“Democracies with coalition governments are more effective than democracies with single-party governments in ensuring that public policy is as representative of public opinion as possible.” Discuss whether this statement is empirically convincing. A coalition government is formed in the event of a hung parliament when no one political party can reach a majority in a democratic election. It is made up of several parties who combine to form the executive and the leader of the largest party is usually the new prime minister/president while the leader from the second largest acting as deputy. Coalitions are formed by political bargaining and the sacrificing of certain political ideologies. It is one of the key functions of the executive to represent …show more content…
Clearly the public has little faith in coalition governments as a government and in terms or representation. However by the end of the coalition over 60% of the public agreed with the government on its major reforms: health, austerity, tuition fees and the benefits cap. This would suggest that after the coalition the majority of the public felt represented as they agreed with the government to some extent. However Ormston (Co-Head of Social Attitudes, NatCen Social Research) argues in this article “Despite the fact that the public has gone off the notion of coalition government, it has seemingly accepted many of the coalition’s big reforms. In spite of the government’s narrative of austerity, or perhaps because of it, NHS satisfaction is back up, there is broad acceptance of tuition fees, and at least some cuts to benefits are popular.” Accepting government reforms is not the same as being represented in the first place and there is no way of proving that the people surveyed haven’t essentially change their opinions in their acceptance. The point is that people didn’t feel represented in the first place by a coalition over a single party and therefore I argue that single party governments are more …show more content…
There is simply more reliable evidence over the UKs last coalition and single parties to suggest that overall single parties have been more effective in representation. Although most of the evidence for single parties is more about the failures of coalition in being able to represent effectively rather than the advantages of single parties it is still conclusive and I believe it is empirically
Despite American government being characteristically dominated by cooperative feudalism, there is a persistence of national supremacy elements, state’s rights, and dual fideism. The current situation can, therefore, be regarded as balanced federalism. A cooperative relationship between state government and the national government is specifically rooted in a transfer of payments done from the national government to government in lower levels, which is referred to as fiscal feudalism (Bednar, 2009). There are mainly two types of grants which are block grants and categorical grants. This is a federal aid which is spent by states within a given policy area, although with much state discretion. General revenue sharing (GRS) was used back in the 1970s and 1980s. GRS awarded the state maximum control over policies, but gaining political support was difficult for them.
In conclusion, before David Cameron came into power, the Conservatives were in the right side of politics were Thatcher left them. He brought the party closer to the centre. He changed people’s perception about the Conservative party because he changes a lot of things leaving few things unchanged. David Cameron definitely moved the party to the centre of politics.
However, this majority does not seem so great when looked at in percentage of votes. The Liberals won just over 50% of the vote, while the Conservatives were only slightly behind with 43%. This apparent anomaly is explained by the British Electoral system; the 'first past the post' policy where the M.P with the highest number of votes wins, regardless of whether other Parties have nearly the same number of votes. This sensational change in the British public's votes must have been a sign of the obvious change in mood over the Conservative's term.
Selb, Peter and Lachat, Romain. 2009. “The more, the better? Counterfactual Evidence on The Effect of Compulsory Voting on The Consistency of Party Choice.” European Journal of Political Research 5: 573-79.
There has been much speculation whether political parties have become too strong in American politics and if that is a good or bad thing. My belief is that political party power in the United States is just about right where I believe that there are some instances where political parties have been in situations where they have too much power and instances where it is moderate. First off, political parties are crucial to our democratic government because it is composed of a group of people that the constituents elect to represent their issues or achieve a common goal. Being part of a group that shares your common interests or goals is more powerful than tackling an issue by your self. It gives you more voice and power in government. Also, political
The spread of democracy has been one of the largest and most widely heralded trends in government worldwide – its prevalence and impact has been the subject of much political discussion and debate. In many cases, however, fewer observers focus on the electoral system used by the democratic governments themselves, which are in many cases equally important to the ultimate shape of the government formed. In general, the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system that is used in Canadian Federal Elections has excluded and prevented third parties from having a large impact on the national stage post-WWII, forcing a bipartisan system of government. Central to this paper is an analysis on how third parties, in this case minor broad-based parties
Heath, Joseph. "The democracy deficit in Canada." University of Toronto. homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~jheath/democracy.pdf (accessed October 17, 2013).
middle of paper ... ... d therefore the smaller parties can be considered to have very little effect on the overall political situation. 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.
I believe that the information in dynamics does offer support to Key’s theory to an extent. Political Parties must continually assess their situations and determine if they need to adjust anything in order to achieve their current and future goals. There has to be a consistent balance to figure out what is good for the party and figure out what is coming from the other parties. When you are a majority you have to assess what is being attracted, figure out if your supporters existing and potential could become a winning coalition. All these factors support the changing coalitions.
Canada runs on a democratic model of governing based on the British parliamentary system. Its parliament is thus divided into two chambers: the House of Commons and the Senate. Elected politicians are seated within The House of Commons while the Senate occupies qualified citizens which are appointed by the Prime Minister. Parliament’s purpose is to hold responsibility for passing legislations and the choosing of government, referring to the political party with the largest amount of seats. Depending on the results of the election, Canada has the potential of having either a majority, minority or in the rare case a coalition government. Customarily, an election in Canada usually ends up forming a majority government. The party with more than
...y more appealing by removing themselves from the criticisms that both the conservatives and liberals had and making labour appear as a new, different way in which politics should by heading. This may also be true by appearing to be the most progressive party. By promoting themselves a party of progress and change, labour would have appealed to the electorate who were uninterested in the same promises by traditional parties and convince more non voters to vote for a party that promotes radical and progressive changes. It is argued by the majority of critics that ‘new’ labour wasn’t as especially new as they made themselves seem, instead they took from a variety of past and present governments different ideals, goals and politics and combining them all to make a ‘new’ progressive party that would appeal to the masses that wanted a new radical change in politics.
While electoral systems do have an impact on the proportionality of electoral outcomes and to a lesser degree on the shape of party systems, it is not realistic to expect a change in electoral system to transform the style of politics in a country. For example, PR-STV was not responsible for the economic boom in Ireland and neither is it responsible for the economic crisis. In their cross-national study of the impact of a number of political reforms, including change to an electoral system, Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan (The Limits of Electoral Reform, Oxford University Press, 2013) strike a cautionary note, arguing that such reforms tend to have minimal or zero impact. Expecting an electoral change to result in a transformation in the style of politics in a country is completely unrealistic. It is far too easy to blame PR-STV for the happenings in our country, the power is with the people and, therefore, it is down to us to try to create the best possible government that we can. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr. “and so we shall have to decide to do more than register and more than vote; we shall have to create leaders who embody virtues that we can respect, who have moral and ethical principles we can applaud with enthusiasm.” (Martin Luther King, Jr. Quote,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/25/voters-cuts-coalition-poll ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,014 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 23-24 March 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.
...has so much power. The findings of this research could be used by campaigners in an attempt to swing an election in their favour, creating an unfair bias in parliament and denigrating the ideals of democracy.
Hague, R. & M. Harrop (2010). Comparative Government and Politics. 8th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 64.