Things would run better with no competition for office. The program would have problems. The people of the state might not agree with the program. Philosophers may refuse to take up office because the life of a philosopher would be better than that of a ruler. It would be hard for this program to work in a democracy since the people may not agree with it.
Is there anything unsatisfactory about it? Could it have been improved upon in some way? Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool, by using the lowest cost to obtain the biggest profit out of it. However, it is unacceptable to sacrifice human life in exchange of paying a lower production costs. Before they made any decision, they should hold an ethical meeting about the improvement of fuel tank, if they would change their mind by paying more then people would not have to die.
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. To conclude I would say that neither Partisan Alignment nor party allegiance related to class is what convinces the electorate of the presence. For sure both of these factors are still there in the voting behavior of the United Kingdom but very rare. The modern, educated and open-minded voters do not want to be related to a party because of their social class, they want to decide completely uninfluenced by social factors which party they vote
In the spirit of selfish self interest, the majority in a state will vote on implementing laws that favor the majority population without considering how it will affect the minority population. Someone has to step in and protect the minority’s interests and check any sort of discrimination directed to them. In this case the only people with the legal power to do so are the legislators and the government, even if it means facing majority outcry in the process. Oversimplifying an important public policy into a multiple choice decision, as earlier stated, might not result in the implementation of public laws. When voting in referendums, it is doubtful that most of the people voting have a complete idea on the decision they are making.
Even though it might seems as a small problem, comparing to all other troubles that the nation has experienced, nonetheless it must be addressed in a timely matter because any delay in making the decision will make the issue even more severe. It might cause people’s choice of government to become much skewed. If some area has a majority of supporters for a certain party and the conditions for them to vote are beneficial, the community will be able to include all their votes, and comparing to a place that has supporters of the opposite party but has no opportunity to vote. The candidate for the election will lose that majority of votes and people will be faced with the government that only minority wanted to see in
The sad fact is that the United States system of funding presidential campaigns remains elitist and undemocratic. A public funding system that would make the process more equitable does exist, but is largely unused because it is badly underfunded. In the absence of public funds that would allow them to be competitive, political office seekers depend upon a relative handful of individuals whose large contributions make up the bulk of the money they raise. Special interests by spreading their wealth to all contestants are able to reduce the likelihood that they will be held accountable for their misdeeds. In conclusion, there are various advantages and disadvantages presented on whether campaign financing will ultimatelly benefit.
“The Rebirth of Patronage: Have We Come Full Circle” Feeney and Kingsley (2008) states,“Patronage can be narrowly defined as the power to make appointments and distribute government jobs, especially for political advantage, but its social implications are much broader” (p. 167). Patronage can be used as an advantage for politicians who are running for any political office in order to win potential votes for their campaign. Most politicians are knownfor using different tactics like offering jobs, health care, and other issues that appeal to citizens. Will patronage divide or unite the United States? Patronage can have positive or negative effects on the United States while the merit system is against patronage and the spoils system is in
Referendums have become more widely used since 1997 and have helped to decide controversial policies. The advantages of referendums are large; however there are also a number of disadvantages. Referendums can be used in many ways. For example when the government is split on an issue a referendum can resolve that issue without destroying government itself. This means that referendums therefore can prevent disputes in government and secure a consensus decision so wider use of them would ensure that the number of disputes is reduced even further.
If there are less guns, there is less violence. The Second Amendment does more harm than good and should be removed from the Constitution. Another thing that should be removed from the Constitution is the Electoral College.The Electoral College is located in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. Basically, people don't vote for the president. People vote for electors, and those electors elect the president.
At the individual level, the mechanism is that politically interested citizens are more likely to vote both because of their personal incentive and ties to politics. Furthermore, district-type effects can affect via membership, e.g. party campaign efforts can easily target those who have displayed political affiliation, increasing further affiliated citizen's likelihood to vote. So many studies show that political institutions play a significant role in explaining the differences the rate of voter turnout across countries (Franklin, 2004). Of course, institutions are not the only effect on turnout.