The idea of a governing body drawing its power directly from its constituents has been undermined by the corrupt nature of modern politics where politicians act out of self-interest. While the Constitution and later amendments had every intention of securing basic liberties, certain limitations later undermined the original intentions of the founding fathers to give power back to the people by placing the larger majority of power in the hands of the state. Federal limitations to certain amendments, known as federal mandates, have taken power away from the masses. To secure democracy and avoid further abuses of power by the judicial courts, an amendment should be made to the Constitution prohibiting the federal government from putting down mandates that directly interfere with the power given to the states by law. Federal politicians use desultory commands as leverage to ensure that the states comply with their wishes.
Voters select their choice according to which party fosters the ideals closest to which they wish to be governed by. 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 voter. 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.
He points out that “presidential systems may be more or less dependent on the cooperation of the legislature; the balance between executive and legislative power in such systems can thus vary considerably” Linz admits that “presidential elections do offer the indisputable advantage of allowing the people to choose their chief executive openly, directly, and for a predictable span rather than leaving that decision to the backstage maneuvering of the politicians.” but qualifies it by stating that it is only and beneficial if the majority of the people of spoken. In Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart’s critical appraisal of “The Perils of Presidentialism” they offer counter arguments when they suggest that a bicameral parliament can just as easily have dual legitimacy issues as a President and legislative body. It should be recognized that Linz does not address the checks and balances that allows for a more regulated government ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of one group. Nor does he address that elections
Finally, parliamentary systems exhibit its superior democratic capabilities with its wider division of powers and accountability through Responsible Government. It is also of note that both systems often use indirect elections, but there are cases in presidential systems where elections contradict the very principles of democracy. A parliamentary system is a democratic form of government where the ruling party is the one that receives the most representation. Meaning the leader naturally belongs ... ... middle of paper ... ...oral College is Bad for America, George C. Edward III says that the lack of a one-person one-vote principle contradicts the very nature of political equality, and ultimately fails to be a sufficient way of exercising democratic rights (Edward III). There is no consensus on whether parliamentary systems are ultimately better than presidential systems.
Linze writes that “Presidentialism is ineluctably problematic because it operates according to the rule of "winner-take-all-arrangement” that tends to make democratic politics a zero-sum game” This causes some people to feel disenfranchised and that the President is not “their President” if the winner is not who they cast their vote for. Linze adds that parliamentary elections are more prone to give representations to a number of parties. Presidential election process leaves little room for consensus building and coalition
Judges have varying levels of deference to these decisions that are allocated based on an assessment of an issue. Under the HRA, it is argued that judges “owe a duty of minimal deference to parliamentary … decision making, but substantial deference is only owed exceptionally. ” Judges can give weight to Parliament; however often still allow room for their own appraisal. Parliamentary sovereignty does not allow for judges to not follow acts of Parliament, however the HRA enables them to view legislation as weighty, but never as authoritative, allowing them to interpret it loosely enough that it no longer bears resemblance. In R v A, LJ Hope stated that section 3 “is only a rule of interpretation ” which draws a distinction between judicial and legislative law making; however, this differentiation does not change that the courts still make significant alterations to legislation.
"What Americans would not do…for the vindication of a fundamental first principle: the right of the people to determine their own future," comments Albert R. Papa in his article "The Allure of Civics Book Democracy". While nearly all Americans recognize the benefits of a democratic nation, the Federalists maintain that often times, minority and ma... ... middle of paper ... ...stem is to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few, the presidential veto hardly accomplishes this goal. Although the president cannot create new law, his ability to prevent new law resembles the power held by a dictator. How democratic can one man's vote be? The Federalists believed in a form of government that is not consistent with the textbook definition of "majority rules".
Adding this all up, I have concluded that the United States democracy is unhealthy, yet I still believe there is hope. If I had to give the current condition of democracy a letter grade, I would give it a C. I got this grade because even though the United States maintains many civil right and liberties, a strong number of interest groups, and diverse political parties, it just isn’t enough to carry the poor conditions of ideologies, voter turnout, education, economics, and media. Democracy is surly not thriving in America, but at this point, there is still hope.
Linz writes that “Presidentialism is ineluctably problematic because it operates according to the rule of "winner-take-all-arrangement” that tends to make democratic politics a zero-sum game” This causes some people to feel disenfranchised and that the President is not “their President” if the winner is not who they cast their vote for. Linz adds that parliamentary elections are more prone to give representations to a number of parties. Presidential election process leaves little room for consensus building and coalition
In parallel to the USA, New Zealand’s current constitution is neither supreme nor entrenched, a trait inherited from Great Britain. A benefit of this i... ... middle of paper ... ...of the legislature whose role is to make law. A new supreme constitution would remove the executive power to overrule judicial authority in circumstances where decisions were made involving the constitution. In deciding to make a supreme constitution for New Zealand a consideration of whether to grant the judiciary with this extended power needs to be deliberated. Many would argue that allowing an un-elected judge supreme power over the elected Members of Parliament would be undemocratic and henceforth violate the staple principle of our society.