Filibuster, “a type or parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal,” is one of the causes for the brokenness of the Senate. An example of a filibuster which halted the Senate is Rand Paul’s filibuster on the vote of President Obama’s nomination for the head of CIA. Just because Rand Paul disapproved
In order for many bills to get passed there is often a need for compromise between members of Congress as such favours are often exchanged in order to gain crucial votes on legislation. This complicates and lengthens the legislative process because it could result in other Congressmen rejecting the bill. An example of such is in 2005, where a $223 million earmark was included in a bill to provide funding for reconstruction efforts
It is clear that pressure groups do gain influence over election results as there are concerns that pressure groups play a too significant role in elections, potentially making politicians more responsive to their agenda than to the concerns of the voters. This concern has transpired due to a pressure group tactic that helps gain influence with those elected that monitors a politicians’ response to a pressure groups’ agenda. The tactic involves pressure groups issuing “reports cards,” on how much support their agenda has received, those with the highest grades can expect considerable support in their campaigns. This tactic allows pressure groups to constantly influence election results as politicians know the consequences of their actions if they go against the pressure groups agenda. For example in 2006 Republican Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio received a grade F from the NRA with the group vowing to punish him in the 2006 election and contributed to his defeat.
This operation could cause for senators to accept passages against their desire. It could also get more than intended for proponents of this resolution. This procedure is very lengthy and is also why the resolution will be brought to a quick vote when all senators silence. Since it is a possibility that the minority Democrats would not like this idea they could possibly threaten with a filibuster or actually invoke one. This can involve many blocking tactics.
It would also prevent the government to interfere with the constitution unfairly, as it would be protected by the existence of the higher law and the ‘supermajority’. Secondly, a codified constitution would allows for neutral interpretation, which means that the constitution would be policed by senior judges, who would ensure that the provisions of the constitution are properly upheld by other public bodies. Thirdly, a codified constitution would protect rights. Individual liberty would be more securely protected by a codified constitution because it would define the relationship between the state and the citizens. One way these rights could be defined is through a bill of rights that specifies the rights and freedoms of the individual and also defines the legal extent the civil liberty.
This means the President can reject a law. But, the Legislative Branch can also check the president. They can do this to limit his power of rejecting too many laws. Their way of doing this is to override the Executive’s veto. They do this with a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.
Pressure groups have had a positive effect on UK democracy. It is clear that though the vast amount of pressure groups that will support and oppose each other, they are able to offer the UK electorate and younger peer groups a vast amount of information. This information should be independent of government beliefs or ideals and so enhances our knowledge
Gerrymandering is very similar to redistricting except for the key fact that gerrymandering is the manipulation of district lines to gain a electoral advantage or hinder the other party. A simple change in a district map can affect political affairs greatly; nonetheless, someone who gerrymanders deliberately and unjustly attempt to redraw district lines to boost the possibility of being elected into office. Incumbents generally practice gerrymandering for the sake of remaining in office, thus they have motivation to redraw district lines that are likely to re-elect them, occasionally separating
Third parties are willing to touch subjects that pose threats to the main parties, subjects that are either too controversial such as abortion or too hard for either major party to come to a consensus such as handling the national debt. If either the Democrats or the Republicans stray too far from their middle ground they will lose votes , yes the Democrats have taken more liberal stands and the latter more conservative but both make sure to stay in the middle or as close to the middle to seem appealing to a larger number of citizens. (Citrin) Having a two party system places restrictions on viewpoints because it has to be made more general to accommodate the public. So an argument is made that third party will provide a purer democracy seeing as the current system makes some Americans feel marginalized. But what is this feeling that marginalizes Americans?
* Having control of the past allows the government to have control of the future. * The future is a direct consequence of the past. * The party will feed them lies about the past, to gain more support for their political agenda by portraying the past in a negative light. * Limiting memory, to limit knowledge of the past. * Makes control of people easier, as they will be more like to support the Party if they think the party has brought positive changes.