More handpicked essays just for you.
Unicameral and bicameral legislatures pdf
Unicameral and bicameral legislature
Unicameral and bicameral legislature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Comparative Politics of the French and Mexican Governments
The political systems of today’s world vary tremendously as you span the world. Each of these systems has gone through an evolution based on mistakes of the past and the needs of a stable and equal government. Most nations throughout the world observe political means through either Unitary or Federal legislation. The Federal government of Mexico and the unitary government of France are perfect examples of the differences and similarities of unicameral and bicameral legislature.
When looking at the political systems we must first understand the ideologies behind it. The main ideology that has help to define the French political system is that of bicameral legislation. In bicameral legislation the power of making laws is vested into two chambers, both, which must approve a bill before it officially becomes a law. In French politics these two chambers are part of the parliament. One chamber of parliament is the National assembly, which is elected directly by the people, and the second chamber is the senate, in which the Electoral College indirectly elected the members. A bicameral system can be either unitary or federal. The French government is unitary which means that laws give virtually all authority to the central government. The central government may delegate duties to cities or other administrative units, but it retains final authority and can retract any tasks it has delegated. The central government in a unitary system is much more powerful than the central government in a federal system. The reason a central government is more powerful in a system is because unitary governments exercise one level of government unlike that of a federal gover...
... middle of paper ...
...rnment. Not to say that the government of France is inefficient, but I feel the representation of the people is very important in any society. I also must say I do not totally agree with all that the Mexican government abides by. The extreme governmental power of the president is ludicrous, but no government is perfect. They can only work towards it. From the government policies that I have presented and the intense studies that I have done, I conclude that neither the federal or unitary system have a comparable advantage. Only when the government of a nation exercises and uses the power vested within that political ideology efficiently, will one be able to say that a federal system is better then a unitary system. Until each system is used through absolute efficiency, we have no basis to compare the two unless each system achieves maximum benefits for the people.
Since the Constitutional convention the government of the Unites States has being improving the government system. The government has many progressiveness, it went from an authoritarian country to a self-governed country by the people. The politicians has being changing the structure of the government system to a better a much better version of the last one making it a more fair system for the people. For instance, during the convention in Philadelphia congress had develop a more effective and unified constitution than the past. They started the changes of the system to a more complex government system that benefited the people and the states. For example, the congress came up with the idea of making an upper house for the senate and a lower house for the House of Representatives along with the Great Compromise that gave the president a substantial power over the government. The congress did this because after the Americ...
Politics in Mexico throughout the course of history has been hostile, to say the least. Like many previously authoritarian regimes, Mexico’s transition into democracy was hard fought. Still today, Mexico’s political system is characterized by political corruption as seen through the influence of the drug cartels and their corporatism and electoral fraud. It is these characteristics that make Mexico a valuable study for comparative politics. While studying Mexico one sees a country that has grown relatively little (due to the aforementioned characteristics of its political system) and is hardly a democracy.
Every country has a particular system of government, a system that regulates the political spectrum of the nation as well as assuring the citizens’ needs and freedoms and managing the economic resources. Since the government is the stepping stone of the nation, it requires the appropriate system that establishes an anchored base of a strong country; there are three types of government systems: a unitary system, Federal system and a Confederate system. This paper will spot light on the last two systems by identifying their notions through United States and Canada, because regardless to their many similarities, there are significant distinctions in the ways they constructed their federalisms throughout history, in which they emphasized on the
Federalism could be portrayed in three general ways, unitary, con-elected, or a hybrid of the two (Bardes, Shelley II, & Schmidt, 2011). In the United States, we like a cream between unitary and con-chose schemas, which we insinuate as a chose skeleton. To better like our system we ought to first assess interchange sorts. An unitary skeleton is described as a system in which general force is controlled by a robust central government (Bardes, Shelley II, & Schmidt, 2011). The con-chose model embodies an assembly of free states with extensive powers united with an obliged controlled central government much like the European Union or the Articles of Confederation America (Bardes, Shelley II, & Schmidt, 2011).
The authors of this article look at a theory and look at important legislation and whether it passed within a divided government compared to a unified government. The hypothesis of this article is that "important legislation is more likely to fail to pass under divided government". The results of this article show the following conclusion. If the government is divided than it is more likely that the president will oppose more legislation than when the government is unified. Also important legislation will fail to pass more often under divided government.
If one were to visit different countries and societies throughout the world, they may notice the many differences and similarities each region shares. This makes the world a very unique place because there is constant change and diversity everywhere we look, no matter the distance traveled. A prime example of this would be the similarities and differences between the United States of America and Mexico. Although the two are neighboring countries, there is a great deal of diversity amongst them that deserve a thorough examination.
The French government was a complete monarchy. At the time France had thirteen different regions. Each of these thirteen regions made up their own rules. What did that mean? France didn't have a unified law system, basically a government, to make up the rules; everyone made their own through Parliament. The Parliament had the jurisdiction to make laws in their own region. Each individual Parliament had between 50 to 130 members made up of judges and “legal elites” in that region. This was the only government in France. The Parliament were the ones set prices on foods, and held trials including murders and thefts. Even though they served as the government of the region, they were hated by everybody, including the king. The King had people called intendents who “curbed the power of nobility” who were hated even more than Parliament.
Most democratic countries have a multi-party system where many different ideologies are represented in government. Multi-party systems provide a broader representation of the people and give voters more choices at the polls, however, can lead a party to form a coalition, which can dissolve easily causing instability in the government. The United States electo...
The Franco-Mexican War The Franco-Mexican War was a war fought by two very different countries than they are today. The war was fought over reasons that seem very unlikely to arise ever again. between these two countries. The war was fought over gaining territory, group thinking, and pure human. Nature.
PGCPS. (n.d.). Government Systems: Unitary, Confederate, and Federal Systems. Retrieved March 17, 2011, from www. pgcps.org: www.pgcps.org/~croom2/Reading_Government%20Systems.doc
In addition, due to the establishment of the three branches the negative effects of factions have been discouraged. One of the numerous institutions that have helped with the discouragement of factions is the Legislative branch. The Legislative branch is comprised of two parts, The House of Representatives and The Senate. The House is composed of Representatives elected by the people within a district and is determined by population, thus the more people in a state, the m...
Federal and state authority differs in order to protect us from any one governing body making all the decisions. This delegation of power seeks to prevent imbalance and helps to create equality. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely (Moreell, 2014)”. This famous saying perhaps portrays the resoning behind the division of power. The Federal g...
On the other hand the USA is a federal republic characterised by division of sovereign...
Who has the greater legitimacy to represent the people? The president or the legislatures. In comparing the Chilean 1970 Presidential Election to 1979 Spanish appointment of Adolfo Suirez as Prime Minister, Linz notes “Allende received a six-year mandate for controlling the government even with much less than a majority of the popular vote, while Suirez, with a plurality of roughly the same size, found it necessary to work with other parties to sustain a minority government”. Linz supports the fusion of the executive and legislative branches because it forces a sense of cooperation. 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
State sovereignty means that the states would remain sovereign over important spheres and that more states would be created under the control of the national government. Bicameralism refers to each state being provided with equal representation regardless of the population and also means that the Senate has the authority to ratify treaties and is considered the protector of state sovereignty. Lastly, the multiple layers of representation refer to the direct power that the national government has over its citizens. This means that each citizen has direct representation in the House of Representatives and don’t always have to go through the state governments.