Referendums are a form of direct democracy, which is the purest and simplest form of democracy. Referendums are a legitimate form of democracy because they are decided entirely by the people. Referendums can be said to improve democracy in the UK because they encourage political participation, they provide a clear answer to a specific question and some decisions are so important, such as constitutional change, that not consulting the people would in itself compromise political legitimacy. Conversely, referendums can be argued to be detrimental to democracy because the result can lack legitimacy if the there is a very low turnout, referendums can lead to the tyranny of the majority and the issues may be too complex for the average voter to …show more content…
For example, in the 2010 general election, none of the major parties included anything about membership to the EU in their manifesto so there was no way to vote which expressed a view on this topic. This compromises democratic legitimacy because people cannot have their say on important issues, so these issues are not decided by the people but by politicians. However, if referendums were held on topics such as these, the decision made would definitely be …show more content…
Firstly, the result was very close, with only 52.24% of the voters voting for outlawing civil partnerships. This result allowed for the oppression of all members of a minority group in this area, and it completely ignored the 47.76% of people who were in favour of civil partnerships. Therefore, referendums are sometimes damaging to democracy because whole sections of society, gay people in this example, can be ignored and oppressed because of them, plus a very large minority’s view can be completely
This argument is supported by the illegitimacy of the house of Lords, the low turnout and participation in UK politics, and the failings of the first-past-the-post voting system. However, it is more likely that there is not a deficit of democracy in the UK, due to free speech and media, freedom of choice in elections and referendums, and elements of devolution. Firstly, the illegitimacy of the House of Lords can be used to argue that the UK suffers from a democracy deficit. The Lords has many problems, and can be seen as an outdated, dysfunctional body that has no place in a
Firstly, the idea of compulsory voting that involves every citizen having a civic duty, rather then a right to vote, which has been introduced in over 20 countries worldwide, a good example being Australia. In Australia, the system has been a success, producing an impressive turnout of 94% in the 2013 election, which therefore means that the Australian government will have a much higher level of legitimacy compared to the UK. However, critics of compulsory voting argue that such a system is undemocratic by itself as it does not provide a citizen with a choice on whether to vote or not, resulting in a serious debate around the issue. However, I must agree with the critics of the system, as the people voting because they have to, are likely to be less passionate and well informed about the person they have to
Several states try to allow citizens to make decisions without elected officials. Referendums, initiatives, and sunshine laws are all ways that the states incorporate the public into lawmaking and government decisions. However, the United States is not a direct democracy because it includes elements of a republic. The government has more than five hundred thousand elected officials that answer to the public. The constitutional framers believed that the majority in a direct democracy would get carried away and make decisions that only benefit themselves. That is why the government was set up to be able to check the power of the majority. Because the government is a mixed system that combines a democracy and a republic, it is not considered a direct
It was celebrated by the homosexual activists fighting for the equal rights in the hope that the future legal advances may follow. Social conservatives have deplored the decision for the same reason. Nevertheless, the ruling of the Court was neutral, therefore it was fair.
The Constitution gave our country a frame work in which we have built into a great nation. Their idea is that the purpose of our system, meaning our democracy, is to protect an individual’s liberty. William Hudson tries to convince us that there should be a connection between the government we have today and the government in other countries, Parliamentary System. In chapter 1 of the textbook, Democracy in Peril, starts off by giving the reader background knowledge of the found fathers, signers of the Declaration of Independence and the drafters of the Constitution, which reflect as “democracy models” or “protective democrats.” What the founding fathers did not want to happen is for there to be a corrupt government which ignored the rights
Many Americans are proud to live in a country that claims to be a democracy. They are enlightened to know that “the people” have the power to actively participate in the decision making process of the government. They constantly show pride and faith on the principles of democracy everywhere they go. Yet, there are many who also seem to disapprove of the process that others so claim to be the best form of rule of government.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
This was seen a major victory for gay rights in Canada, and championed by many activists. While this was not the end of the fight, many in the community saw this as the last great fight for rights, but it begged the questions who actually wanted these rights. Not everyone in the gay community wanted to be a part of the so-called “nuclear family” and criticized the idea that they should have to fit within traditional heterosexual norms in order to be considered legitimate (Warner 2002, 218). This leads to a bigger question about the exact nature of rights LGBT activists were fighting for throughout history, and how that affected how they fought.
The ruling of Baehr vs. Lewin was a victory for gay rights activists, hope for other states searching for the same freedom, and disappointment for opponents of same-sex marriage. Yet this victory was short lived (until complete legalization in November 13, 2013) since the state appealed the lower court’s decis...
In the modern world, democracy is one of the most popular forms of government. Its attractiveness comes from the freedom of the majority to make changes to policies. The United States of America popularized the concept, which was then adopted in different ways by countries around the world. Part of its attractiveness to groups from various backgrounds is that it can also adjust to the needs of the people. Despite its popularity, democracy has both positive and negative outcomes in response to what is desired.
... result of a direct democracy, complications like getting every citizen to vote on every single issue, something close to impossible with modern populations that grow like grass in springtime. These changes have caused democracy to become intertwined with other forms of government, and while they have caused a deviation from pure democracy, they have allowed countless nations to function efficiently while maintaining the basic pillar of democracy: that ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens.
What is democracy? Democracy a form of government in which the people freely elect representatives to govern them in a country, democracy guarantees free and fair elections, basic personal and political rights and independent court of law. There are two types of democracy, direct and indirect democracy. Direct democracy or pure democracy is where there is direct participate of the people; people make decisions for them instead of letting them representative make decision for them. Indirect democracy the decisions are made by the representative on behalf of the people that voted for them. All over the world people are having different views with regard to democracy and how it operates. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” ~ Winston Churchill, some have said democracy is the worst government form of government which I also think it’s! Due to the how it operates.
knowledge; it still gives the citizens the opportunity to vote actually even William E. Hudson pointed this out in the book which I would like to reference “to the pluralist, elections provide an opportunity for even apathetic and passive citizens to choose their political leaders” (14). But now if we are going to speak on why many citizens are apathetic we must look at this from another form of democracy, which is the participatory democracy model. The next model of democracy I would like to speak about is much different from the rest, although many of these forms of democracy are similar and share similar ideas, this one may be very different, but also the same depending on how you look at this form of democracy.
Democracy, in its truest sense, does not exist. There is no political authority currently existing where every person contributes an equal amount to the decision-making process of the authority’s directives. The election of officials and representatives by the populace does not, in itself, automatically result in the most democratic and widely accepted directives being enacted. However, this does not decrease the political power of the authorities, nor does it limit their practical power over their jurisdictions.