However, looking at the statistics such as Bill Clintons presidency, in the first 2 years which was a united government, Congress exercised limited oversight, and when needed to, asked softball questions, however , when Republicans took over Congress, things got much harder as they seek to hold the President to account, and after a while, impeach. Although this shows that things are more different when it is a united or divided government, Congress still has a task to do in which they must do oversight on President, so, it being united or divided government should not affect the task Congress are suppose to do, as they are an independent
Today in America we have two political parties who in which are constantly in competition, so that they may implement their own ideas and beliefs into our government. This feuding between political parties is nothing the U.S hasn’t seen since its beginning, starting with the First Party System’s rise and fall in 1789 through 1825. This time period is known as the time of the First Party System in American history. This started with a couple of recognizable figures on both sides from our country’s history; such as Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party going against the Democratic Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. These two parties began as national politics but in order to gain more supporters they expanded to
Do you think that Americans need the Electoral College to elect their president? (Possible follow up question for students against the electoral college process) What would be your suggestion(s) for change regarding this process? No, because the only purpose it serves is including those who didn't vote just by being a resident of the state that voted for one candidate or another. I think we should do it purely by popular vote because that way it could try to get those who aren't involved motivation to get involved because that way it makes all states seem important and not just the ones that have the biggest electoral college. Compare how the media has evolved over time from the 1800’s until now in regards to political communication.
Electoral systems are systems of voting, in which people are given a choice and vote for what they want. Electoral systems are mainly judged on whether they are representative, and therefore democratic and fair, whether they form strong governments, so manifesto pledges can be delivered, and whether they retain the MP-constituency link, which is necessary for the redress of grievances, clear representation and accountability. The UK consistently used First Past The Post up until a Labour government was elected in 1997 with an ideology that included modernising the constitution. However, some argue that Labour did this for political gain, so they would maintain strength. Due to this, some alternatives to First Past The Post are already used in the UK; Party List is used in UK European parliamentary elections, Single Transferable Vote (STV) is used in local, regional and European elections in Northern Ireland and for local elections in Scotland, and Additional Member System (AMS) is used in elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Assembly.
The president was still a very powerful figure; he could block new laws by calling a referendum and could rule without the Reichstag in times of emergency (Article 48). In the right hands, Article 48 could work to Germany’s advantage by ensuring a swift response to a crisis like a war. The president, like before, could still appoint his ministers and chancellor. The Reich cabinet and chancellor, were under Article 54 of the constitution accountable to the Reichstag and had to resign if they lost the Reichstag’s confidence. The New parliament set up was to be made up of 2 houses; The Reichsrat and the Reichstag.
As such, the Constitution underlies both the positive and negative functions of the separation of powers. For without some idea of what the branches' duties are, it is impossible to know when and how to defend their rights and their independence. This argument is not disproved by subsequent developments in American politics, in particular the rise of political parties. It is true that the Constitution of 1787 had to be amended to accommodate the practice of presidential and vice presidential candidates running for office on the same party ticket. The Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, changed the method of voting in the Electoral College by requiring the electors to cast separate ballots for President and Vice President.
He refers to the “majority” and its “absolute sovereignty as the essence of democratic government: in a democracy, nothing outside of the majority is capable of mounting resistance to it.” He goes on to explain that legislatures will always “respond most readily to the will of the majority.” That is important, as the legislative branch is elected directly by the people and “thus constituted, the legislatures have acquired almost all powers of government.” Perhaps Tocqueville’s most important revelation is that of “tyranny of the majority,” that is, the idea that the majority in a government can do whatever it pleases, is a real danger to the sustainability of American democracy. He likens the majority to that of an “all powerful individual with the capability to abuse his power to harm his opponent,” and goes on to say that the majority can do the same. He blames the protections of tyranny by the American government as the thing he detests about democracy in the United States, but is quick to fault the irresistible power available, not the weakness of government as perceived in Europe. Legislative instability and the fact that almost every American constitution has been amended in the last 30 years and that there is no state that hasn’t modified its legal principles are seen as weaknesses that could prevail into a tyranny of the majority. It’s safe to say that an
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
Proponents of the UK and US voting methods also often cite the lack of a credible alternative as a reason for the retention of the current systems. In the UK, national elections are held when the incumbent government chooses to call an election. This differs significantly from the USA where political office is held on a fixed term basis. When a general election is called each constituency holds an election to decide their Member of Parliament (MP) using the first past the post system. If a party gains a majority it will be offered the chance to form government by the Queen.
The Importance of Voting Voting is a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially: one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office. The question is why is it important to vote? Being able to vote was not a right. Everyone could not vote centuries ago until 1971 when the Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 and gave all Americans the right to vote. Many fought for, marched for, and died for over the ability to vote centuries ago; but several key reasons will explain why voting is such an important thing to do.