Reality is that the electoral college can produce an undemocratic outcome, even if only rarely. Therefore, the electoral college should be ended because it has the potential to be undemocratic. Secondly, it is also the case that votes do not, constitutionally, have to be allocated to the winner of the vote in that state. Citizens believe, for example, that they are casting a ballot for Obama or Romney in November, but in actual fact they are voting for electors who will meet in December and then vote
A current example would be the tea party, which has arisen from the Republican Party, due to the GOP’s supposed neglecting of concern for federal spending, and deficit and tax decreases. Through the formation of the tea party, the Republican Party is being told that it needs to be more conservative in there fiscal spending plans to get those votes that are going to the tea party. If the Republican Party does not move to accommodate these voters, the tea party will only continue to grow, until the Republican Party will be forced to change its position to maintain its voters. Therefore, the tea party will push the Republican Party towards a more conservative view. This is the main purpose of third parties; to show the major parties what they need to do to keep their voters.
Along with the rising number of back-bench rebellions and MPs defeating government’s proposals such as the Syria war in 2011, it can be seen that Parliament is performing well in making laws. However, although it has enormous power, Parliament is oftenly not expected to demonstrate that since by convention, government with the majority dominates and Parliament should support it. The whips system-a weekly outline sent to MPs with items underlined by 1,2 or 3 lines depending on how important the MPs attendance is- maintains party discipline and makes sure that rebellions are exceptional. Usually, MPs obey this system, therefore, Parliament in reality has not fulfilled this function. Parliament is believed to
I believe that the Conservative party under Cameron haven't adopted many One Nation policies for these reasons; On terms of economic and the deficit the Conservative party seem more right hinting at the thatcher heyday. David Cameron is clearly in favour of rolling back the state, which is also a major point of Thatcherism. A key point is how Cameron feels about education, he favours privatisation of education and has introduced Free Schools and Finally how the Tory's have in reforming the taxation system have rejected some one nation policies. However it could be argued that the Tory party not cutting the NHS fund and International aid funds is adopting one nation policies. In terms of
Many historians consider Lord Palmerstone to be influential in his dealings with foreign powers, both as Foreign Secretary as well as Prime Minister and greatly favoured the controversial Liberal Interventionist policies, in which Britain helps although does not get directly involved, for example, the sending of arms to the King of Sicily in order that they could protect themselves from the Austrians. This British led policy of supporting one side or the other yet not actually doing anything, led to the British Government under Lord Palmerstone being regarded with suspicion by the major European powers except, ironically, by the Republic of France (who were Britain’s traditional enemies). He first stood for Parliament in February 1806 in the Cambridge University constituency although was easily defeated. However, he was elected to Parliament in November after winning the Horsham election, although this only lasted until January 1807 when he was unseated. His time in the political wilderness however was short-lived as he was offered the post of Junior Lord of the Admiralty thank to patronage by both Lord Chichester and Lord Malmesbury.
I do think that debates are important but they mostly matter within the context or the specific situation that a country is in. For example even the best debate performance in the world would likely not save an incumbent president in the middle of an unpopular war and a deep economic problem. On the oder hand an incumbent president during a time of peace and prosperity would very likely win the reelection despite his weak debate performance. On the other hand debates could be extremely important when there is a very close election because in that case any mistake may cost the presidential nominee his place in the white
The Tea Party is quite important on the political scene of United States, and there are many reasons for it. The Tea Party is very influential, and it affects many elections. Many members of the Tea Party would see themselves as socially conservative, polls have shown that members are overwhelming white males over 45 voters. The social conservatism of its members has meant that the media has linked the Tea Party with the Republican Party, and indeed the Tea Party interferes in all elections helping Republican candidates that are politically acceptable and approved of. A good example of the Tea Party “meddling” with the elections, would be the 2010 election cycle, when In the midterm elections, The New York Times has identified 138 candidates for Congress with significant Tea Party support, and reported that all of them were running as
Effectively the act benefited the middle classes, who were now given an electoral voice in parliament, while the working classes were largely ignored, causing widespread anger and resentment for the act, and all those it benefited. The huge number of working classes wanted to be represented, and the act was yet more salt in the wound. If you were to gather up dates for the most widespread Chartist appreciation in Britain and put this on a graph alongside the economies peaks and troughs, the results would no doubt roughly mirror each other. For Chartism excelled during times of economic disturbance, particularly the late 30’s. This ran alongside the blossoming industrialisation of Britain, areas such as Stockport and Cheshire undergoing radical change were often the strongest supports of Chartism.
Economic/Political Analysis -Are the poor and the wealthy equally concerned about the “freedom from fear”? Compare and contrast both speeches to answer this question.- From President Franklins Roosevelts speech and Barack Obamas speech, the poor and wealthy people are fairly concerned about “freedome of fear.” There are quite a few things that a lot of people in this world are in fear of. President also said in his speech that we shouldn’t fear anything, but fear itself. It also, doesnt mean if you are not as rich in this world as others around you, you can not do the things wealthy people do to improve in the world. President Franklin Roosevelt also said in one of his speeches that, you dont have to be rich to be happy in life, happiness in life comes from accomplishment.
Temptations to cheat have increased not only because government deregulation. According Callahan given’s example, “Many of the recent instances of greed and investor betrayal on Wall street, for example, could have been prevented by reforms intended to keep accountants honest—or to ensure the independence of stock analysts, or to stop corporate boards from being packed with cronies, or to keep companies from handing out so many stock options”(21). It shows weaker of deregulation and arracks on government can increase temptation to cheating. But even government didn’t deregulation, people still willing to take high risk to achieve their own goal. People’s temptation is from society.