Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANGES OF Parliamentary system
An essay about characteristics of the parliamentary system
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANGES OF Parliamentary system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANGES OF Parliamentary system
A Political party is a group of people who have similar political thought and organized to win the seat in the government (Gorbaniuk , et al 2015). In addition, a two-party system, which means there are two major parties who have been dominating in the government for a long period of time (Singleton, et la, 2013). According to these definitions, some people think that Australian government is operated by a minority government, not a two-party system (Costar & Curtin 2004). This essay will utilize two perspectives to analyze the possibility of different party systems, namely: the formation of government and the legislative process. The former one will concentrates on the party structure of the senate and the House of Representatives, in the …show more content…
Since the proportional voting system introduced in 1949, minority can win the seat easily by utilizing and the fairness of seat allocation (David 2016). According to the statistic of federal election (Parliament of Australia, 2014), although the Labor and the Liberal still won most of the seats, but the number of seat between them and minor parties or independents were very close, therefor, because of the equal power of all parties and independents, it act as a multi-party rather than a two-party system. Moreover, because most of the seats in Senate are distributed fairly, some of the Senate were operated without obvious majority, for example, the Labor and the Liberal owned the same number of seats in the Senate of Capital Territory from 1975 to 2013, whereas the Labor and the Country Liberal Party shared the Senate of Northern Territory over the same period of time. In fact, independents and the minor parties are maintain the balance of power and their political position will continue, because they establish a strong feature for the Senate (Prosser 2012). Moreover, after each time of the election, the symbol of an “Independent’s Day” was promoted because the minority continue to against majority (Prosser & Warhurst 2014). As the result of this analysis, the Senate represents a multiparty system rather than a two-party system, because the power was divided …show more content…
According to Alan Siaroff’s (2003) definition to the “half” party, this party can be a “hinge” party or a “wing” party. A “hinge” party is playing a critical role between two major party, whereas a “wing” party is often cooperate with one major party. Hence, Alan Siaroff’s (2003) explained that the National should be treated as a “wing” party because the continuous cooperation with the Liberal. According to the statistical analysis of the seats shared by the Coalition partners from 1922-2013 (Linda,C, and Geoff, C, 2015), in the House of Representatives, it is clear that approximately 30% the Coalition’s seats were shared by the Nationals, especially from 1922 -1987, although the percentage decreased from 1990 to 2013, it can be seem that the Liberal was highly relied upon the Nationals in order to won as a majority, because the Nationals helped the Coalition won over 50% of the seats for 18 times in 23 times elections, another 5 times were already succeeded by the Liberal themselves, but the Coalition won around 60% to 70% of seats when combine with the Nationals. Furthermore, this phenomenon also can be identified in the election of Senate, the Nationals was provided an essential support from 1925 to 1975 significantly, except the four times elections in 1925 to1934, which the Liberal won over 50% of
This assignment deals with the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Australian Liberal Party. It will go explain in depth their origins, motives objectives and achievements.
In the 1906 election, the number of seats won by Liberals increased from 184 to 377, in contrast the numbers of seats lost by the Conservatives went from 402 seats won in 1900 to 157 seats lost in the 1906 election, this represented the lowest number of seats held by a Conservative government since 1832. This dramatic reversal of constituencies held, is due to a number of reasons. An argument is that, due to some poor decisions made by the Conservative governments, they in fact contributed largely to the landslide result in the 1906 election. ‘They were in effect the architects to the own downfall.’
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.
A proportionate electoral system (otherwise known as proportional representation or PR) grants its voters a voice in their vote. The way that the PR system works is that for every percentage of votes a party receives, they will be granted around the same percentage of seats in parliament. For example, if a party receives 35% of the votes, they would receive 35% of the seats in legislature. This is important for Canada because it gives smaller parties a better chance of retaining a seat. There are many different varieties of PR, due to the fact that at often times, the voting percentages do not evenly translate into the number of seats available (King, 2000). For instance, if a party receive 33.6% of the vote, they can’ receive 33.6% of seats. Because of this, numerous variations of the PR system have been created. The most common...
