UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest. In light of these developments many UK citizens now want to be protected from the frequently exposed dangers of an uncodified constitution. On this basis it is fair to evaluate citizens need for safety overcomes the need for flexibility, thus a codified constitution is now needed to a large extent. Some argue the UK does not currently need a codified constitution because they already have a fragmented constitution. Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed.
Direct democracy allows the electorate to have more opportunities to take part in the political process, as forms of direct democracy such as referendums, canvassing, protesting, joining pressure groups and boycotting products; allow for the electorate to choose a form of participation rather than only being able to vote after governmental terms are served by parties, therefore direct democracy would moot Jean Jacques Rousseau's opinion that “The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of parliament”4. As it allows the citizens to be able to participate in many forms and at any time. In support to this, statistics show that forms of direct democracy and non electoral participation are rising among the public. The percentage of citizens that took part in boycotting products for ethical reasons rose to 31% in 2011 from 4% in 1984. The number of people who contacted the media for a
Majoritarian democracy is a democracy based upon majority rule of a society's citizens. Countries such as the UK, USA and Canada operate on the basis of representative democracy where the people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives. Other countries such as Uruguay, Switzerland and Latin America operate on the basis of direct democracy where people decide upon policy initiatives directly. Source A suggests that the people (voters) are sovereign and what that they have the final say whereas Source B suggests the opposite in that the people feel “politicians are failing and disconnected from the British people”. Democracy means “power to the people” and Source A suggests that this is what is happening and the people are happy with the voting system.
Outline Although the founding of the Constitution was a revolutionary, positive turning-point in American history, the US Constitution has a few unconstitutional and democratic shortcomings. Introduction In order to understand the shortcomings of democracy of the US Constitution, is it is important to know the background of its’ founding and how each article serves our country. Federalist No. 10, written by James Madison, asserts the importance of having the image of a democracy without its real substance. There seems to have been a very strong opposition towards democracy at the Constitutional Convention, although the framers were in the midst of creating democratic principles to appeal to the majority of the country.
This is why some argue that the current Westminster electoral system is in desperate need of reform. There are many arguments in favour of reforming the current First Past the Post electoral system to a more proportional system, such as the Single Transferable Vote, the Closed Party List System, and the Additional Member System. This is also known as electoral fairness. Supporters of Proportional Representation argue that a party’s strength should reflect the support it has in the country- which is essential to a democracy. The current First Past the Post system leads to an unfair system of representation.
Presidential Term Limits A presidential term limit is a legal restriction on how many terms an elected president may serve in office. These limits vary upon different states. Most governments have enforced these restrictions due to the fear that one individual will hold too much power, which in theory is undemocratic. However, because the presidential elections are still existent, the people of a state have the power to either change leadership or keep the incumbent in power. That’s the great thing about democracy; the people are allowed to choose any leader they feel is best through election.
Demos and Crasos: Power and People. It derives from giving the power to run the country to the people. Some may say that there are ways of improving democracy in the UK, whereas others say there is no point in changing anything if it works. In this essay I intend to look at whether it should be changed and critically analyse each point to make an unbiased and justified decision. One potential way in which democracy could be improved is to have more frequent elections.
Introduced by government when we need to change our constitution or make a decision on a controversial issue where government needs approval of electorate. If the party in power's mandate was not very big, the party didn't have enough support. If a Referendum is held makes the government look stronger. Extending the wider use of referendums will affect democracy in the UK, this essay will explain if using referendums more often will improve democracy in the UK. Increasing the use of referendums will help make the system more like a direct democracy.
I argue that to some extent the UK has a flexible constitution, and Giussani’s statement is partly correct. The various sources which make up our constitution would suggest that it is flexible and can be changed, however other core principles have been established over centuries and are deeply embedded into our society.Good opening The UK constitution is flexible. One source of the UK constitution is statute, which can be defined as a written law passed by a legislative body. There are important statutes which have made changes to the UK constitution. An example is the Bill of Right 1689 which aimed to impose limitations on the powers of the crown and its relationship with parliament.
They also have a number of hereditary peers (although there will no longer be any hereditary peers appointed. There have been many calls to make the House of Lords into an elected chamber as people say that the fact that it is unelected reduces the democracy of the United Kingdom and that it is unfair to have an unelected as the peers may not actually represent the views of the people. However, there are also many arguments as to why the House of Lords should remain unelected. The first and possibly most convincing argument is the fact that an elected second chamber would actually be completely pointless as it would be exactly the same and the House of Commons. This means that instead of making the House of Lords elected, it would probably be more practical just to get rid of it all together and just have the House of Commons.