Lack of Checks and Balances for Traditional Parliaments

After reading the fourth chapter, I have came to my own conclusion that, in one point of view, the prime minister wields to much power. In general practice, if a majority government or a coalition government is in place, then the Prime Minister can present a bill with little or no adequate objection to stop its passage. The opposition can only voice it but would not have the power to stop it. There is, typically, no judicial review that would even be able to object to a bill or its passage, and in some parliaments they are free to override the courts as they see fit. The other houses of the legislature cannot override the upper house, and also members in the same dominant party cannot exactly risk to go against the Prime Minister (experience and prestige is required). In many cases, the states/provinces/ect cannot even stop measures from happening.

This doesn't show the same degree of checks and balances as you see within American Federalism. Also, there is a lack of separation of government branches. The Prime Minister leads the upper house of the legislature, which successfully combines the role of legislature and executive through the Prime Minister, giving the Prime Minister an uneven hand in power. However, to be fair parliamentary government when being led by majority, or coalition is very similar to unified governments in the states.

Run-off Elections and Political Parties

I believe that run-off elections would be a perfect way to settle disputes in all democratic republics, especially on votes deciding who heads the executive. It would be the most democratic way of electing presidents, by making certain that the candidate elected has some degree of legitimacy. If you look at the 2000 elections, many people were upset at the outcome because they saw the election as being illegitimate. Democrats cried foul at Ralph Nader since he took away crucial votes that would have definitely put Gore ahead of Bush, and how mess in Florida was handled.

The only problem is that we, as American's might not ever have to see a run-off election due to our deeply ingrained two party system.

The two party system is very undemocratic. What the Democrats and Republicans have accomplished is an increasingly bipolar political climate that successfully blocks the advancement of third parties. It is undemocratic because it isn't fully representative of the wide range of political attitudes, and ideology that can be found in America. I, for example, have an increasingly tough time voting because I'm not a clear cut Republican or Democrat.

The Federalist Papers

I find it interesting that in the Federalist Papers there is a lot of emphasis on natural rights. This is very John Locke. It seams that the founding fathers didn't try too hard to hide the fact that much of the ideology that shaped, and continues to shape, the US is based off Lockean principles. Personally I find the idea of natural rights to be little strong, because human beings have always been social creatures, and much of our behavior is socially constructed. We were never alone and in a natural state as Locke proposed.

Which Countries Are Democratic?

I looked at the PDF which was used in classifying the level of democracy in each country. For the most part, they have developed an okay system for measuring democracy in countries, but it's problems are similar to suffered from all statistical analysis. The proxies used tend to rely of subjective input more then mathematical input, which could profoundly shape a study. Despite this the questions for determining the score of each category are well thought up. Their problem is that they value the questions either at 1 or 0 and there is little in between, which can skew results.

Is a Supermajority Democratic?

Personally I find that no matter how you configure the system, you will find arguments both for and against. One could argue that democracy involves everyone, and everyone agreeing. In that case a supermajority is democratic. If one's take on democracy believes in majority vote, and that small blocks in government shouldn't have the power to stop a majority vote, then a supermajority is very undemocratic. It all depends on ones view of Democracy.

Personally I feel that supermajorities are just inefficient. The founding fathers set them up in order to make change difficult, and in order to ensure that stability and tranquility exist on after an amendment is made. Succession is more likely if you have a larger group going against any amendment. But the problem is how can changes be made when it requires such a large vote making so that most of America must be ready to accept it. It's great for that reason, and it keeps partisan politics from turning into hostilities.

Introduction

I'm Alex, and my first impression of the first class that this might actually be somewhat enjoyable since I enjoy discussions. However, I must contend my dislike for politics. In fact I absolutely detest the modern day politics.

The first reading did give me a sense of comparison. Unlike other constitutions, ours doesn't mention any social or economic protections. For instance, many constitutions around the world garuntee everyone opportunity to good health, which is normally accompanied by some kind of health care system that is accessible to all of its citizens. Perhaps this could explain why our country lags behind so many others in welfare, even though we are the richest nation in the world, and why we have greater levels of income inequality. However, this shouldn't be surprising because our country was founded under the political-economic ideology of republicanism.

There are also some issues I have with the book. For instance it assumed that the immigrants entering into the US were welcomed, which is a falsehood. It also made a couple of comparisons between the US and Poland, which I found not accurate.