So, what happens after a party wins? It has been observed, “Legislative seats almost always work to benefit the party winning the most votes” (Tufte, 1973). If the share of the votes increases, the share of the seats increases, and in most elections the winning party still will probably have less than 65% of the vote. The theory of the Cube Law says that the vote odds equal the seat odds, and that the outcomes of the votes to seats ratio will be predictable no matter what (Tufte, 1973). Although this Law has not necessarily predicted a correct outcome in every election since its birth, it should be noted that its accuracy around the whole world is higher than in just specific
If the parties in our governmental system would openly discuss about the difference in positions and in point of views within the groups in realizing these controversies will minimize the unnecessary troubles greatly. Another possibility of improvement would be following the great examples of other countries with the Westminster governance system. For example, in countries like Australia and New Zealand have already a well-established party discipline rules that are less strict than the ones in Canada and way more effective than the ones we have. In an article, it was said that” Australian parties are considerably more discipline than those in the UK an even those in Canada, although the degree of discipline in the latter has been the subject of much critical comment. Parliamentary votes in the UK are subject to varying degrees of party discipline, with the most rigid being the so-called” three-line whip’ votes. Neither Australia nor Canada has such gradations. In New Zealand party discipline has increased under its mixed Member proportional (MMP) electoral system and, unless party leaders have agreed to a conscience vote, standing orders require a party vote to be taken rather than individuals casting their votes in the chamber. “(Sawer, Abjorensen and Larkin
The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
The breakdown of the second party system was also a reason for the outbreak of the Civil War. In the early 1850’s the Whig party disintegrated, the second party system collapsed and the Republican Party emerged to challenge the Democrats. Southern Revisionists have argued that the collapse of the Union had been preceded by the collapse of the 2nd party system and that the Whig disappeared only to re-emerge as the new Republican party in 1854 supported by nativist Know-Nothing votes. They have also argued that politicians created this tension on purpose to advance their careers, but by doing so they made the 2nd party system collapse. However recent historians, such as Hugh Tulloch, contradict this view by arguing that there is no one single
A two-party system is a political system in which only two parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected officials end up being a member in one of the two major parties. In a two-party system, one of the parties usually holds a majority in the legislature hence, being referred to as the majority party while the other party is the minority party. The United States of America is considered to be a two-party system. A two-party system emerged early in the history of the new Republic. Beginning with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans in the late 1780s, two major parties have dominated national politics, although which particular two parties has changed with the times and issues. During the nineteenth century, the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the two dominant parties in American politics. As the American party system evolved, many third parties emerged, but few of them remained in existence for very long. Today the Democrats and Republican still remain as the dominant parties. These two parties hav...
Proportional representation is almost always acknowledged as the fairest electoral system. With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair representation and devalues citizen’s votes. Canadians must make a choice between the value of effectiveness and the values of justice and equity. Although a switch is not anticipated in the near future, Canadian citizens can hope that it is at least in the minds of many voters and on the discussion list of the government.
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.
...s vote for a party instead for an individual, and when the votes are tallied for the region the regional representative seats for that region are divided among the parties in proportion to the share of the vote that each party received.
Contrary to popular belief, a minority government does not necessarily hinder a governing party. When practiced correctly, a minority government can be an improvement on single-party majority. Instead of one party controlling government, minority governments allow for multi-party governance, which promotes compromise between political parties. On the whole, minority government decreases stability and requires continuous cooperation with opposition parties. Although faced with many challenges, there are several beneficial aspects to a minority government. This paper will argue that a minority government does not hinder a governing party, and in fact can be beneficial in numerous ways. Most importantly a minority government allows the Prime Minister to maintain a range of important resources which allow for an effective government, minority governments deliver a more open and inclusive decision making process, and a minority government guarantees the confidence of the House for a certain amount of time.
Today, political parties can be seen throughout everyday life, prevalent in various activities such as watching television, or seeing signs beside the road while driving. These everyday occurrences make the knowledge of political parties commonly known, especially as the two opposing political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Republican and Democrats have existed for numerous years, predominantly due to pure tradition, and the comfort of the ideas each party presents. For years, the existence of two political parties has dominated the elections of the president, and lower offices such as mayor, or the House of Representatives. Fundamentally, this tradition continues from the very emergence of political parties during the election of 1796, principally between Federalist John Adams and Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson. Prior to this election people unanimously conformed to the ideas of one man, George Washington, and therefore did not require the need for political parties.1 However, following his presidency the public was divided with opposing opinions, each arguing the best methods to regulate the country. Ultimately, the emergence of different opinions regarding the future of the United States involving the economy, foreign relations, ‘the masses,’ and the interpretation of the Constitution, led to the two political parties of the 1790s and the critical election of 1800.
After the 2011 Federal election, Gillard obtained majority government only with the support of 12 cross benchers in the Senate, and one member of the House. This was the first federal hung parliament since 1940, and only the second in Australian history. Here we see Gillard’s most admirable and distinguishing political leadership skill shine; she was a master negotiator. Both major political parties at the time had the opportunity to negotiate support for their parties in this new political makeup, however Julia was able to succeed where her opposition could not. In hindsight one could argue that this was an early sign that when the Opposition did gain power at the following election, their Leader Tony Abbott, would not be able to effectively lead.