The Labour Party won a huge overall majority of seats in 1945 and this shocked the political establishment of Britain. This majority was primarily the product of the British electoral system, since Labour failed to win even half the total of votes cast. However Labour did poll more votes than the Conservatives and any explanation of why must focus on the positive appeal of Labour and/or the lack of appeal of the Conservatives. Many commentators have focussed on the election campaign itself, though the fundamental period for the rise of Labour and the decline of the Conservatives was in fact World War Two and the years leading to it. In Britain we use the First Past the Post (FPTP) system.
When evaluating the arguments raised on both sides it I believe that the Electoral College should be replaced by a national popular vote. An argument that exposes the weakness of the Electoral College and why it should be replaced by a national popular vote is because the ‘winner takes all’ system distorts the results of the elections. There have been various results in which the popular vote did not reflect the results of the Presidential election. A notorious example of how distorted results can be under the Electoral College is that of Bush and Al Gore in 2000. Though Al Gore won the popular vote by 48.4% Bush won the votes of the Electoral College which resulted in him winning the Presidential election.
Illinois has a population of 12 million people and 22 electoral votes. This means have one vote per every 550,000 voters. This is a very unbalanced form of voting, not capturing the popular vote at all. Durbin also points out that we use a direct popular election system for Senators, Governors, Congressmen, and mayors, but not for our President. The Founding Fathers knew during their time that people running for congress lived closer to the people voting for them, so at that time, the people voted directly for them but only for them.
–Clear definition of constitution, list some of the strengths and weaknesses in your introduction A strength of Britain having an uncodified constitution is that its nature is flexible. Meaning that the government is not limited with their ability to change governing arrangements by having to go through a lengthy and complex and procedure, as the USA have to go through to just change something within their constitution, as such their constitution has only been changed 27 tines altogether since it was created in 1787. As a result the labour party were able to bring the European Convention on Human Right into British law in 1998 with the Human Rights Act. Cameron will also be able to repeal the Human Rights Act is wants to and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, due to Dicey’s rule of law Don’t you mean his view of parliamentary supremacy?) which is one of the sources of the constitution with one of the three rules being that no Parliament is able to bind a future Parliament.
They feared once these principles were established they could be extended to ‘soak the rich’ and even out the unfair distribution of wealth in Edwardian Britain. The land taxes were especially controversial, as they would not actually produce a great deal of tax revenue. The Lords denounced this proposal as a ‘class war’. The Lords believed it was their duty to restrain governments from making sweeping changes the electorate had not voted on. A final less important reason was that the Lords believed that it was the fault of the poor that they were destitute in the first place.
• Nixon was the first president-elect since 1848 to not bring in one house of congress for his party in an initial election. • Wallace did worse than expected. He won 9,906,473 popular votes. • Wallace had also demonstrated the power of the continuing power of the populist politics. The Obituary of Lyndon Johnson • Lyndon Johnson returned to his ranch in January 1969 and died there four years later.
Is Someone Out for your head? The National Razor Rumors spread about the use of the guillotine. How much is too much? Should power truly be held by fear and is it really more humane? Hundreds upon thousands Lives are being lost.
Especially we need to recognize that the Internet is a public environment everyone has access to. As Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. argued, “Protecting this kind of Internet speech posed ‘a very grave threat of domestic violence” (Denniston). Elonis’ case is definitely different from Virginia v. Black in 2003 because burning a cross does not show a clear message and only involves a limited amount of people, but Elonis’ words online can speak clearly that he would do something and convey to a much wider audience, making them fear and nervous. If everyone is free to speak any violence word as Elonis did online, the society will be in completely chaos. Everyone will live in fear because saying terrorism is all right.
Howard’s leadership was based on ‘strong leadership,’ strong leaders claim that they can create national unity amongst other things. This is how Howard won the 2001 and 2004 elections. In 2007, John Howard lost the election because the voters failed to see him as the best leader. By March 2007, Rudd had the best poll results ever for an Opposition leader. This was because the government had problems with their policies and mandates, also because voters believed that John Howard had been Prime Minister for too long.
Outline Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids are used to help judges interpret pieces of legislation and apply it to cases. They can also help define words within legislation so parliament’s intentions can be met. Intrinsic Aids, also known as internal aids are anything within the Act itself that can help judges with the interpretation of a particular section. The Long title is one of the most useful Intrinsic, it describes in general terms the purpose of the Act which makes complex words easier to understand so the true purpose of the Act can is met. The Explanatory memorandum is also very useful in finding parliaments true intention, an Explanatory memorandum accompanies all statutes since 1998 and sets out the purpose of the Act.