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
It seems that he has his own principles that he puts before the interests. Obama can only lead America to its damnation and not otherwise and he has probably already signed himself in as one term president. The decisions he makes about America are all wrong for America even when the policies are good. This is like putting the card before the horse but still getting the wrong horse into the harness. Generally, Obama is bad for America and so is his presidency.
By then, world opinion had shifted strongly against the United States—Le Monde had long since retracted its pro-American headline—and, at home, a strong anti-war sentiment re-energized the Democratic Party. The initial beneficiary was little known former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who spoke of "regime change" not in Iraq but in Washington. Dean fizzled in the primaries, but the Democrats' energy didn't, and the party settled on Massachusetts senator John Kerry as its presidential nominee. Kerry didn't mind reminding people that his initials, J.F.K., were the same as John F. Kennedy's, but Democratic party regulars agreed privately that the animating force in their party was A.B.B.—"anybody but Bush." Meanwhile, public opinion surveys showed Bush with near-unanimous support among Republicans.
The system arose gradually as states began to feel that the previous method of allowing party officials to decide was undemocratic in a modern society. That the current system is democratic and encourages public participation in politics is a particular strength of primaries. Adjoined to this is that it places no restrictions on who can stand, however, despite its benefits many people have criticised the system and are pressing for its reform. Emphasising the huge costs, frontloading and regionalisation of primaries, critics state that for all its claims to be democratic it prohibits the candidates from competing on an equal level. Equally the low levels of turnout in primaries suggest that many people are not interested in the primaries and raises questions over the legitimacy of any winner.
Accountability was a key point in democracy because if an mp did something wrong, they could be voted out by the public. In 1900 the House of Lords were not accountable for their actions because they could veto any laws but they could not be voted in or out. Having the opportunity to become an mp is very key point of a democratic country. There was very little opportunity to become an mp by 1900 as mps were unpaid and only the rich could afford to become an mp. This was very undemocratic as anybody should be able to become an mp if they so desire.
The source does express how Churchill disliked any political movements from the working class. Churchill especially hated the Trade union acts which were made throughout the 1920s. Because the policies that Churchill made didn’t affect David Low he interpreted that there was no problems with the policies. Unlike in source B which is from left-wing labour M.P Emmanuel Shinwell, Emmanuel claimed Churchill “was accused of taking decisions that led to a sharp increase in unemployment, and of rejecting attempts to compromise in the general strike.” This contrasts with source A because unlike source A, Source B mentions the effects some of Churchill’s policies and attitudes has on the general public which don’t affect the rich and higher up in society. The 1926 general strike was a strike that lasted nine days, from 4 May 1926 to 13 May 1926.
However, he still managed to win some bills such as the energy bill and housing sectors bill. The failure that George W. Bush experienced during his second term was his inability to select bills that could earn support of some Democrats instead they did not appeal to the Democrats, and it was very easy for them to oppose the bill thus hurting his presidency by weakening it as he failed to unify them. The Immigration reform appealed to the Democrats but it did not go well with some Conservative Republicans, who opposed it and he responded by attacking his base. Therefore, the Democrats gained an upper hand against the divided Republicans (Graham, 2010). The natural disaster the Katrina Hurricane saw the Bush administration come under fire as many cried against the
That man left to his institutions and placing himself above the will of the people, will surely lead to tyranny. Burke could very well (in my opinion) be talking to the politicians of today when he said he would sound wild and chimerical or that he was not in touch with reality, but that it was them the members of parliament that were “the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians” (Burke, 1775, Speech on reconciliation with America pg 2), that they have no place among the common people grappling with everyday reality in our pursuit of happiness. I was shocked that Burke would take this stance, given the animosity felt by parliament, the once thought to be friends of the American cause “the merchants of England” and the crown (grossly misinformed). I was pleasantly surprised at his ability to put the situation on a higher plain then just a gripe by the Americans don’t want to be taxed and pay their fair share, but to bring into the English mind that maybe they have lost touch with what previous generations or ancestors had accomplished in the English constitution, and putting the financial woes of the country aside and personal feelings about the Americans aside, that there might be a better way to conciliation with the
“Hughes called the law partisan and, echoing Turzai, said its purpose is “to elect Mitt Romney.” Voter ID Laws have become a negative aspect to our country’s election process. Not only does it pose ethical distresses but also several political dilemmas as well. No political party should gain a voting advantage by preventing parts of America from voting. A person should not be denied the right to vote because of inaccessible ID offices, inability to afford an ID or lack of constitutional information provided to them. As candidates for the presidency it is their responsibility to provide basic information to the public, so that we
People would not get to have a say in anything, and would be frustrated on how things are going in the government. During the 1880’s the U.S did achieve its ideals of democracy, and in the late 1920’s America did not achieve its ideals of democracy. It is important to analyze how undemocratic the US has been because people may not know much about the US and may think that it is better but it may be not, because we have some times in history where things have not been democratic. We should analyze the history of the US so that we can see how the US have become better, or worse during the past years. My knowledge of US history can help me become a better leader because I already know the mistakes America did already, so I wouldn’t make them again, instead I would be even