Referendums are always be implemented in order to reach a decision on a constitutional matter when the government can’t do it themselves. It helps the government decide on a specific issue based on the votes of the citizens, for example the referendum in 2011 on whether the voting system should change from First Past the Post to Alternative Vote. They are exceedingly important at a crucial stage of a constitutional issue, even if it is expensive and a waste of time to hold a referendum. However, many argue that referendums aren’t effective and are somewhat useless. There are many arguments on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of referendums, and in this essay I will evaluate both sides. A referendum is a limited form of direct …show more content…
The people are somehow educated on the political issues that the nation faces when referendums are held. They educate the citizens and informs them about the issue at hand. This may result in encouragement to engage voters and be more involved in political activities in the nation (Jones and Norton, 2014). However, voters do not have the capacity or education to confront the issues and make effective decisions. It’s debatable that political issues should be taken in the hands of the representative assembly than the voters who may vote based on their emotions rather than using facts and considering the after effect of the decision (Lowe and Owen, 2015). Voters aren’t familiar with the background of issues and lack information to make informed decisions, and instead make decisions based on partial knowledge. This may exacerbate the issue in stake such as constitutional change, international treaties, and more (Electoral Systems, Advantages and disadvantages of the referendum instrument, n.d.). For example, the Scottish Independence referendum, many may vote in favour of independence based on their emotions or lack of knowledge and not really the issue itself or the after
For instance, Menand writes, “The fraction of the electorates that responds to substantive political argument is hugely outweighed by the fraction that responds to slogans, misinformation...random personal association.” Mass voters mostly pursue the wrong or irrelevant information that are irrelevant to the election; thus lead them to vote for the candidates which they do not really want. Their choices mostly lack rationalities. Many voters who are slightly informative think that they are participating in a certain issue and considering the value of the candidates; yet most of them do not have adequate information and knowledge in understanding the meaning of political terms. Voters lack judgment on their government and candidates, their minds are easily being brainwashed by a small amount of people who has informative approaches in participating governmental issue, and affect their
On the national civics assessment, “two-thirds of 12th graders scored below ‘proficient’…and only 9 percent could list two ways a democracy benefits from citizen participation” (O’Connor and Romer 4). The information provided clarifies just how little students know about democracy. Without education on the subject, they are unaware as to how their government contribution is beneficial and why it is needed in the first place. The students, because of their lack of understanding, therefore choose to not take part in their government and fail to carry out their duties as a citizen. The authors provide more research that shows “the better people understand our history and system of government, the more likely they are to vote and participate in the civic life” (O’Connor and Romer 8).
Since the turn of the twenty first century, in Canada voter turnout has made a significant and consecutive decline. In the last five federal elections on average only sixty-one per cent of eligible voters voted. If each eligible citizen voted in an election the government would be on par with the primary interests of the people. The easiest way to achieve this objective is by implementing a compulsory voting system. Mandatory voting systems are appealing because all citizens are affected by decisions made by the government, so it makes sense to have all those affected apart of the election process. As a result, the voting results would be more representative of the country and that would lead to an increase of stability and legitimacy. It would also be beneficial to Canadians because would cause political parties to address and focus on the needs of every socio-economic level. However, one of biggest problems that accompanies mandatory voting laws is that the choice to exercise the right to vote is taken away. Another primary concern about compulsory voting is that a large number of uninterested and uninformed voters are brought to the polls. Conversely, uninformed voters will become familiar with and learn the polling procedures and electoral system over time and uninterested voters are not forced to mark a name on the ballot. Compulsory voting laws would only make registration and attendance at the polls mandatory, not voting itself. Therefore the freedom to exercise the right to vote or not is still intact. A greater emphasis on alternate voting practices may be established such as electronic or online voting. Positive changes would not only be evident in the policies of political parties but also in the voting procedure. Th...
The proposed plebiscite has drawn criticism from many quarters, and on various grounds. Two of the main arguments that have been raised are;
Loewen, P. J., Milner, H., & Hicks, B. M. (1997). Does Compulsory Voting Lead To More Informed and Engaged Citizens? An Experimental Test. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 655-672. Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/tmp/44514596344978336.pdf
Karp, Jeffrey A., and Susan A. Banducci. " Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour." British Journal of Political Science 38 (2008): 311-334. Cambridge Journals. Web. 16 Mar. 2012.
The issue of low voter turnout is not an unfamiliar topic for most of us. We already know of this issue, but certainly we must not have cast a glance on the issue in the same perspective as Charles M Blow has written. He attracts the readers’ attention to the problem at the center at once, which is nothing but the voters’ ignorance. He deeply explores the question that why the same voter who knows that to solve most of his problems he would need the government of his choice does not show any enthusiasm when it comes to casting his valuable ballot. The same problems remain there year after year and election after e...
Regardless of the political environment, it is the responsibility of voters to take initiative in becoming politically involved. However, the current electoral system in the United States is not one that fosters voter participation, but instead often discourages voting altogether. This is evidenced through the lackluster voter turnout in the United States, which is amongst the lowest of any democratic nation. While it is convenient to blame this lack of democratic participation on a lazy and apathetic public, the root of the problem lies elsewhere. The current system of winner-take-all elections, strategic gerrymandering, incumbency advantage and governmental unresponsiveness to constituent desires is enough to deter even the most politically consci...
