It is logical to assume that a Prime Minister’s degree of power will be very dependent on the size of majority his party enjoys in the House of Commons. In the case of Blair, he enjoyed a very large one, with 63.4% of the seats filled by Labour MPs. Since the party won the right to govern, the Prime Minister carries all the elective authority with him. Also, with little opposition, it allows the Prime Minister to exercise his powers more efficiently, which would undoubtedly be very helpful when wanting to pass new laws. Cameron in turn, should expect to enjoy less power as he had to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, in order to achieve a majority.
To what extent is the Westminster electoral system in need of reform? The current system used in the UK general elections is the First Past the Post electoral system. It is a simple plurality system- meaning a candidate only needs one more vote than his/her opponent in order to win a constituency seat in a single member constituency. Although the First Past the Post system has a strong constituency link and nearly always produces a majority government which means a strong government, its negatives include many wasted votes and a lack of clear representation. This is why some argue that the current Westminster electoral system is in desperate need of reform.
My partner and I strongly urge you to negate the resolution due to the following contentions: Contention #1: The Electoral College can enhance the ideologies of the Democratic and Republican parties. The Electoral College’s two party system encourages political stability. Because third party presidential candidates cannot easily win the election, the Democratic and Republican parties will assimilate and embrace the views of the third party. Due to this compromise of ideologies, the national population’s support will increase, providing more accuracy and political stability in the selection of presidents. According to the Missouri Election Board in Jackson County, “..We end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views.” In the direct popular vote, many presidents representing minor, regional parties will run, causing problems such as the disruption from an electoral majority.
Whereas what works best for the German culture is a multi party dual executive form of government where a majority of the power is located in the chancellor and the other branches are not quite as important but still serve their rolls to help the government to move forward. Ultimately, the distinguishing features of the two governments may seem small but they are actually quite significant and are the result of the two nations drastic difference in the way their relative histories progressed. The American presidential system is the result of the breaking away from the Great Britain; and the German presidential system is a direct result of the fall of Hitlers Nazi Germany. Both forms of democracy rose as a solution to tyranny and oppression and consequently produced two of the worlds front running
The central government can create local governments if they are overloaded with work. There is no confusion over power; the central government has it all. They are a more unified and stable country. The disadvantages to a unitary government, they may not be familiar with all the problems with their people and they are not able to meet all their needs, and concerns. A confederate government is a coalition of independent states the government has the power to handle only those matters that the member states have assigned to it.
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.
As shown by Documents C and G, Jackson overstepped his Constitutional bounds in each of situation, that of the closure of the Second Bank of America, and that of the Indian Removal. If, as in Documents A and F, a particular section of society needs to fight against the majority, the Constitution, which is designed to provide for public happiness, is being somewhat ignored or misused. Another idea we’ll consider is that they were champions of political democracy. This is a two-sided issue. As compared to their predecessors and contemporaries, they were most certainly the more democratic party.
In today's society, most people are incapable of explaining the differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. In fact, the two parties' ideologies seem to be very much alike; and therefore, people tend to believe that a Republican candidate and a Democratic candidate running for the same office will not make a large difference from one another. Furthermore, both Democrats, the supposedly liberal party, and Republicans, the supposedly conservative party, have been appointed to the highest office, the President of the United States of America. In most cases, the President has been effective in building notable progress in our nation's growth, regardless of the political party that they belong to. Hence, most people believe that the two parties are similar enough that they are practically the same.
This view is ultimately a right wing argument; this is because that the right want a small government which would be ensured by strong checks and balance which promoted gridlock which is against the idea of certain branches being overextended as overextended powers lead to less gridlock which leads to larger government making this issue a right wing one. It can be seen that the powers of the executive have increased far past the intended levels in particular the president’s power can be seen to be increased for example the president has far too much power in terms of foreign policy i.e. the president is allowed to go to war without consulting congress if he/she doesn’t officially declare war, he/she can also negotiate with other foreign entities without the consultation of congress so the president essentially has as much power as they wish in
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. Also, the fact that the current chamber works perfectly well would suggest that it is very unnecessary to make the second chamber elected. Another argument against an elected second chamber is the fact that you would lose all of the expertise that the members of the House of Lords have built up over the years. This knowledge has made them very good at making political decisions that will be for the good of the whole country. However, the fact that they cannot actually prevent a bill from being passed but only delay a bill slightly contradicts this because their expertise can’t be