Does Democracy Work?

The voter turnout rates can lead to a multitude of things like education and more accurate votes to the simple feel of completing a civic duty. The endgame of voter turnouts is the education of voters involved (Document F) as well as the accuracy of the vote being unquestionable (Document E). This increased voter turnout can lead to the connection of people through gathering, regardless of age (Document B). “...Civic virtue; it’s sentimentality,”(Document G). The previous quote shows that civic virtue can go a long way from not only yourself emotionally, but others too. Higher voter turnout rates cannot only improve a multitude of things in our country, but also can give our nation a legitimate name.

To every political system there are many positives and negatives and one critique of compulsory voting systems is that informal and uninterested voting is increased. It has been advocated that compulsory voting brings a large amount of “uninterested voters” to the polls and in turn cast votes that are clearly inconsistent with their own political values compared to those who are more informed and motivated voluntary voters (Selb and Latchat, 2009). In this case the primary concern is when people are forced to vote they will either pick a candidate at random or spoil their ballot which consequently, does not make the outcome of the election representative of the people’s interests. If certain individuals are not interested in politics they should not be forced to contribute in one of the most salient political statements practiced in Canada (Selb and Latchat, 2009). They have the right to choose their level of political participation.

In our system of government we are privileged with the option to take part in the political process that runs the country. It is our right to vote that lets the people influence change in policy and set the guidelines that politicians must follow to be elected representatives. This precious ability, which is most coveted in most non-democratic countries, is taken for granted in our own.

In a country with more than three hundred million people, allowing each person to have a voice would be impossible without the employment of the voting system. The human individual yearns for love, security, peace, and accomplishment, and none of those things would be possible without freedom, and our founding fathers have granted us the key to unlocking our freedom with the power to vote. With enough determination and cooperation, the ballot has the power to change politicians’ views, laws, and the course of history. With the right to vote, each man and woman is entitled to his or her own opinion. While there are two political parties that encompass the majority of Americans, we are not subject to having only two choices. There are the

Is Democracy in the United States working? Many citizens feel that it is not working, or at the least, it is not working as it was originally intended. Parker J. Palmer in his book, Healing the Heart of Democracy, states that American democracy would fail if generation after generation of citizens did not develop what he refers to as “habits of the heart” that democracy requires. According to him, this is deeply ingrained patterns of receiving , interpreting , and responding to experiences that involve our intellects, emotions, self-images, and concepts of meaning and purpose—habits that form the inward and invisible infrastructure of democracy (Palmer, 2011).

At a City Hall meeting in Cleveland, Ohio when asked about the topic of mandatory voting laws (Jackson 2015), President Obama stated, “If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.” (Stephanopoulos 2015 p5) (Evidence: Testimony) He is right, if everyone voted the political map in the country would be completely different---and not for the better. Compulsory voting can potentially cause the nation 's true political viewpoints to be misrepresented, thus hindering political progression, by making voters feel obligated to choose candidates that may not represent their ideas and forcing the politically disengaged to select random ballots.

In Jason Brennan’s second chapter of Against Democracy (2016) multiple topics are discussed pertaining to the political action of voting. Throughout this chapter Brennan explores the ideologies of rational ignorance and rational irrationality about politics, as well as the psychological benefits of holding firm to an irrational belief, and the cognitive biases or errors displayed in society. Brennan’s views create controversy and often times don’t seem to directly favor one another. Although I admired the viewpoints Brennan gave, I had a difficult time buying into the philosophical ideas he presented. As we progress in this paper, we will learn more about Brennan’s narrow view of politics being only associated to voting. Brennan created adequate argument for the philosophical measures he presents, however this strict polices don’t seem to equate with democracy in its entirety.

There are several ways that the system can be abused to corrupt the integrity of the election process. People’s votes can be undermined and others can play the system. However, despite all of this, many people still consider voting to be a crucial aspect of the entire process and come out in droves to voice their opinion and take a stand on issues. Thus, if I have learned anything from this project it is that while the system may be flawed, it still gives us a voice in how we would like to be governed, an opportunity that others would die to

Another common criticism of the UK system is that, although most politicians are elected, many powerful people hold their positions without having to face the voters. Over the years criticism has focused on the House of Lords, the civil service and judges. While the people serving these positions may indeed be experts in their field, the citizens of the UK have absolutely no say in who is elected into these positions. This shows a problem in the United Kingdom’s democratic system and one that does not follow a representative democracy.

Over the years democracy in our country has improve extremely. Compare to back then to now there is less mistakes being made as in individuals voting. Dahl says there is five standards of democracy which is “effective participation, equality in voting, gaining enlightened understanding, excising final control over the agenda, and inclusion of adults”.

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its

In “The Spirit of Laws” (1748) Montesquieu argues that a democracy should be separated into three different, inter-controlling branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Many democracies have this idea inscribed within their constitution, but the word “democracy” literally translates to the ancient Greek “Rule of the people”. So how can these three branches be “ruled by the people” in an efficient and fair way? Two main ways of governing oppose each other: Parliamentary, where the executive (head of government) holds its legitimacy from the legislative (the parliament), or Presidential, where the executive and legislative branch are simultaneously legitimate. Some democracies, such as France, fall somewhere in between, with “semi-presidential” systems that borrow elements from both. This essay will be focusing on Presidential systems, discussing what its strengths and weaknesses are, especially in comparison to Parliamentary ones.

There are some people who believe that they are not well-informed so they do not know who to vote for in elections. Others are ‘prepared to express a view without having the slightest knowledge about the subject’ (Kavanagh, 1983:13). However, if voting were made compulsory, political parties would spend less money on ‘getting out the vote’, and spend more time on campaigning their policies (Electoral Reform Society, 2009; IDEA, 2009) and so making the public more aware of what they are trying to achieve and why people should vote for them. As less money is spent on (often negative) campaigning, there would be a decrease in the ‘opportunity for corruption in politics by reducing the need for party fundraising’ (Faulks, 2001:24). The public should be more educated about politics and the policies of the parties they may or may not vote for because ‘the more intense, informed and stable an opinion is, the more likely a person is to act on it’ (Kavanagh, 1983:14). Nevertheless, the information provided in educating the public has to be interesting, something which ‘engages public interest and stimulates debate, as opposed to apathy and alienation’ (Heywood, 2007:255) and this would be much easier to do with the enforcement of compulsory voting rather than politicians

The potential for fraud overshadows elections around the world, even in long-established democracies. Fair and competitive elections are essential mechanisms for providing public accountability, transparency, and representation. They

Murders and rapists being allowed to express their views through the democratic process of voting? The conservative opposition cries out in outrage against this so called “human right” while the liberal supporters cheer at the prospect of our country being a tiny bit more democratic. In 2005 the European Council of Human Rights deemed it illegal for a country in the European Union to have in place a complete blanket ban on the voting rights of its incarcerated citizens. The British government to this date remains fiercely opposed to offering prisoners the right to vote. This puts Britain in a position where they are technically breaching the human rights of their citizens as Britain as a member state of the Europe Union must obey European laws and legislation. To understand the impact and repercussions of this heated debate over the right of a minority group to vote in a democratic society, the opinions and arguments of both sides must be introduced and analysed. By examining these key issues a greater understanding of this debate can be developed and the ethics behind it can be explored.