minister must call an election. This shows that the current government is not suitable for the country, so it creates a demand for change. Furthermore with Canada’s government, there are elections occurring frequently, unlike the United States where they have elections at every four year term. In one situation where Jean Chretien was in power, he called an election because he thought the time was right and that he had no chance of losing. Doing so gives him a longer term in power and receiving more seats in his riding to get a bigger majority government.
However, Parliament is sovereign and civil rights and liberties have been put suspended but only in the interests of law and order or national security. Unlike many other democracies, the government retains control over rights and freedoms of citizens. Democracy can lead to the abuse of power and there are fears that if those who govern are left to their own devices, they may claim substantial amounts of power and begin to abuse their position. By making governments accountable to the people, this can be prevented. Governments must submit themselves regularly to re-election and by guaranteeing that they are controlled by elected representatives, the people can feel safe from the corruption of power.
Philosophers, like Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau, all had a great influence in the making of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Montesquieu had influenced the writers of the U.S. Constitution with the idea of check and balance. Montesquieu stated, "Power should be a check to power." Montesquieu meant by this statement was that a government should have a separation of power to check and balance the government. As a result of his philosophy, Articles One, Two, and Three show how his ideas influenced the writers of the Constitution.
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.