In fact, according to Elections Canada, during the 2011 federal elections, only 61.1% of Canadians exerted their duty as citizen. Hence, some think compulsory voting can remediate the situation. However, mandatory voting is what really could hurt democracy. By forcing every eligible voter to go to the polls, misinformed voters will randomly cast their ballot. Sceptics may believe that by fining individuals who refuse to go to the polls, there will be less ignorant voters. For example, in Australia, where voting is compulsory, Australians who do not cast their ballots have to “pay a 20$ penalty” (Australian Electoral Commission). However, by financially penalising citizens who do not exert their duty, many will be so dissatisfied by the incumbent government that they will simply vote for a party that would not make voting an obligation. These people would ignore the party’s other policies instead of being informed on all the challenges that the country faces and how each party plans on solving them. Nonetheless, the elections are an occasion to elect a leader whose ideologies on many aspects, from immigration to the environment, matches the voter’s most. As a responsible voter, one has to know the policies of each party and has to try to obtain enough “social-scientific knowledge to [assess] these positions” (Brennan 11), which takes a lot of time. Therefore, compulsory voting would make voters more informed, but only on a narrow aspect while ignoring the other issues that should be taken into consideration when choosing the party they will vote for. All in all, mandatory voting would hurt democracy despite the higher participation
...eople not voting! Americans are becoming less educated on the issues that they are facing as well as the candidates running at the time of office. However, according Longley (2011) ”Still, 93 percent of infrequent voters agreed that voting is an important part of being a good citizen and 81 percent of nonvoters agreed it is an important way to voice their opinions on issues that affect their families and communities” (pg. 1).
In addition, it isn’t feasible for a voter to comprehend the numerous offices and candidates in an election and how informed do voters need to be, in order for them to be confident in their choice. However, with the removal of straight-ticket voting, voter turnout may decrease, but the vote quality will increase due to an improved versed decision and in addition, an increase in the chance of a professional holding a government position. There are no excuses for voters to not be informed because there are various resources that determine an individual preferred political candidate. Through the use of the internet, websites offer political quizzes that matches a voter's beliefs with a candidate. For example, Isidewith.com is an online website that asks the participant various question about concerning issues in politics such as, abortion, , environmental, economic, and domestic policy issues. Based on the results, it will give the participant selections on the candidates that closely relates to their beliefs.
In deciphering what constitutes the brilliance of democracy then, we find that it is not citizens’ ability to make informed decisions or an unflawed and subtly manipulated election process, but the unapparent way in which democracy persuades citizens – informed or not - and leaders – corrupt or not – toward working to build better, more prosperous societies.
More specific arguments originate from the participatory theory of democracy and the critique of a lack of responsiveness and legitimacy of representative (party) democracy. The two sets of democratic institutions are distinguished by basic features of direct participation: (1) direct democracy focuses on specific issues, in contrast to voting on candidates and general programs for long terms of office, and (2) citizens themselves act as decision makers rather than delegating these powers. Like electoral systems, a variety of procedural forms, designs, and regulations are likely to influence processes and outcome. One must also keep in mind that direct-democratic processes cannot operate in isolation but are always linked to the structures of an overall political system that includes major representative institutions. Thus, interactions between the two types of institutions will be an important challenge for analysis. For instance, as George Tsebelis notes, referendum voters can be seen as an additional veto player. Some authors contend that direct democracy may undermine representative democracy, while others focus on the deliberative functions for a democratic public sphere and the capacity for integrating citizens in the democratic process. One can also assume that basic
All that can really be seen is what appears before ourselves. What we see on billboards, television, or radio show constantly the views of a new runner for politics whom proclaims what he or she wishes to accomplish. Listening to it, one can create a thought of why did they choose that topic for an argument? Today not all people vote so the ones who do are the people these “runners” focus on. Why would they fight to create increased pay to schools if all the voters are the elderly? Why not focus upon retirement benefits or healthcare? As citizens we have complaints on how the government manages our money and yet we do not do anything about it. Voting gives a chance. If certain groups grew in votes different ideas would be made for these “runners”. Say the young adults started to vote a lot more. We could have schooling benefits, less tuition fees, higher education levels, and possibly a large increase in jobs. One United Kingdom publisher explains, “If you vote, the campaigners urge, the politicians will have to listen to you and things will change.”(Kirkup, The Telegraph). Also youth have the longest time, and live what the country becomes. To conclude, voting doesn’t take long and doesn’t require almost any effort. All it requires just an open mind and yet people just do not realize this opportunity. Right now we could be living in the richest most opportunistic country if everyone could understand what can become of our views. Life could be looked forward not
... Compulsory voting in Australia has been both welcomed and resisted by all groups of people in the community. For a policy which has existed at a federal level since 1924, there has been much debate over its democratic role in today’s society and whether its abolishment would cause political involvement to backtrack. As with any debate, there are valid arguments both for and against. In answering the essay question, it can be concluded that compulsory voting is a necessary and essential aspect of the Australian political system as it ensures the beliefs and values of society are reflected in parliament and lawmaking.