“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…
public opinion and I believe the statement “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,” isn’t empirically convincing I will argue this by discussing the recent coalition and single party governments in the UK and looking at examples of their successes and failures in representation as well as looking at some of the major arguments for and against coalition governments in terms of representation. In a coalition government two or more parties have to share a mandate. This often leads to broader representation of public opinion has the parties have to sacrifice their ideologies to work together in order to create policies that result in greater legislation. Coalition governments have been shown to have a higher likelihood of representing the median voter than single party governments In criticism of Lynch and Liipharts arguments governments try to represent all voters in the electorate not just the median voter; they need to try and represent the far right and left as well. Coalitions are so meet in the middle that they can’t represent a broad enough spectrum of people and so I argue that single parties are better at representation. Furthermore in a plurality system it is statistically more likely to result in a single party government and is what’s expected by parties when campaigning. Because of this parties are more likely to appeal to voters in certain pivotal constituencies rather than the wider majority. This can lead to poor representation for the elected single party of wider public opinion . One of the main reasons that the Conservatives won in 2015 were fighting against first-term incumbent MPs that won their seats from Labour in 2010. It is a well-known phenomenon that new incumbents build up a personal vote and so buck the national trend. On average new Conservative incumbents went up by 4 points more than other Conservative candidates which enabled them to win some marginal seats over Labour in the East and West swing. These seats were won by a personal vote build up which does indicate that the MP’s in question were able to appeal to certain locals in particular possibly against the wider party opinion. However this is more of a claim and a possibility than any empirical evidence against the effective representation by single party governments therefore there is no reason to suggest that coalitions are more effective. A poll by IMG on the 2010 coalition showed that 63% of people thought it was a bad thing that no single party had won (an increase on 55% from the previous year) and 80% thought the coalition was more confused and less representative of public opinion.
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…
representative. In single party governments the accountability is greater as it is clear to the public which art to reward or blame. This creates a stronger tendency for the government party to keep their policies in line with wide spread public opinion thereby increasing representation. Recently the new investigatory powers bill (dubbed the snoopers charter) has passed through Parliament with 266 votes. Despite criticisms from major companies such as Apple and Vodafone this is falling in line with recent public opinion. 53% of the public are for the bill and only 31% against. If the majority of the public did not support this policy then the Conservatives would be clearly accountable in particular Theresa May. This small example of evidence suggests that the single party here is more effective at representation especially since the coalition rejected this policy in 2012 despite overwhelming support for it after the Woolwich Lee Rigby attack 2012. The single party wanted to stay in line with public opinion. It could be argued that this policy was on the governments agenda anyway and the public happened to support it but it can’t be known if they would of still voted it through anyway with or without public support and even if was on their agenda anyway that’s still effective representation from a single party. In coalitions conflict over two ideologies leads to fractious system. If parties are at standstill no policy is made, and no one is being represented on a particular issue. To move forward one party would have to scrap not just their views but pledges from their manifesto. An example of this is Nick Clegg on student tuition fees in the 2010 coalition. He revoked his pledge not to raise them and sided entirely with the Conservatives therefore there was no representation for anyone who voted Liberal Democrat on than particular policy. Furthermore coalitions face stronger pressures to compromise, which might hinder them in implementing policy changes that the majority of the public wants. I argue that greater compromising between two ideologies leads to worse representation for both sides of the coalition. As long as a single party government is elected they will never have to compromise with anyone as they have mandate so if they choose to they can always effectively represent public opinion regardless of how proportionally they have been voted in. A single party government comes without the in built weakness of compromise. In conclusion the statement “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,” is not empirically convincing as Tsebelis and Powell argue.
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
convincing.
...n government between David Cameron and Nick Clegg has definitely made an impact in history because there has been no coalition since 1945. Even though many compromises have been made, the parties are still getting along well.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
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.
...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.
...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.
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,
Hague, R. & M. Harrop (2010). Comparative Government and Politics. 8th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 64.
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.