However, with the exclusive power, arguably one power of the house is more powerful than the other. It is interesting to note that the common perception of the congress by individuals is that the Senate is far more powerful. In many ways and to an extent, the two houses of congress are co-equal especially as they have five concurrent powers. Firstly, the two houses are equal in the passage of legislation, i.e. before all bills are sent to the president for signature; they must pass through all stages in both Senate and House of Representatives for approval.
The system is used globally, and 49% of countries use it, therefore it is a familiar system, and it second most widely used in the world following the party list system. The results after an F.P.T.P election can be announced very quickly after the polls closing, and the system allows voters to express a view on which party they think should form the next government. One of the reasons that F.P.T.P should be kept in the House of Commons is because it is
This was used to satisfy both the large and small states in the legislature. There would be two houses that made up the legislative branch. The Upper House, The Senate, would have equal representation among the states. Each state got two Senators. The Lower House, The House of Representatives, would have representation based on population.
Shifting the power of Congress created competition between the two parties to dominate the Congress. The competition produced rifts within the parties, creating a third party movement and split ticket voting. Split ticket voting limited the parties’ power and influenced congress to embrace the issues of the nation and not just their parties’ issues. The second major change in politics was shift from a patronage to merit system. The patronage system is a system in which a winner in an election reward jobs to his followers regardless of their abilities.
Appointment by legislature was considered, as that was the method most states used to elect the governor; however, delegates feared it would upset the balance of the three branches of government by making the president beholden to congress (Johnson 12-13). They then considered a direct election by the people. This method was viewed as being the most democratic, but presented a myriad of problems. Most significantly, small state delegates were apprehensive to a direct vote by the people, as they worried votes in their states would be overpowered by votes in larger, more populous states (Johnson 12). With appointment by legislature considered a threat to the balance of powers, and a direct vote
Evaluate the arguments in favour of adopting a proportional electoral system in the elections to the West Minster Parliament Currently in the UK we use a 'first past the post' electoral system in which the party who wins the most amount of seats across the UK wins the election. Under this system, each constituency has it's own member of parliament who stands for election in that constituency, where the people in that constituency vote for the MP they want. However, this system has come under scrutiny in recent times as it is seen as being unfair, and instead a proportional electoral system has been suggested to replace the current one. Proportional systems work on the basis that the percentage of votes corresponds with the percentage of seats and power that a party will gain. This system tends to favour and give more opportunities to smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who currently feel that the first past the post system is unfair towards them and numerous other parties.
It may be said that the parties currently in the House of Commons represent a good cross-section of political opinion. At a general election, in most constituencies voters have a choice of at least three political parties, and usually five or six. For example in the UK, the two main parties are the Conservatives and the Labour Party, with the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Green Party trailing behind. This creates a pluralist democracy which is ultimately incredibly representative as it is a system in which the freedom of choice is widely available and the electorate have a greater chance of finding a party that represents their interests best. Another argument for Parliament being representative is that it’s usually responsive to public opinion.
Recent research has suggest that the senate has now become the more moderate house. Jeff Flake, a previous congressman but now senator, was one of the most conservative members in the house, and According to DW-Nominate scores, which look at a member of Congress’s roll call votes, he was in the 98th percentile for conservatism among House Republicans in his final year in the chamber. However, Flakes election somewhat changed in view point, he now became a moderate, and he wasn't the only one, Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada was in the 80th percentile for conservatism among House Republicans in the 112th Congress but in the 30th percentile for conservatism among Senate Republicans in the 113th Congress. There were a number of other as well but whats interesting about this is that moderates in senate still seem to have influence, the huge variety of ideologies in a states somewhat force moderate to live on, solely on the fact of re-election. The number of moderate in the senate, outweigh that of the tea party caucus, 3-1.
I believe that this principal of the Constitution is very important because without this put into effect the senate of the president could become much too powerful and overthrow the whole government and we would be in a dictatorship or we would be in a direct democracy or some other form of government. The second principal of the Constitution that I believe that is the most important is that of Checks and Balances. This Principal makes it so that each branch of government has some different control over another type of government. This principal is important to society today and I believe that our government would fall apart without it, because without it the branches of government would be able to do what they wanted and they would easily be able to become much to powerful that’s why veto’s and overrule veto’s were created. Also that is why the President is able to appoint judges in the court and how the courts are able to declare other branches unconstitutional.
Reality is that the electoral college can produce an undemocratic outcome, even if only rarely. Therefore, the electoral college should be ended because it has the potential to be undemocratic. Secondly, it is also the case that votes do not, constitutionally, have to be allocated to the winner of the vote in that state. Citizens believe, for example, that they are casting a ballot for Obama or Romney in November, but in actual fact they are voting for electors who will meet in December and then vote