In democratic theory, the congruence between voters’ opinions and representatives’ actions is sometimes considered a pre-requisite for a well-functioning democracy. Often referred to as issue congruence, it entails “any means by which the political leaders act in accordance with the wants, needs, and demands of the public in making policy” (Luttbeg, 1968). It is a deciding characteristic of the quality of parliamentary democracies, receiving special attention in the literature (Blais & Bodet, 2006; Golder et al., 2010; Powell, 2004). The role of parties in this process is key as they organize representation and substantially influence policy outputs (Dalton, Farrell, & McAllister, 2011). For establishing the way in which issue congruence between representatives and voters is achieved, the party mandate model (APSA, 1950; Ranney, 1951; Thomassen, 1994) has constituted the main framework of analysis. The model deals with the choice that voters have to select among different electoral programs in elections through which, an accordance between the views of the representatives and the electorate is …show more content…
This idea dates back to the 1950s and the publication of the influential "responsible parties" report issued by the American Political Science Association's (APSA). Since then, given the importance of the program-to-policy linkage in democratic theory, extensive research has been devoted to the match between parties' election programs and subsequent party actions. Most of this work, compares parties’ election manifestos with government policies (Klingeman, Hofferbert, & Budge, 1994; Mansergh & Thomson, 2007; Royed, 1996). The mandate model is here conceived as providing the winning party (or coalition) with a mandate to govern (Ranney,
Party is an inevitable feature of the democracy and it is defined as ‘an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the organization of the government’ (Caramani, 2011, p.220). Parties are ubiquitous in modern political systems and they perform a number of functions, they are: coordination, contesting elections, recruitment, and representation (Caramani, 2011). Political parties are the product of the parliamentary and electoral game, and party systems reflect the social oppositions that characterize society when parties first appear (Coxall et al., 2011).
The results of recent elections in Britain have raised many significant questions about the current political situation in the country, particularly concerning the electoral system. Therefore, the problem of “crisis” in Britain’s democracy has been the subject of wide speculation among analysts and political scientists over recent years. In addition, it is widely recognized that the traditional electoral system in the UK - first past the post - is the main cause of that crisis and should be replaced as part of a plan to reconstitute the democratic culture (Kelly 2008). By longstanding critics of the system, opponents advocate the use of proportional representation (PR) for selecting MPs. Due to this problem, it is going to be a referendum on changing the electoral system of the country's parliamentary elections.
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
In our Canadian parliamentary system there are many ideologies and practices which aid in the successful running of our country. One of the more important ideologies and practices in our political system is the notion of strict party discipline. Party discipline refers to the notion of members of a political party “voting together, according to the goals and doctrines of the party, on issues that are pertinent to the government” or opposition in the House of Commons. In this paper, I will be discussing the practice of party discipline in the Canadian parliamentary system as well as the ways in which a change in the practice of strict party discipline to weaker party discipline would result in more positive effects on the practice of Canadian politics rather than more negative ones.
If the parties in our governmental system would openly discuss about the difference in positions and in point of views within the groups in realizing these controversies will minimize the unnecessary troubles greatly. Another possibility of improvement would be following the great examples of other countries with the Westminster governance system. For example, in countries like Australia and New Zealand have already a well-established party discipline rules that are less strict than the ones in Canada and way more effective than the ones we have. In an article, it was said that” Australian parties are considerably more discipline than those in the UK an even those in Canada, although the degree of discipline in the latter has been the subject of much critical comment. Parliamentary votes in the UK are subject to varying degrees of party discipline, with the most rigid being the so-called” three-line whip’ votes. Neither Australia nor Canada has such gradations. In New Zealand party discipline has increased under its mixed Member proportional (MMP) electoral system and, unless party leaders have agreed to a conscience vote, standing orders require a party vote to be taken rather than individuals casting their votes in the chamber. “(Sawer, Abjorensen and Larkin
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.
Words often associated with democracy are freedom, choice, representation, voice and opinion. However, what happens when there is an excessive number of representatives and too many politicians voicing their opinions? The choice of whom to vote for becomes harder due to the barrage of opinions. The influx of political parties has greatly affected the elections, as poll results show that minority parties are receiving votes from Canadians which diminishes the amount of votes going to the main parties.
A party system is the concept that political parties in a democratic country have basic similarities: they control the government, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations. From 1789 to the 1890’s, the United States had three party systems.
Contrary to popular belief, a minority government does not necessarily hinder a governing party. When practiced correctly, a minority government can be an improvement on single-party majority. Instead of one party controlling government, minority governments allow for multi-party governance, which promotes compromise between political parties. On the whole, minority government decreases stability and requires continuous cooperation with opposition parties. Although faced with many challenges, there are several beneficial aspects to a minority government. This paper will argue that a minority government does not hinder a governing party, and in fact can be beneficial in numerous ways. Most importantly a minority government allows the Prime Minister to maintain a range of important resources which allow for an effective government, minority governments deliver a more open and inclusive decision making process, and a minority government guarantees the confidence of the House for a certain amount of time.
The founding fathers based this country on freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, press, assembly, petition. Freedom to have your own opinion about the founding fathers. Freedom to have your own opinion on how our government should run. So with this much freedom, it's obvious someone's going to disagree. And that's where political parties come in. The Federalists versus the Anti-Federalists, a 210-year battle which still carries on today with the Democrats and Republicans. These first parties were very different, and each had their own view on how our country would be run, and how it would end up.
During the second half of the past century the notion that, political science should be treated as a science became extremely popular among academics specially in the United States. One of the most prominent exposers of this school of thought was Anthony Downs, who developed a theorem to explain in a rather economic sense, how and why voters behave in a certain way when it comes to voting. Downs did not only applied his theory to the way voters behave, he also used it to explain the way political parties align themselves when it comes to elections in a two and a multiparty system nevertheless this essay will analyze Downs’ claims about a two party system only. This essay argues that the Downs’ model has proven to be accurate in many cases throughout history, nevertheless it makes a series of assumptions about voters and parties that can not be considered realistic neither in 1957, when he published his paper An Economic Theory of Political Action in Democracy in 1957 nor in 2013. This essay also acknowledges that fact that this theory might help to explain how parties behave but it is by no means the only explanation. Furthermore this essay will prove that it is a multiplicity of factors rather than an economic theory what can help us understand why parties behave the way they do. In order to support the argument previously stated this essay will state and critically analyze a number of Downs assumptions, then his theory will be outlined. Then it will carefully consider how effective it has been at predicting the way in which parties align themselves by examining the behavior of political parties during general elections in different countries.
The Political Parties Model in which politicians diverge ideologically to provide a cue of party affiliation, allowing voters to vote rationally using their habit of party identification. The Political Parties Model suggests that party labels clarify the political choices available to voters.
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
“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.
It is not reasonable to expect that the entire population will agree on every matter, which is precisely why modern democracy is executed through representation by vote. In order for there to be a true democracy in place, there must be choices for the voters. These choices translate into a system of values and principles, which in turn translate to these organized entities that we call political parties. This paper highlights the functions that political parties serve in the House of Commons, and also argues that they diminish the democratic characteristics and responsibilities of the House of Commons. Political parties are the link between general society and the representative machinery of our government.