They can raise and lower it. If they wanted to make it higher or lower, they could. This is usually the most important piece because people don’t want to pay taxes, even if it is to benefit the country. Having our money taken away is not what people want without good reason. Our representatives have to decide on what the cost of improvement is and if the people really want or need it.
This shows hope the people can directly influence the way in which their democracy works and so is hence very democratic. However critics of referendums argue that they undermine the sovereignty of
While pressure groups may have unbalanced influence due to varying methods and funds, they are generally good at being a channel of representation between the people and the government, keeping the government in touch with the people. Their ability to provide representation for minorities in a way that political parties are unable too is also invaluable to the UK's democracy and so pressure groups do not undermine UK democracy in such a way that they are
ADVANTAGES OF REFERENDUM The main reason referendums have become so popular is because they are seen to boost democracy among citizens. The making of law and important decisions that affect the state is not a
This is amplified by the fact that the larger pressure groups can leave many smaller ones in their shadow. For example, the British Stammering Association is a small pressure group with a good cause but one that many people will not have heard of due to its lack of funds and support. Many say that pressure groups holding the government to account and challenging authority is a sign of a healthy democracy. After all, a democracy is a system of government where decisions are arrived at by majoritarian principles. 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.
The Constitution although lacks in these ways toward Political Equality it was a great step forward for the time it was written. Giving the people the right to choose their elected officials and the right to run for office was a great advancement for the society they were
Also it would easily become outdated and fail to respond to the constantly changing political environment. If the UK’s constitution became codified then there would be a risk of judicial tyranny. Judges are not the best people to enforce the constitution as they are unelected and socially unrepresentative. If it became codified then it would be reflective of the values and preferences of senior judges not of the general public who the rules mainly affect. The UK’s current democratic rule has been successful for a long period of time and changes in the constitution come about because of democratic pressure from the public.
It would be hard for this program to work in a democracy since the people may not agree with it. Would’ve worked in Socrates time but not the present. People in present times are used to democracy, and wouldn’t agree with anything that didn’t have them directly picking their leaders. People in Socrates time may have been more open to
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.
Even though the electoral process is so important to American democracy not everyone chooses to participate which can lead to negative consequences for them. After much research it has been shown that public officials are more likely to listen