Appointment by legislature was considered, as that was the method most states used to elect the governor; however, delegates feared it would upset the balance of the three branches of government by making the president beholden to congress (Johnson 12-13). They then considered a direct election by the people. This method was viewed as being the most democratic, but presented a myriad of problems. Most significantly, small state delegates were apprehensive to a direct vote by the people, as they worried votes in their states would be overpowered by votes in larger, more populous states (Johnson 12). With appointment by legislature considered a threat to the balance of powers, and a direct vote
The positive side is that for the most part, new stations will broadcast the truth. This helps insures that the people know the true pros and cons of the two major candidates, instead of just the paid advertising. News reporting also has adverse effects, they tend to only display and talk about the democratic and republican parties and thus only show two or even only one side on a specific issue. This can be extremely bad for the American people. If the people don't know all the different potential solutions, how can they be expected to choose the best one?
A caucus would provide the party organizations with a meaningful activity, and give local party activists a real role in the nominating process. Given the weaknesses of political parties these days, a caucus could provide an impetus for party building and party activity, long missing from contemporary politics. The word "caucus" itself comes from the Native People of America and means "to gather together and make a great noise." This seems rather appropriate but this system of electing a presidential nominee is becoming less and less popular as it puts a great deal of power in the hands of local party bosses and the fear is that the beliefs of the people themselves at a local level are not necessarily listened to. By 1980 only 25% of the delegates to the national conventions (coming from 18 states)
Do pressure groups strengthen or weaken democracy? It is extremely difficult to reach a conclusion on whether groups are good or otherwise for democracy but it is important to realise how they can be both beneficial and damaging to it. In debating the matter we face the difficulty that the group’s methods, aims and composition vary significantly and so they cannot all be thrown into the same group. So while we make comments on judgements they are only generalised and do not apply to all groups in all circumstances. Government’s aims are always to please the public, or do the best for the state and so these groups clearly show the government what a certain band of people wish to happen.
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.
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. They will represent regional, localized ideas and have small, decentralized platforms. Under the direct popular vote, it allows presidential candidates with localized ideas take office and neglect the need for national appeal. Anybody with a large base of support would be able to win. The overwhelming majority could be from the presidential
These politicians justify their actions by saying they are performing the people’s will because the people voted for them, thus the people support everything that politician does. The reality is most people don’t vote and those that do may be single issue voters, ignorant voters or full-fledged party backers. But, it is misleading at best to claim anyone has a political mandate to pass bad legislation. Regardless of the issue or one’s position it would be impossible to say that an apathetic voting populous, largely ignorant on the individual issue at hand took a stand on election day by voting for one party or by not voting at all and thus, providing a
In Elizabeth Koberts article, "Searching for the undecided voter" the author descirbes the undecided voter as being a small, but important group that has a reputation of being less knowledgeable about politics. In Joshua Green's article, "Inside the Minds of Undecided Voters" author describes two different groups of undecided voters: the group that follows current events but hasn't chosen a candidate for support and another group of people who don't follow the news. Both these groups feel negative about the campaign, and can't get enough information about campaign. Kobert's article has a purposeful and negative bias, and Green's article focus more on context and is positive. The description in both article reflected authors' different bias.
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.
Firstly, consulting the electorate on specific policy matters relies on people making well-informed decisions about complex and often specialist matters. One could argue that the general public simply do not understand the intricacies of politics and government enough to make the right choices about running the nation – and therefore that the experts who we elect and rely on as part of our current democracy should continue to represent the electorate in making these decisions. The 2011 referendum on AV was widely criticized for the lack of information available to and certainly used by voters, and many argue that had people better understood the issue, they would have voted differently. Another argument about the unreliability of referendums concerns campaigning. As seen with AV in 2011, the ‘No’ campaign was better funded and better supported which majorly affected the referendum’s outcome – one can argue that wider use of referendums will put even more political decisions in the hands of the rich and influential, detracting from democracy.