This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy. So if two out of three powers that are running the UK are not elected, this itself questions whether or not we are living in a democracy. Furthermore, having a monarchy is very important yet traditional but not in the same aspects of Parliament, as they have more authority over
This law shows the flaw of Athens and its democracy based government because it infringed on the freedom of speech that most democracies have. The Assembly was made up of all men that were eligible to serve on the council. The Life in Athens may have been sophisticated and nimble. This made Athens a target to other countries since they thought that Athens was a week country. If Athens had more of a military based government then they wouldn’t have been attacked as many of times and maybe never lost their power in Ancient
I personally say that strength is not given but earned by what you do to get others to approve your intensions. In other words, strengths and weakness depends on a personal capacity to influence the conduct of those in government. Power seems to be based on how influential or persuasive one can be. However, I also think that no matter how much the President tries to get what he wants during his term, the President will never be the most powerful man in the country. He is always sharing his power due to the checks and balances system.
It succeeds in this as if a party is not representing the people in the way they said or are not fulfilling their promises then the people can choose another party who they think can represent them in a better way than the previous party. Elections also hold individual MPs to account as well based on their record, and example of this is the 2009 expenses scandal in which many MPs stepped down rather than face the verdict of the voters and so elections fulfil their purpose as they succeed at holding parties and MPs to account. However elections don’t fulfil their purpose as they are failing in the area of participation from the public as the level of turnout over recent times has gradually fallen as in the 2001 general election the turnout was 59.4%, is the lowest it has been since 1918. In the 2005 general election the turnout was 61.4% and in the 2010 general election the turnout
The delegate model of representation poses a threat to the form of representative democracy used on the UK as the public will have more say on issues which undermines the Burkean model. Likewise it undermines parliamentary sovereignty as parliament is already bypassed by the government, referendums only make it worse. An example of this is when Labour were voted in and in their manifesto contained a referendum on devolution however the result didn’t turn out in their favour in contradiction of the government, further undermining their power. Moreover the public may not be well advised/trusted to make decisions on issues such as capital punishment as the polls show a majority in favour of it, however MPs can see the faults in the use of the death penalty and vote against it. Also the public may not be educated on some of the deeper issues such as the role of central banks in relation to a single currency.
When evaluating the arguments raised on both sides it I believe that the Electoral College should be replaced by a national popular vote. An argument that exposes the weakness of the Electoral College and why it should be replaced by a national popular vote is because the ‘winner takes all’ system distorts the results of the elections. There have been various results in which the popular vote did not reflect the results of the Presidential election. A notorious example of how distorted results can be under the Electoral College is that of Bush and Al Gore in 2000. Though Al Gore won the popular vote by 48.4% Bush won the votes of the Electoral College which resulted in him winning the Presidential election.
The New World Times How will the constitution affect the presidential elections? In terms of this, the constitution will affect the elections because the federalists and the anti-federalists will oppose to vote for the right representative but because that the representative comes from that class…… the classes will only vote for their representative. This attempt will trouble the nation with election issues and pretty soon… the constitution will be abandoned set America for a monarchy. Editor’s opinion In my opinion the U.S constitution provided more detailed political laws that was able to help out the economy itself to prevent form having a dictatorship. However the constitution first needed to be discussed before being passed out
On the other hand, the single-issue parties, they only focus on only one public policy matter. The chapter also talks about President’s party is almost always more solidly united and better well-organized compare with other major party. However, competition often caused the leadership group in the party out of power. Federalism is a major reason for the decentralized nature of the two major political parties and also the nominating process is also a major cause of party decentralization. Often, the parties will fight with each other and compete with each other within their party during the nominating process.
Our country is as divided as ever and there is a substantial lack of unity among the political parties and the citizens of the United States. At the federal level, the two political parties refuse to work together in the best interest of our country. In addition to seeking reelection, their main focus is furthering their political agenda as they refuse to compromise and negotiate with one another. In addition, citizens do not feel accurately represented by these elected federal officials. The citizens are given limited options when voting because only the dominant parties have a realistic chance of winning.
In other words, elections are usually dependent on what the people see and not what they hear. For instance, in Source C, it states, “Our national politics has become a competition for images or between images, rather than between ideals.” This quote explains that politics is more based on a candidate’s image rather then what they support. Pursuing this further, Theodore H. White in Source C says, “Nixon’s---light-colored suit, wrong makeup, bad posture--- was ‘fuzzed’.” This is a direct example of how an election can depend on a person’s characteristics. Nixon, having a bad representation of him-self, caused people to favor him less whether or not he had strong ideals that they agree with. To sum up, television causes people to approve the candidate’s that give more pleasure to the eye than those that give better