Our constitution is corrupt to the core, rigged to keep the out of touch, the pompous, and the self-serving minority in power, simultaneously shafting over the hard working majority of this great country. We are ruled by parasites, those fortunate enough to be born with enough money to be packed off to the 400 acres of land seemingly responsible for churning out our next leaders and ministers, preparing them to feast on the blood of 60 million people, the lives of which are completely alien when compared to their parasitical life of splendour. The same raucous, destructive, and self-entitled Bullingdon Club members, who carelessly took pleasure in wrecking restaurants, now have the chance to wreck the holy grail of our nation’s politics, the …show more content…
In fact, this substandard turnout is better than previous elections. While over a third of our population incinerate their vote, countries like Sweden with turnouts over 85%, humiliate us all. “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, The Government always wins.” This incredibly low turnout reveals a much larger problem; the opinion showed here expertly demonstrates the key problem faced by politics today. One of the main reasons for social apathy towards politics is the two party system we currently have. Having two prawn sandwiches which, while seeming different in their origin, but leave the same sour taste, has led to hundreds of thousands not voting; no real difference will be made if one is voted in over the other. PR would remove the two party system we are stuck with, giving the public a larger choice of parties to vote for, while having a real chance that they will actually get elected, not just a squandered vote against their own interests. This type of system would also bring an end to safe seats, meaning that MPs will actually have to be accountable, and act in the interests of their constituents, not just use them as a stepping stone to ministerial positions in
...s, be more representative, leading to policies that better reflect the average voter and smaller parties that actually have some influence in parliament. Voter apathy would likely decrease with a system that increased the value of every vote and my research has also concluded that many of the myths concerning the negatives of PR systems are unsubstantiated or are unlikely to apply in Britain. There are numerous Proportionally Representative democracies and numerous PR voting systems that have been developed, so Britain could choose that which would best suit it’s populace. The problem will be having to convince a government that has got in under the current system that the system needs to be changed, but given that one of the parties in power is pushing for a change , we may, if we’re lucky, be voting for a more democratic Britain come the next general election.
Party is an inevitable feature of the democracy and it is defined as ‘an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the organization of the government’ (Caramani, 2011, p.220). Parties are ubiquitous in modern political systems and they perform a number of functions, they are: coordination, contesting elections, recruitment, and representation (Caramani, 2011). Political parties are the product of the parliamentary and electoral game, and party systems reflect the social oppositions that characterize society when parties first appear (Coxall et al., 2011).
Politics Review, 2(2), 14-15. Curtis, J., Fisher S., Lessard-Philips L. 2007.Proportional Representation and Disappearing Voters. British Social Attitudes: Perspectives on a changing society, ed. A. Park 119-25. London: Sage Publications, Ltd. Guinier, L. (1994)
Voting is one of the citizens’ rights living in a country. In the past, not everyone can vote. Voting used to be for only white American men. However, our ancestors fought for that rights. Eventually, any American who are older than eighteen can vote, despite their race or gender. In addition, voter turnout is used to keep track of the voting. It is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. Unfortunately, the voter turnout has been decreasing over time, and it means that there are less and fewer people who actually show up and vote. This essay will discuss the voter turnout in Harris County, Texas.
"Miller light and bud light…either way you end up with a mighty weak beer!" This is how Jim Hightower (a Texan populist speaker) described the choices that the U.S. electorate had in the 2000 elections. This insinuates that there is a clear lack of distinction between the parties. Along with numerous others, this is one of the reasons why the turnout is so low in the U.S. elections. In trying to explain the low figures at the U.S. elections, analysts have called American voters apathetic to indifferent to downright lazy. I disagree that the 50% (in recent elections) of voters that fail to turnout to vote are lazy and that they have just reason not too. I will also show that the problem lies within the system itself in that the institutional arrangements, electoral and governmental, do not create an environment that is conducive to mass participation. I will address these main issues and several others that have an effect on voter participation. In doing so I will compare America to other established democracies.
Policy-makers are not bound by citizen’s opinions ¬– unless it is a binding referenda – and yet public participation is said to help “reverse the growing democratic deficit, foster citizenship and community capacity, and promote responsive and effective policy decisions” (Woodford and Preston 346). These “improvements,” in practice, raises a larger question: should Members of Parliament be voting in accordance with party politics or those of their constituents? Since the effective inclusion of citizens opinions “requires that public administrators and policy makers be committed to genuinely considering [this] input in policy analysis and decision-making” (347). Without a commitment to the collective voice, citizens may not be any better off. This calls into question whether a decrease in voter turn out is associated with the lack of influence citizens feel they really have in policy-making and the larger Canadian picture.
