The New World Times How will the constitution affect the presidential elections? In terms of this, the constitution will affect the elections because the federalists and the anti-federalists will oppose to vote for the right representative but because that the representative comes from that class…… the classes will only vote for their representative. This attempt will trouble the nation with election issues and pretty soon… the constitution will be abandoned set America for a monarchy. Editor’s opinion In my opinion the U.S constitution provided more detailed political laws that was able to help out the economy itself to prevent form having a dictatorship. However the constitution first needed to be discussed before being passed out
The delegate model of representation poses a threat to the form of representative democracy used on the UK as the public will have more say on issues which undermines the Burkean model. Likewise it undermines parliamentary sovereignty as parliament is already bypassed by the government, referendums only make it worse. An example of this is when Labour were voted in and in their manifesto contained a referendum on devolution however the result didn’t turn out in their favour in contradiction of the government, further undermining their power. Moreover the public may not be well advised/trusted to make decisions on issues such as capital punishment as the polls show a majority in favour of it, however MPs can see the faults in the use of the death penalty and vote against it. Also the public may not be educated on some of the deeper issues such as the role of central banks in relation to a single currency.
The endorsement groups offer bribes and ask for unnecessary promises to the politicians running for office. The temptation of falling into these traps is monstrous. According to Obama, these politicians feel that if they do not accept these bribes or arguments then they will lose out on endorsement deals as well as votes. Taking endorsements are not bad in anyway. However, a company endorses a certain individual for reasons such as political similarities or to help promote their product.
First, when the United States conducts relations abroad and appears divided, allies are less likely to trust its promises and enemies are more likely to predict its weaknesses. [71] Second, elite opinion has a significant impact on the public’s perspective of foreign policy. [71] In contrast to problems such as unemployment, inflation and crime, where elite viewpoints are not as influential, Americans are less informed of overseas engagements. [70][71][72] While a difference of viewpoints between political parties is a foundational aspect of a democratic political system, political polarization has exacerbated this divergence as “it was not inevitable that foreign policy would become, as it has, the single most polarizing aspect of American politics.”[73] Subsequently, the United States currently does not have any fundamental agreement on foreign policy and there is a basic discord about the United States’ function in the
This is very important in their job as they will only look for views to help the country, even if those are unpopular. Whereas if there was an elected second chamber their views would always be held accountable, but more importantly then some of their revisions may not be what is best for the country, but what the populous believe to be important, which removes the whole objectivity of the revising chamber. This issue could have been questioned under many unpopular parliamentary decisions such as with the Iraq War in 2003, where many of the voters would likely be against it as seen by the many demonstrations, whereas an expert in the Military in House of Lords may believe that it is possible to win the war, however at the next vote his skills would likely be lost when he wouldn’t be re-elected. A wholly elected upper chamber would also pose several problems in regards to the Lords’ expertise. As at the moment, the upper chamber is comprised of experts in their fields leading to high quality debates, if not higher than in the Commons.
Another limitation referring to the source could be the media becoming very hostile. They could portray the Prime Minister as a very weak and unworthy character which could affect his personal image, but also the image of the party they lead. 2b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers (10). The prerogative powers that the Prime Minister enjoys are the extensive arbitrary powers that they enjoy. These powers were first exercised by the monarch but they are now exercised by the prime minister.
The next example of something undemocratic that Jackson did was the Spoils System. In the Spoils System Jackson appointed unqualified people to his cabinet just because they were his loyal supporters. He said that they needed to have people that weren’t just the loyal and the elite but that were just an excuse. That was undemocratic because Jackson didn’t have what was best for the people in mind. That should be the highest priority being a president and in this situation it wasn’t.
Some issues put forward by the government may be too complicated for the people to understand, which means they may have difficulty deciding on their opinion due to lack of knowledge. Referendums may encourage giving power to the people, however, making important decisions should probably be left for the elected MP’s to conclude, simply for the fact that they are experts. Another advantage of using referendums is that they stop the government from making decisions which aren’t suited, or are unpopular with the public when an issue raised has had a large population vote ‘no’. If the government change a referendum’s verdict, then the public are less likely to conform to it which means the government have no choice in which to carry out their final decision. The second disadvantage of holding more referendums is that
Edmund Burke believed that the French Revolution was pointless, and that the revolutionist had risen up against a relatively liberal king and that their actions would result in other kings becoming paranoid and tyrannical. Alexis de Tocqueville saw that democracy in America seemed disorganized, but he also gained a sense that it was a stable and prosperous democracy so that he can gain an insight into how it worked. Tocqueville studies show that democratic America, mostly focuses on the structure of government and the institutions that would help maintain a free America, his focus on individuals however led him to say that individuals were affected by the democratic mentality. Tocqueville’s work finds that the main problems of a democracy are a high portion of power in the legislative
So the tug-of-war between the president and Congress is a special part (271). The framers had never envisioned that the presidency of the United States of America would become such a democratic office. They were afraid of tyranny and the pressure of the public opinion and made the Electoral College in a way that its members would be chosen in a manner decided by the state legislatures (270). They realized that the instead of letting the people elect the members, the state legislatures would elect the members by themselves. The electors from the states would than elect the country’s president from the leading citizens.