Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Faced with all this various obstacles, there’s no way the President will ever become too powerful and thus pose a threat to democracy. The Madisonian system (separation of powers and checks and balances) is strong enough to check and prevent such tendencies. In my perspective, the President isn’t ‘strong enough’ to stand up to the diverse interests in the United States and that’s because the Senate overpowers him. Also because the process to get things done is extremely long, frustrating and never reasoned by the people. The President is a human being like you and I.
However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics. The power the Kaiser has was overwhelming because he didnt have to answer to neither the reichstag or the bundesrat, he ultimately has complete utter control over domestic and foreign policy. This would suggest that Wilhelmine Germany was an authoritarian state under the kaisers rule, but many historians such as Wehler suggested his own version of the argument which states that Wilhelmine Germany was in fact shaped by the elites (junkers) and the army which simply controlled the Kaiser from the shadows. In this essay i will discuss these interpretations offering the view that Wilhelmine Germany was an 'authoritarian' state under the rule of elites and ultimately the kaiser. Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers.
Examples, Business Marketing Association (BMA), and Congressional Budget Office (CBO), are insider groups that are more powerful and are practically the part of the establishment. They are able to work closely and elect selected officials in the central and local government. It is not always an advantage since is it deliberated upon those with generally likeminded views to the government of the day. The limitations of the pluralist theory examples include optimism, social, political, economic capitol and overly contingent on the power of competition. Elitist Theory of Power and elitism Analyzed In all cultures and political organizations there is a small class of existence that include rulers and ones’ that make decisions.
Indecisive people can pass on their responsibilities and “pass the buck,” and advisory people can propose their concepts and lobby for acceptance, but the President can ultimately turn to nobody else. Presidents must make the hard decisions. It is a heavy mantle to bear on those presidential shoulders. It is lonely at the top. President Johnson’s “wise men” possessed depth in their areas of expertise beyond that of the President, who was a master mover of legislation to accomplish domestic social programs but very much out of his league in military matters and international relations.
Discuss the claim that the president is merely 'bargainer-in-chief The chief power of the president is the 'power to persuade this is the ability to bargain, encourage, and even cajole but not dictate. The ability of US presidents to get their own way depends on four crucial relationships: Congress, the federal bureaucracy, the Supreme Court and the mass media, as well as the issue of foreign and domestic policy. The president's relationship with Congress is undoubtedly the most crucial. The success of particular presidents, for instance, is often measured in terms of their 'success rate' with Congress, the proportion of their legislative programme that manages to survive congressional scrutiny. However, following the Vietnam War and the
d. Informal powers of the President can contribute to an advantage over Congress because he will be able to persuade the public or persuade congress by negotiations and support. 2a. Litigation is the act or process of bringing about or contesting a lawsuit or all lawsuits collectively. An interest group would choose this technique because their success establishes a firm precedent. Campaign contributions can provide financial resources and can help buy a candidate’s loyalty or support.
One of the most important ways the news media influence politics is through agenda setting. j. Define policy agenda. k. Explain how the national news media engage in agenda setting. l. Explain the primary reason the president tends to have an advantage over Congress in gaining media attention.
Rough Raft Is the current two-party system we have in the United States the best system for distributing power? The US government, in recent years has proven just how ineffective both the democratic and republican parties have become at getting anything helpful or meaningful accomplished, even when the current situation demands it. But an even bigger problem facing voters is there are no alternatives. The two party system in the United States, combined with the electoral college, have created a system where voters are often forced to choose the best of two evils. The most important question here is what should be done about this problem in our current voting system?
Its no surprise that China is one of the most Industrialistic country with over 1, 330, 044, 544 people ( as of July 2008 Source: www.google.com ) which in my scientific analysis says nearly 700, 000, 000 are in the work force and within nearly 100, 000, 000 or less (much, much less) are in agriculture or livestock. Thus this is how China has become one of the worlds super powers. When you look at the numbers it makes no sense. But to a economist (or a really smart person ) the meaning is clear. More people = more workers = more money.