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.
This makes sure that the public’s views and interested are truly presented, rather than being distorted by politicians who want more people to support their party. Another reason as to why we should have more referenda in the UK is that it will politically educate more people. It allows the electorate to become more politically engaged, giving them a stronger incentive to think and act in a political way. It is thought that if there had been more referenda in Wales before the devolution referenda in 1997, there would have been a larger turn out, and therefore a better representation of what the Welsh public actually wanted. Referenda allow for a more responsive government.
Having conferences gives them the opportunity to participate in democracy because from listening to speeches by leaders, voters are more likely to be informed of what policies are going to be implemented by that party if they gain power which would encourage them to vote in the general election. Part B -10 Marks. Explain, with examples the differences between a two-party system and a multi-party system in the UK. A two party system is a system that is dominated by two ‘major; parties that have a roughly equal prospect of winning government power. A multiparty system is a party system in which more than two parties compete for power.
I definitely think that the American primary system should be reformed. There reason why I think this, is because after analyzing the benefits of the current primary system and a potential reform I see more benefits for the citizens in selecting their presidential delegates in a national level than in the current method. It is true that the current primary system allows the American people to familiarize themselves with the potential candidates and that is a good featured.
Pressure groups have had a positive effect on UK democracy. It is clear that though the vast amount of pressure groups that will support and oppose each other, they are able to offer the UK electorate and younger peer groups a vast amount of information. This information should be independent of government beliefs or ideals and so enhances our knowledge
Firstly, back bench MPs are effective because they are a good way of increasing legitimacy and representation in terms of their constituency as they have been voted in by their electorate and therefore should represent the views of those in their constituency. They also hold ‘surgery’s’ where people from their constituency ask the MP questions. This gives the MP an idea of what the people in his constituency are concerned about, meaning they can try and bring up these issues in Parliament, making them effective. However, not all MPs are effective because they do not necessarily represent the views of the people in their constituency who didn’t vote for them. They also are ineffective at representing their constitution because out of 650 MPs, only 147 of them are female, and even fewer are ethnic minorities which means they are not effectively representing the population.
In some cases, the pressure groups even undermine their internal democracy as the minority (the leaders) voices are heard rather than the majority (the members). Pressure groups could be said to promote democracy by educating the electorate. They do this by making them more educated and more informed through political discussions and debates. Pressure groups widen the information available to the public. Without the media and pressure groups, the public would have to rely on information given from a narrow range of sources with limited viewpoints; mostly from the major political parties e.g.
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.
There are pros and cons for public speaking, some cons are if people speak too much, it could jeopardize the security of our country. The establishment of free speech for all citizens is a successful political strategy for everyone; for people who disagree with those in power as well as those who agree. Allowing free speech adds to the marketplace of ideas, and keeps society involved in important issues. If there was not public speech there would be no media, or newspaper, people wouldn’t be informed about things that concern or help citizens. Some individuals are afraid to protest, because people don’t agree with the government, can become dangerous and get out of control, and they can even danger themselves as well as the safety, property, and lives of
This is one reason that the Westminster electoral system is in need of reform- proportional systems deliver a much more representable result which is more democratic and means that all votes have the same value. Another argument in favour of reforming the Westminster Electoral system is that it would create a fairer, multiparty system. Minor parties