Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
On the other hand, the single-issue parties, they only focus on only one public policy matter. The chapter also talks about President’s party is almost always more solidly united and better well-organized compare with other major party. However, competition often caused the leadership group in the party out of power. Federalism is a major reason for the decentralized nature of the two major political parties and also the nominating process is also a major cause of party decentralization. Often, the parties will fight with each other and compete with each other within their party during the nominating process.
This is amplified by the fact that the larger pressure groups can leave many smaller ones in their shadow. For example, the British Stammering Association is a small pressure group with a good cause but one that many people will not have heard of due to its lack of funds and support. Many say that pressure groups holding the government to account and challenging authority is a sign of a healthy democracy. After all, a democracy is a system of government where decisions are arrived at by majoritarian principles. If a certain group of people do not feel that they are being represented then a democracy has to be able to recognise them for anything to change.
This whole idea reinforces the idea of a two- party system as a third party finds it difficult to break through the barrier into proper Government yet it does make it more multi-party than that of the American system with the only real chances being with the Democrats and Republicans. Yet
ADVANTAGES OF REFERENDUM The main reason referendums have become so popular is because they are seen to boost democracy among citizens. The making of law and important decisions that affect the state is not a
A merit of this process lay in the fact that whilst turnout is low, those who are committed to the result of the election do turn out. Hence, caucuses tend to favour more ideological candidates compared to voters in the alternative primary system. In 2008, Republican candidate Ron Paul who is on the libertarian wing of his party had some of his strongest showings in caucus states. For example, he won 21% in the North Dakota caucuses and 19% in Maine caucuses. This exemplifies their significance as it means that a candidate elected in a caucus state is essentially in line with the true ideology of the party and some of the party's most committed participants- who, pivotally invest a lot of time and money which is vital.
Furthermore, minor parties which secure a large number of votes, Liberal Democrats, will command a more reflective percentage of the seats in the Commons as each vote cast will be viewed with equal value over the whole country meaning a minority vote could no longer decide which party dominates the Commons. Overall, it will make the House of Commons more democratic but also at the same time making it more legitimate and giving it greater authority as the people votes actually reflect more in the government of the day. However there are some who do not like the idea of Proportional representation as they believe that by giving minority parties a greater representation will reduce the chances of one party dominating, as to some
The FPTP electoral system doesn’t allow fair representation as it only allows the winner to take the seat in any constituency, this means that parties that have a large share of the votes, don’t win seats accordingly. However it allows for a better link between MP’s
First we will take a look at the positive outcomes for citizens and society as a whole if this type of program was set up. First citizens would have more say in the process of laws being decided and may actually help in the process since many government officials do not have the time or resources to go over every page in the laws they are reviewing or signing in. Also citizens would have more control over something they may completely disagree with, for example the recent decisions to insert more stimulus money towards the economy would more strongly be rejected by a citizen based vote than a Democratic majority based Congress. Also a system like this would bring our system closer to a federalist based system on which our founders wanted our society to be and would take away some control of our government branches and would give states even more say in crucial decision making processes. This would make it much more difficult for governments to grow and enact more control over its citizen's daily lives, issues and
This facilitates a slower and more deliberative legislative process. An advantage of this is that minority groups have more opportunities to protect their interests by voicing out their opinions, which will be reflected by the legislators in the congress. They are free to stand on the minority side or even antagonistic to the president during the discussion of different issues. Therefore, the policy may take time to be ultimately adopted but is more likely to be a good one, and the president may not be able to guarantee the delivery of campaign promises in most cases. However, the downside is that some social problems, including some urgent ones, can be unresolved for a long period of time as arguments shuffle between the legislature and the executive.