The Treaty of Versailles would prove to be one of the most disastrous mistakes in history. To even label it a peace treaty is a lie. The treaty made Germans want to take revenge, because of all the unbearable financial burdens where put on its shoulders. The treaty was the worst mistake the Western democracies made, and Germany was to pay for those mistakes. The Treaty of Versailles left the Germans feeling guilty, humiliated, and resentful.
Another advantage of the FPTP system is that it manages to marginalise extremist and revolutionary parties such as UKHIP and BNP as they are unlikely to win overall constituencies. This was demonstrated well in the 2010 election as BNP and UKHIP did not even come close to winning any seats in the House of Commons. One of the general advantages the FPTP system has been known for is its ability to produce single party governments that aren’t a minority vote or a coalition. This is due to its ability to
For example, in 1997 Labour beat Conservative by having a higher majority of votes. One criticism of First Past the Post is it is unrepresentative. The reason for this is because it does not represent every electorate’s views and interest. An example of this if is when someone is voting for a party in their constituencies for example Labour could get 123votes and Green Party could get 122votes and they would lose by a minority of 1 vote. On the other hand, First Past the Post is noticeable for its simplicity and being straight forward.
He delves deep into the cause of the public disengagement from politics that is considered to be detrimental to zeal of democracy. Hay holds the reason of this disengagement of the public responsible that it is “Resulted from the triangulating centrism of the main parties and their duopoly over a power hoarding political system that refused to adapt to the participatory expectation of new citizens” (Leighton). Factors Perceived by Hay for Political Disengagement Several factors that he finds responsible for this disengagement of the British citizenry, in general, of the population of a democratic country are something except the growing trend of consumerism, globalization of economy, citizens’ indifference. Indeed, these are the common factors that are conventionally held responsible for the growing disengagement of the public from the conventional democratic system. But obviously there are certain other reasons that evade the eyes of the political analysts.
The larger expenses coming along with high quality and services render salespeople a disadvantage when talking to their clients for business. The standards of performance (SOP) set for extra compensation seem unrealistic, with 75% of salespeople earning no commission in the first half of 1992, and so conceivably, fail to motivate them. This makes the result control less effective as they failed to evoke the desired behaviors – achieving sales targets. Together with other offers by competitors, this resulted in high turnover rate. Profit Sharing - Result controls may serve well with congruence between employees’ and company’s objectives, but employees take for granted the law-required 10% profit sharing of the company’s income and so their motivational effect seems little.
Should the United States abolish gun ownership? Introduction: The gun control debate poses the basic question: Who is more trustworthy, the government or the people? Argument A: Increases in gun control laws in the United States of America are unconstitutional. Increases in gun control laws in the United States of America are unconstitutional because the Second Amendment states that we have right to bear arms, citizens have the democratic ideal of life or justice, and statistics show that states with more gun rights have a lower crime rate. (Emotional arguments) Gun control is based on the faulty notion that ordinary American citizens are too clumsy and ill-tempered to be trusted with weapons.
From this total, in 2010 the most part of this money was wasted on the commissions for stores selling these tickets, and prizes; the government received only $17.9 billion, which broke down to 30 percent in profits and 8 percent in administrative costs. In addition, lotteries can be seen as a hidden form of taxing; in 2009, 11 American state lotteries raised more money per person than corporate income taxes. Though people usually tend to see lotteries as a panacea against their unsatisfactory financial condition, in fact lotteries cannot save one from poverty or going bankrupt. In 2007, one of three lottery winners experience severe financial problems within about five years, and even lose all their capital. One of the main reasons standing behind this phenomenon is that despite suddenly gaining vast amounts of money, people do not revise their financial habits; moreover, rather often lottery winners spend money less
The economy was great, and many of his statements have been proved wrong. He discussed that the US Government was "lagging behind the times". In a sense it’s as if we don’t want a government that is too efficient, in fact it is actually easier to block government action than to achieve something. The information technology in our government isn't nearly as up to date as it is in the private sector. The government is so large; you can only make changes a little at a time.
Based upon social class and political power in public policy, the United States has proven to be a nation where the economy, society, and political system do not function in the same way for all of its citizens, and everybody works for the benefit of the few, and against the interest of the many. Professors Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argued in their book, “Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class” (2010), that changing tax rates has been a major factor underlying growing inequality. They claim that the globalization and technological changes are not the causes of economic struggles of the middle and working classes in the United States. Instead they blame a long series of policy changes in government that significantly favored the very rich since the late 1970s. Those changes were the result of, well-financed and well-organized efforts by the corporate sector to push government policies to lean in favor of the very wealthy.
The privileged and well organized wealthy upper class of this country dominate the polls, the majority of the U.S. is not represented in election, further slowing the progress of political reform. Voting is the most obvious way for the average American citizen to exercise their rights, though only one-third of eligible voters take part in mid-term congressional elections and there was only a 57.6 percent voter turnout in this last presidential election. Public officials can only respond to the information they are given, which is more often than not from the most advantaged Americans. Those who have higher incomes and have received the highest levels of formal education are more likely to be politically active, making their needs and values taken into account by government officials first and foremost. The influence of the minority proves to in turn promote the government unresponsive to the needs of the vast majority of the population, prompting middle and lower class Americans to believe that their vote does not matter and cannot make a difference.