As AMS is a partly PR system, the percentage of votes equals the percentage/number of seats, this in turn, means the big two parties no longer dominate the government. The STV system is used in local elections and has also meant a decline in the dominance of the two parties in the UK. Most councils in Scotland are now coalitions, Labour only being dominant in two of these. Minority groups being in power have meant other parties views and policies have been heard just as much as Labours or Conservatives, showing that it is less of a two party system. The Liberal Democrats have become a more important
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
Cameron in turn, should expect to enjoy less power as he had to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, in order to achieve a majority. This would mean that the likes of the Prime Minister would in many situations have to be compromised. Another essential factor which would influence the degree of Prime Ministerial power is the unity of the ruling party or coalition. In Blair’s situation, he enjoyed an exceptionally united group, therefore being able to enjoy several years of complete domination. When Blair resigned, Brown was said to enjoy similar power, at least when he still enjoyed popularity.
The election of the leader is very important part of political parties as people now vote more for a prime minster than governing party, for example conservative’s won over Labour because David Cameron was seen as more enthusiastic and inspirational then Gordon brown, where he was seen as dull and boring. This means individual members in Labour have a significant role and power in the party. However in the conservative the individual members don’t have as much power as the Labour members. The election of the party leader is different to the Labour party, the MP's select the two final candidates for leader through numerous votes, and the members only get to vote at the end of the process for party leader. This means that individual members don’t have the same amount of power than the MP's.
They are dependent on a coalition government because so far they have never had a majority in Parliament. Without the Conservatives choosing to form a coalition with them in order to create a majority, the Liberal Democrats would never have been able to come into power. Furthermore they’re becoming increasing unpopular in power due to breaking promises and being accused of ‘turning Tory’. This suggests that they have no political strength by themselves and that many potential voters will turn to alternatives, such as the Labour party, who could ultimately gain popularity due to the failures of the Liberal Democrats; therefore the UK is still a two party system favouring the Conservatives and Labour party. However on the other hand it is argued that the UK could not possibly be a two party system because the Conservatives wouldn’t have been able to come into power without the Liberal Democrats.
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
However, there are inevitably some questions arising about the electoral college and whether it still works best for the US today. Some say it should be completely scrapped, with a more democratic direct election taking it's place; others day that it can be mended by reforming it, and the final argument is to defend it, and leave it as it is. One reason to end the electoral college system is because it is not democratic enough. The winner of the nationwide vote could in fact lose the election because of the way the electoral college works. Popular vote winners have been denied the presidency in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
Why has representative democracy in the form of general elections in the UK been criticised? Representative democracy in general elections has received a lot of criticism and been open to questioning on whether it is truly representative of the votes given and whether it is actually democratic in to whom the power is given. The transfers of sovereignty in a general election is democratic in the way it gives the people of the UK a chance to exercise their voting power and pass this power onto a politician of the majority’s choice. However this ‘transfer of power’ has been rightly criticised, the fact that the British people only have one chance every 5 years to exercise this power unless the prime minister calls another election, otherwise during the five year period, the people cannot really change what the government is doing even if they strongly disagree. Also, there is a problem in how the ratio of votes to seats is distributed.
Contrary to what appears on the surface, the exit poll numbers from the 2008 election show the American “political culture” didn’t actually change all that drastically between the 2004 and 2008 elections, and it was more the American “opinion” and the want for “change” that shifted heavily and altered the vote and ushered the new Democratic president. It seems that a full political party “realignment” may not be as inevitable as some would assume, and based on numbers, it looks like just strictly popular approval (or lack thereof) in such key issues as the economy, the war in Iraq, the war on terror, foreign policy, and race, that caused the significant lean towards the left. Now this is not to say that the election of a liberal, African-American from the north was not groundbreaking, just that the election does not predicate the emergence of a new dominant party. One has to keep in mind that the 2008 election was one that involved a highly unpopular Republican
One reform that has been introduced is the House of Lords reform, which was first introduced in 1999 and then again in 2012 with the aim of making the House of Lords much more representative by getting rid of hereditary peers (people in the house of lords due to previous ties) and by allowing people to vote for who they want in the house. This reform has not gone far enough because as it is far from complete as legislation was proposed to create a partly or fully elected House of Lords but then were dropped by the Conservatives as they said no to a fully elected second chamber in 2012. However this reform has done a fair amount as now the House of Lords has far more legitimacy than it did before because 92 members of the house were removed as they were hereditary peers and so these 92 places were voted on clearly increasing legitimacy and to an extent representation as before this it was the only part of government that was fully unrepresentative going against the ideology of democracy. This shows that here progress is seemingly slow as while the reform is introduced is somewhat understated and not as full a reform as it could be, it is still a reform and shows changes in the government as now they are actually looking towards reform. Another reform that has been introduced is the human rights act, which was