The first argument links to the fact that politicians are in their position to represent the public’s interests. This to an extent is an impossible job as some issues completely divide the country and a key aspect of a successful democracy is that it represents the entire population. The only fair and truly democratic way to make issues of mass importance or issues that have an ethical issue surrounding them is to hold a referendum. By doing this it allows every member of society to vote on an issue and the outcome will support the majority of the public’s views. This was illustrated by the 1997 ‘Scottish Devolution Referendum’.
Should more referendums be held in the UK? (25 marks) Referendums are processes in which the government puts forward a question to the public, in which they must have either a conclusion of ‘yes’ or ‘no’. There are many advantages, however also many disadvantages of using referendums, which would determine whether more should be put forward in the UK. The first, and most important advantage of using referendums is that it is a direct form of democracy. 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.
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%.
The Micro Level On a micro level, the paper by Jackson is the only one availablefor the 1980 election. There had been earlier uses of individualdata by Mendelsohn (1966) in an analysis of the 1964 election, but since this had been predicted as a very large victory for PresidentJohnson and the early results indicatedthe same thingthere was no reason to expect an effect, nor was there any. A recent paper by Adams (1985) about voting behavior in Oregon duringthe 1984presidentialelections also found no effects since the substantial victory for Reagan had been anticipated. Jackson used data from the University of Michigan Presidential Study in 1980. Respondents were interviewed before the election to determine if they were registered and their likelihood of voting.
A merit of this process lay in the fact that whilst turnout is low, those who are committed to the result of the election do turn out. Hence, caucuses tend to favour more ideological candidates compared to voters in the alternative primary system. In 2008, Republican candidate Ron Paul who is on the libertarian wing of his party had some of his strongest showings in caucus states. For example, he won 21% in the North Dakota caucuses and 19% in Maine caucuses. This exemplifies their significance as it means that a candidate elected in a caucus state is essentially in line with the true ideology of the party and some of the party's most committed participants- who, pivotally invest a lot of time and money which is vital.
A constitutional amendment takes an issue away from the normal process of democracy. However most proposals aren’t inspired by a broad national consensus but instead for political gains, e.g. the day after the Supreme Court ruled flag burning to be protected speech in 1989, the US representative Michael Bilirakis introduced an amendment outlawing desecration of the flag. Amendments to ban flag burning have been introduced in every session of Congress since, spanning more than two decades. Another reason why most proposed amendments fail to pass is the difficulties posed by the very complex amendment process.
They’ll have less time in office to develop money ties to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby weakening the threat of lobbyists being able to influence legislation. The current system in Congress tends to lead to a system of seniority, meaning those who have spent the most time in office have the most power (in committees, procedures, etc. ); so, politicians focus on staying in office. Districts & states don't receive equal power in Congress, and fresh new elected officials have limited ability to make changes. If Congress has term limits in place, their power will also be limited.
Some go so far as to advocate direct democracy, in which the people, not their representatives, vote directly on legislation. However, an educated electorate is necessary for the success of any democracy, and there is a real question as to whether the public is educated or informed enough to vote directly on the nuts and bolts of government policies. What do liberals believe about the constitution? Liberals note that constitutions and their amendments are passed just like other laws: after extensive debate and by a vote of the people's elected representatives. The only difference is that constitutional amendments are much harder to pass than laws, because they require a two-third's majority in Congress and a three-fourth's majority of the
As well as that there was Obama care as although the party differed on how they thought to deal with it as the moderates wanted to make compromises on the budget but the Tea Party went against it completely. But although there they differed on the Obama Care vote not a single Republican voted in favour of it they all went against it. This goes to show that although often they disagree strongly they can at times completely unify on some
Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek” (“Supreme court”,