According to, (Grofman & Feld), authors of Thinking About the Political Impacts of the Electoral College, "it has been argued that one party may develop a “built-in” advantage in the Electoral College if its strength comes disproportionately from the smaller states" (Grofman, & Feld, 2005). Although, candidates focusing more on the competitive states leave much of the county barely aware that there is even a presidential election going on. Mostly because these states have higher electoral votes. This discourages voter turnout because the individual vote only matters to the context of the state (Constitution,
When the politicians of the party in power have drawn out the voters’ map, they maintain power over the lines of the map. This allows the politicians to select one representative from each district to represent the majority of the voters in that district. This can benefit a political party because it allows them to have more seats in the house. “Eliminating gerrymandering would not by itself dramatically increase the competitiveness of house and state….between the two major political parties” (Mann, Thomas
It also gives more power to the states. They get to decide the delegates allowing for participation in who gets to be the president. However, there are just as many cons to the Electoral College system. The first con is one most people have the biggest problem with. It is that the even if the majority of Americans are in favor of a candidate, it does not mean they’re going to win.
This places a significant disadvantage as both of the houses effectively go through a different process to get the laws through, the concurrent passage arguably means there will be differences. However in the UK this is a advantage of the system as the House of Lords and Commons are more connected, this is because laws can “ping pong” between the two houses until both effectively agree. Unlike America it ensures that those who have more knowledge in either house can amend the laws and have more of a contribution whilst in America if a congressmen has more information or knowledge on the potential law the Senate will have less knowledge about this, this effectively makes the US system of making law less connected. Arguably the US system can be seen as an advantage because each house effectively examines proposals, thus there is more scrutiny and check and balances compared with the
Though there are many advantages to both sides of the party’s there are also disadvantages. For a constitutional monarchy, you have allies, this can be a disadvantage because during tough times you would need to put the other country before your own country. You might also not like the leader that got chosen, but that leader holds the position for
Because democracy is not based on quality, but on quantity. The majority party has the authority in power. In addition, people who do not have the intelligence, vision and corrupt could have been elected to state officials. That mean the country government by incompetent persons, democracy can only be run by people who are not competent. Because in a parliamentary, every citizen is allowed to take part, while not everyone is suited to that role.
The disadvantage of direct democracy is the complexity of its application in large areas (the complexity of the formation of issues, the increase in the timing for the coordination of issues and voting) without the use of computer technology and mobile communications. 2. The ratio of direct democracy and representative Immediate democracy is distinguished from representative democracy, where the exercise of legislative and control functions is carried out through representative bodies and special institutions elected by the people. The main features of representative democracy are the transfer of certain functions (full or partial) of lawmaking and control by citizens - representative bodies. Unlike direct democracy, this allows for the most rapid resolution of global strategic issues of a general nature.
Thus, sometimes compulsory voting is known as an effective remedy to solve the low turnout rate problem. (Quintelier, Hooghe, & Marien, 2011) The compulsory voting can make sure the full turnout, which can overcome two kinds of common reasons for “rational abstention”: information uncertainty about other potential voters’ aims and the transaction and opportunity costs of voting. The compulsory voting enables voters to solve the problem of the lack of information, not only for the value of individual vote, but also relate to other voters’ intentions. For instance, during the elections, it is rational for a poor to vote, which can protect his interest and right. However, this rationality holds only when he knows that most of the people who share the same circumstance as him vote.
In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” These same founders intended for Americans to have a republican form of limited government where political decision-making is kept to the minimum.
This essay will argue that, in fact deliberate democracy is not a necessary condition for a just social order. This argument will be supported by the insufficient condition for deliberative democracy to achieve a just social and the presence of benevolent democracy leading to a just social order with the example in Singapore. Benevolent dictatorship can also achieve a just social order without deliberative democracy. A benevolent dictatorship is a theoretical form of government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state but is seen to do so for the benefit of the population as a whole. In order to achieve a just social order, it is