It’s pretty self-explanatory: Every candidate will need votes to win an election. Of course, it’s not as easy as it sounds when there are so many different types of voters that make their own judgments. In many Countries, party identification, along with many other factors, plays an important role in winning elections; the United States is no different from that. When electing candidates however, some countries rely almost solely on party affiliation, while the United States allows more flexibility. In the United States, party identification does not have the most influence over a person’s vote because of how weak it is in the U.S. voting system and other contributing factors that single out the candidate from their party, such as the candidate’s personality, promises/decisions, and their ability to handle current nationwide issues.
This is where one person or a small group of people govern and make all the decisions without any input from the people or anyone else and is a totalitarian political system. Any laws passed are absolute rules that are uninfluenced by public opinion. These three systems have slightly different approaches which, when examined, will help assess whether representative democracy is a muddled compromise. In a direct democracy, power is returned to the people in an attempt to maximise individual autonomy while retaining interest in politics. However, this does not necessarily mean that every... ... middle of paper ... ... a dictatorship entails.
The right to vote allows Americans not only say in who runs the government, but also affects their freedom and future. Or does it? The United States uses an institution called the Electoral College, not the vote of the people, to choose the president. In this system, each state Electoral College receives a certain numbers of votes. All of these votes go to the candidate who receives the majority in that particular state (Federal Election Committee).
In conclusion, the UK can still best be described as a two party system, provided two considerations are taken into account. The first is that Conservative dominance victories between 1979-97 was not a suggestion of party dominance and that eventually, the swing of the political pendulum will be even for both sides. This can perhaps be seen today with Labour's two landslide victories in 1997 and 2001. The second consideration is that whilst voters are offered a great deal of choice at constituency level, the vast majority of these parties are far too small to have any great impact on the political system and can therefore be considered irrelevant on a national scale and have only regional significance.
These candidates are not directly voted in by people th... ... middle of paper ... ...as it just supposes to be there to let the people think they have a say in government when they really do not? Yes, the office of the president was designed to care for the public interest, but it does not care for the public interest, it mostly supports candidates and political parties. Primaries and caucuses demonstrate complete control of self governed and this is a selective set of group. These representatives are not opening up certain decisions for most of the people which limit public interest. In the National Convention the candidates win by majority of state and based on the amount of votes.
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are being debated around the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a President is elected directly by the
The constitutional framers believed that the majority in a direct democracy would get carried away and make decisions that only benefit themselves. That is why the government was set up to be able to check the power of the majority. Because the government is a mixed system that combines a democracy and a republic, it is not considered a direct
The legislative branch being separate from the executive branch lets one another keep checks and balances on each other. This assures that no one branch will take over or attempt to take over the government. Another advantage of a presidential system is that the population elects the chief executive and the legislative branch. By winning a popular vote shows that most of a country is backing the executive which does not seem to cause revolution. The president can not dissolve an assembly as one can in a parliamentary system.
One reason why the US have two major political parties, is because the US have separation of our legislative and executive branches. The United States is not a democracy, its a republic. In most democracies of the world the legislator elects a prime minister who is the defacto executive of the country. (http://www.thesoapboxers.com/why-does-the-united-states-have-a-two-party-system/) Political Parties are a group of persons who seek to control government through the winning of elections and the holding of public office. (http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/political-parties/section1.rhtml) In my opinion, reason we only have two major political parties could be because they are the general idea of how our
Republicanism and direct democracy, these are two ways that a people can be governed. There is a major difference between these two systems. In a republican system the government represents the people. The representatives are chosen by popular vote and are given the power to make decisions on behalf of the people. The people do not get to voice their own opinions, the best they can do is vote for their representative and hope he wins.