When voting in referendums, it is doubtful that most of the people voting have a complete idea on the decision they are making. Once the public has made a decision it is left to the legislators and government to chart out how the new law is to be implemented. Faced with these tough decisions, they might decide to amend the law or completely scrap it thereby overriding a decision made by the general
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
Citizens should be encouraged to embrace their citizenship, and not merely as a duty, but as a meaningful opportunity to participate in their own government for the sake of common good and in building the culture of life. In addition, it is an exercise of significant individual power. Now, most Americans will tell you that our politicians have all the power, but I disagree. Although it is true that our politicians do make the laws, here in the United States of America, the people have the authority. If an individual does not vote, then that individual cannot argue or comment on the outcome of what our politicians do.
After all, if the people don’t like it, they can always vote them out of office! This dilemma has often been debated about a representative government: are the elected officials expected to vote the way the majority of his or her constituents would desire, as amplified by the famous observer of American democracy Alexis de Tocqueville? Or, are elected officials expected to
Some say a dictatorship is better because the people don’t know what is and isn’t good for them. Others might claim that a democracy isn’t necessarily the better option because there could be a lot hidden between the lines that people vote for without a second through. Both can be abused, and both can be
In addition, referendums are a form of direct democracy, consequently giving the public control over decision making. Not only this, but some would say these clear answers to specific questions can in a sense be seen as "pure democracy". To put if differently, democracy is unmediated by representatives. People would declare referendums as a reminder that democratic authority finds its legitimacy in the consent of the people- the social contract. Hence, giving people the power to choose the answer to a decision can be seen as sticking to the social contract.
For the likes of Lincoln, Pericles and Thomas Paine it is a denial of the democratic ideal to assert that democracy should centre around the activity of political leaders and that, once elected, such leaders should be left alone to take the important decisions on our behalf. Proponents of this aggregative model of democracy, such as Max Weber, argue that, ‘Democracy means the people electing a leader and then that leader telling the people to shut up’. Aggregative democracy treats citizens largely as voters whose preferences are already given and merely need to be aggregated through the mechanisms of electoral representation. Indeed there are currently many citizens of the Banbridge District Council area who believe that their local Councillors have adopted Weber’s view to democracy as little or no public deliberation takes place on important Council issues in between elections. This essay argues that the decision by the Council to unilaterally reduce the collection of ‘Black bins’ from once a fortnight to once a month without any public deliberation is a very localised example of Weber’s view of democracy.
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
You can be blamed or voted out of your position, both of which ensure the removal of the leader from abusing society. Besides, most people in society do not like to be abuse of power. The term of government and of democracy are independent terms and do not, from what I can see, depend on one another. What is likely required for the masses of people, as we see in "modern" world societies, is an established system of government. Where there is a need for an established system of government, it will likely be established whether or not, it has the consent of the people.
Although I am not yet able to vote I have already asked myself this while coming up with only two answers which are: I’ve decided who I want to lead us and that I’ve gained independence. First being that I’ve decided I want to lead us. If the person we vote for wins then they could possibly affect our future, such as if the president we voted for gets elected then he could do things such as sending our country to war. The president could also do many other things that could either positively or negatively affect our future if they have help from someone such as the congress like signing bills into laws which could range from drugs being illegal to killing people being legal. Second being I’ve gained independence.