The United States national elections have been experiencing a steady decline of eligible voters showing up to vote. This steady decline has been ongoing since experiencing a significant increase in voter turnout from 1948 through 1960. Over the years there has been significant, meticulous research done to try to pinpoint the cause of the decline in voter turnout over years. All of this research has led to the production of an enormous number of literatures written on the perceived causes. The vast amount of literature produced has led to a number of competing explanations about this decline. The quest for the answer to the question of, why this decline in voter turnout, is very important for an overwhelming majority of Americans and our democratic system because the people/voters can only truly be represented by our government if all eligible voters go out and vote. For this paper I will examine four theories that attempt to explain the decline. The four theories that I will discuss are voting barriers, campaign contributions, negative campaign advertising, and finally the cultural explanation. However, through thorough exploration and critiques of the strengths and weaknesses of these four theories, we will find that the cultural explanation theory is currently the most persuasive theory in the group. Finally, I will also explore some reasons as to why citizens do vote as well.
1. How can we explain the low voting turnout, and low participation in general, in Texas? Consider how political culture, socio-economics, race/ethnicity, age, institutional laws etc. may affect these low rates.
The low level of political engagement that Schier says is going to be approximately 50% of the citizenry can be explained in many ways. One of the reasons for the low level is what Martin Wattenberg points as being the citizenry lacking party identification. People are tending to not identify with a party and therefore not vote solely for that party. Wattenberg claims that some saw the lack of party identification to have implication that seemed quite threatening for democracy (Wattenberg, 23-25). Keefe points out that “strong partisans are less numerous than in the past. Split-ticket voting is common everywhere. Most voters do not view parties in a favorable light (Keefe, 74).” With the lack of party identification has come the rise of parties of accommodation. Parties of accommodation have made it impossible for the number of citizens engaged in politics to remain as high as it once was. If the party does not stand for something than people aren’t as interested in making a stand with the party. In the 2000 election there where 2 parties of accommodation running candidates of accommodation against each ot...
Society, individuals, and governments all have their own definition of good. They vary a little, but they are still followed. However, when the definition of good is manipulated to fit someone’s own character, it loses its meaning. In the narrative, A Good Man is Hard to Find, the narrator creates a new definition of good; however, so do the characters. Eventually, the antagonist’s definition of good, which is just her values, along with her egotistical and manipulative nature, results in her downfall; the author employs biblical allusion and a series of plot twists to emphasize these tragic flaws.
The issue of low voter turnout is not an unfamiliar topic for most of us. We already know of this issue, but certainly we must not have cast a glance on the issue in the same perspective as Charles M Blow has written. He attracts the readers’ attention to the problem at the center at once, which is nothing but the voters’ ignorance. He deeply explores the question that why the same voter who knows that to solve most of his problems he would need the government of his choice does not show any enthusiasm when it comes to casting his valuable ballot. The same problems remain there year after year and election after e...
The United States presidential election of 2012 was the 57th presidential election. The election was held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. The Democratic political leader was the incumbent President Barack Obama, and his candidate was vice President Joe Biden. Throughout this election the proportion of eligible voters who cast ballots shows that the rate was lower than in the past two presidential elections. Voter turnout decreased from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an estimated 57.5 in 2012. The above calculation was also below the 60.4 percent in 2004 election, however above the 54.2 percent turnout in the 2000 election. Despite a rise of over eight million voters within the fitted population, turnout dropped from 131 million voters in 2008 to an estimated 126 million voters in 2012. When all ballots were computed, some 93 million eligible voters didn’t vote. There must be some contributing factors to see why there's a decline in voters’ turnout.
As described by our textbook, voter turnout is “the proportion of the eligible citizens who actually cast ballots” (Newell 142). Measurement of voter turnout can occur in two ways— the percentage of registered voters voting or the percentage of the voting-age population voting. Voting-age population is the preferred measure because it eliminates variations in state voting requirements and elections that can influence voter turnout (Odessa College). The results of voter turnout can be daunting for U.S. officials when in comparison to other countries.
Voter turnout has been declining in the United States throughout history through the potential voters’ personal choice not to vote and ineligibility. According to research a large percentage of individuals are not voting because political parties fail to appeal to the voters and this leads to the voting population losing interest in the campaign, while others postpone registering and by the time they realize their delay the election is upon them.
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 voters. 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. Political parties are the link between general society and the representative machinery of our government.