Do political parties help or hinder democracy in the UK Political parties can be seen to help and hinder democracy in the UK, however in my opinion I feel that they help democracy more than hinder it, as political parties give the electorate a varied range of choice along with many other democracy enhancing factors. One of the main reasons as to why I believe political parties help democracy is because they provide the general public with a diverse choice of ideologies that can gain power, ranging from the conservative party to the monster raving loony party. The electorate can vote for a candidate in a party that they feel shares their beliefs. However, some people may argue that the three main parties (conservative, liberal democrat and labour) have all moved very central and now share similar ideologies detracting from the idea of “choice”. To this I would say that the parties may have centralised slightly, but their core values still exist, which is what most people are interested in.
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.
The system arose gradually as states began to feel that the previous method of allowing party officials to decide was undemocratic in a modern society. That the current system is democratic and encourages public participation in politics is a particular strength of primaries. Adjoined to this is that it places no restrictions on who can stand, however, despite its benefits many people have criticised the system and are pressing for its reform. Emphasising the huge costs, frontloading and regionalisation of primaries, critics state that for all its claims to be democratic it prohibits the candidates from competing on an equal level. Equally the low levels of turnout in primaries suggest that many people are not interested in the primaries and raises questions over the legitimacy of any winner.
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
Anything that goes against what the corporate powers that be is demonized and twisted into a different form through their media outlets to create something that the ill-informed will swallow it no questions asked. Anyone that speaks out against what is obviously wrong with the system is turned into an enemy, while the one’s violating our rights and freedoms are treated like benevolent kings. Recently there have been many successful efforts to subjugate the poorer voters in this country. These measures have passed and it will become difficult for poorer and elderly people to vote in this country. The reason for this is simple, poor people and minorities are more likely to vote for Obama in the coming election and they have more numbers than those that will not.
The two main political parties in the United States, the Democratic and Republican parties, have opposing social, economic, and political views. Because of the opposition, it is possible for different views to be enacted into governmental matters. It is impossible for all people to agree in a democratic nation, and because of this the institutionalization of political parties allows for different views to be heard and for change to occur in order to satisfy the people. If one party’s views were the only opinions heard in the government, the government would in turn only have one source of power and therefore be despotic. The institutionalization of political parties avoids despotism.
Also it would easily become outdated and fail to respond to the constantly changing political environment. If the UK’s constitution became codified then there would be a risk of judicial tyranny. Judges are not the best people to enforce the constitution as they are unelected and socially unrepresentative. If it became codified then it would be reflective of the values and preferences of senior judges not of the general public who the rules mainly affect. The UK’s current democratic rule has been successful for a long period of time and changes in the constitution come about because of democratic pressure from the public.
The merits and draw backs of the Electoral College voting method are: A big reason third party candidates do not work well in America is that they are usually not really competitive for winning electros. The main weakness of one candidate winning the popular vote, and the other the electoral vote is the effect such a result can have on the presidency. Every ambitious man and woman has a powerful incentive to find a home in one of the two major parties. The merit and draw backs are that winner takes all even though the other party may have had good ideas. The voters who voted for the guy who lost has then revote
The sad fact is that the United States system of funding presidential campaigns remains elitist and undemocratic. A public funding system that would make the process more equitable does exist, but is largely unused because it is badly underfunded. In the absence of public funds that would allow them to be competitive, political office seekers depend upon a relative handful of individuals whose large contributions make up the bulk of the money they raise. Special interests by spreading their wealth to all contestants are able to reduce the likelihood that they will be held accountable for their misdeeds. In conclusion, there are various advantages and disadvantages presented on whether campaign financing will ultimatelly benefit.
California State and Local Government Direct democracy is a way for average people like you and I to take care of public issues rather than leaving it up to representatives. The main objection to direct democracy is that the general public is a poor position to judge the appropriate actions of government. The public as a whole is not as interested or informed as their elected representatives. Much of the public only has an apparent understanding of most political issues and is likely to be swayed one way or another. Direct Democracy has been practiced in Switzerland, United States and in the New England Town Meetings.