The gradual decline of the mass membership parties from the late 1970’s to the early 1990’s, several fragmented groups of disaffected voters and the ability to be represented proportionally (MMP) have enabled a Muti-party government to flourish. In the early 1990’s MPs were growing break off movements in the Labor and National parties. With a stronger Multi-Party system developing it allowed for MPs and voters to break away from commonly held ideology’s and broken promises. For example: The third highest voting party from 1954, won 16% of the party vote in 1978 but gaining 1/ 92 in Parliament???? WAT?. Through this time there was growing public concern that the break always weren’t being allowed to have a fair shot at public voting, and
The AMS and FPTP are voting systems in use for the Scottish Parliament and House of Commons elections respectively. It can be argued that AMS gives voters more choice and better representation than FPTP, and in order to assess the validity of this argument 3 key indicators must be analysed: constituency links; proportionality and representation of smaller parties.
In this essay I will assess the outcomes of Additional Member system, First Past the Post system and the Closed Party List system. The F-P-T-P system is used to elect the members of House of Commons and local government in England and Wales. Voters select candidates, and do so by marking his or her name with an ‘X’ on the ballot paper. This reflects the principle of ‘one person, one vote’. The Additional Members system is used in Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly, and Northern Ireland Assembly and Greater London assembly. It is a mixed system made up of F-P-T-P and party-list elements. The Regional party list (or the closed party list) is used to elect the
‘The main reason for conservative dominance in the years 1951 to 1964 was labour disunity’ Assess the validity of this view. (June 2011)
The ALP has taken a back seat to accommodating new social movements as it seeks to take whatever measures necessary to achieving government. In response, the Greens have used social movements as a platform for the party’s campaigning. The dynamics of election campaigning has evolved in Australia and has seen the major parties produce less emphasis on traditional ideology (Katz and Mair 2009:762) in their attempts to winning elections by targeting swing electorates. Therefore, the Greens have emerged as a party of principle in the face of blurring distinctions between the two major parties who seek to freeze out the minor parties and maintain their electoral dominance. Minor parties have fallen victim to elements of Cartelization in Australian politics which aims to prevent any challenges to the dominance of the two major parties. Furthermore, the Greens have garnered support through the belief that the Liberals as well as the ALP have become “indifferent to the desires of ordinary citizens” as policies become part of ‘the state than they are policies of any particular party or coalition’ (Katz and Mair 2009:759). The Cartelization of Australian Politics justifies how divisions within the ALP have played a significant role in the origins of the Greens as voters seek to challenge the dominant two-party
Throughout a significant period in history, 1945-79, a two party system was obviously predominant; the Labour and Conservative parties being the only two with the possibility of achieving majority vote and therefore forming a government. People voted for the party which represented their social class e.g.
John Adams, one of the founding fathers, wrote that “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution” (“Quote by John Adams”). The Two-Party system has been around since the start of America. The Two-Party system is a system that has two parties that the government, or America in this case, has that lead the government or America. At the current time, the two parties are the Republican and Democrat parties. It was created with the idea that everyone can be represented within either of the parties. Even though it does create some representation of the people, the two-party system does not create an equal policy in society because it does not allow people to get far if they are not within either of the two parties, does not allow the idea of having more than two parties, and because it doesn't represent everyone.
Third parties have been prevalent in nearly every United States election since the Anti-Masonic Party was formed in 1828—and have carried a foul reputation with them ever since. Traditionally, third parties are seen as voids into which voters cast their ballots, taking away those precious votes from the party that they most represent ideologically. However, this cynical view of third parties—and voting for people who are not running at all—overlooks the fact that, in voting for these parties, there is a certain degree of freedom afforded to the American people, a freedom not only to vote for whomever one wishes but also one to exercise the right of inadvertently and peacefully protesting the main presidential nominees offered up by the main
Party fusion can be beneficial in many ways, it helps third/smaller parties and the two dominant parties. While it can be seen by some as harmful to the Republicans and Democrats in the long run, it has yet to fully harm the two main parties. Instead as party fusion benefits smaller parties, the Republicans and Democrats reap benefits as well. Looking specifically at Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority decision/statement, that in order to avoid voter confusion, and to protect stability of political parties "the constitution permits the Minnesota legislation to decide that political stability is best served through a healthy two party system", a hypocrisy is present. The instability of the two party system isn’t called out nor are the Republicans and Democrats described as ever causing voter confusion. Analyzing Chief Justice’s statement above, his reasoning on party fusion and placing all blame on party fusion is critiqued.
"Choosing Sides: The Rise of Party Politics." Choosing Sides: The Rise of Politics. Web. 21 July
The second rule that Sartori created was, “A party qualifies for relevance whenever its existence, or appearance, affects the tactics of party competition and particularly when it alters the direction of the competition- by determining a switch from centripetal to centrifugal competition either leftward, rightward, or in both directions- of the governing-oriented parties” (1983, p.19). This rule further highlights the importance of minor party preferences, and the role they have in the Australian system.
Post-1993 until the present has been characterized by a multi-party system. The rise of several new competitive parties, including the New Democratic Party, Reform party, and the Bloc Quebecois, meant that the need for full party support in passing legislation increased as a result of the votes being spilt among many parties (Malloy 2000, 116 – 117). As a result it was determined that the only way that governments are going to be successful is if they are able to control their members (Hazan 2000, 1). Party discipline arose a
Multi agency work is a range of different services, agencies and groups of experts that collaborate together, to give benefits that completely address the issues of young people, children and their guardians or careers. Although multi agency work has been around for a mass period of time, it was in 2000 there was a call for a larger, thorough review of UK child protection services due to the death of Victoria Climbie.
The Founding Fathers believed that political parties were dangerous and a threat to a popular republican government. Despite the foreboding of the Founders, parties formed and are still around to this day. I agree with the statement that “parties make the process work, clarify issues, and present clear alternatives. And when the parties are in a weakened state, it is bad for the country.” I think in their most basic form, parties do play a vital role in our government, but I understand why the Founders were hesitant about them.
Canada is one of the largest and most culturally diverse countries in the world. These characteristics make the democratic governing of the country a difficult task. A democratic model is needed that respects the fundamental rights and freedoms of various diverse cultures, and unites these cultures over a huge land mass as Canadians. To do this the Canadian government is one which is pluralist. Pluralism is the ideology that groups, (in Canada's case political parties), should rule in government. These parties help protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone living in Canada, regardless of their ethnicity, or religious beliefs. The role political parties play in Canada is vital for
From February 1974 the link slowly and fitfully weakened and since 1983 the proportion has been under half (44-7%) with a majority voting for either the 'class enemy' or for the non-class centre or nationalists parties. This trend should not be exaggerated, however class still remains the single most important social factor underlying the vote." In 1985, the theory of class dealignment came under attack from the Heath thesis which was a book which claimed that the was no evidence that there had been a fall in working class loyalty to the labour party but actually the numbers of working class people actually dropped which had lead to a fall in the number of labour voters which proves that Class is a rather important factor for voting. Class alignment was still important but the balance of classes was changing. At the heart of the argument between voting alignment is the definition of 'Class'.