Is the European Union a State?

Is the European Union a

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1628
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

Outline how and why federalism has changed since the 1960s.

Page 1 of 2 Outline how and why federalism has changed since the 1960s. In the 1960s, the government had a creative federalist approach. The aim of Lynden Johnson's Great society programmes was to try to eliminate poverty within the US. This in turn meant large government grants were given to states, which was seen to increase the level of interference from the federal government. Johnson also provided categorical grants instead of block grants, which meant the states had much less control over their spending. He also supplied a lot of federal aid, increasing the dependence of states on the federal government. It wasn't just the executive increasing the role; the judiciary were also pushing the government this way, with cases such as Gideon vs. Wainwright and Miranda vs. Arizona. Since the 1960's the some have stated that New Federalism has been the main objective of the executive and judiciary due to the previous creative federalism. From the 1970s there was an ideological shift, with the rejection of liberal values from the 1960s. President Nixon started the development of the idea that the federal government was too powerful, and that the states needed to have more power of their local rights. He felt that the federal government should be small to promote self reliance and the American idea of 'rugged individualism'. As a reaction to creative federalism and the great

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1289
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid

Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid The United States' constitution was created in 1787 and, whilst creating the document, the Founding Fathers' opted on a method to indirectly elect the President. The "electoral college" system was born. The Founding Fathers believed that the electorate may, in the future, be easily taken in by the showmanship of extremists and so determined that the popular votes cast would only "influence" electors and not directly elect the President. Each state would have as many electors as they have congressmen (so 2 for each Senator and then so many for however many Representatives) who would cast their ballots in early January (after the national election in November) for a candidate, having been "influenced" by the results of the election day polls. In effect, this system both undermines the integrity of the voters and is undemocratic, effectively allowing the power to fall to a small number of people. Unsurprisingly, especially in the wake of the 2000 election, there have been calls for reform with many citing the Electoral College as a "no longer valid" method of electing the leader of the country. As I have already mentioned, the original reason for introducing the Electoral College system was to prevent against dictatorship and extremism. In theory, this sounds great

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1797
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

Can the use of the First Past the Post electoral system be justified in a modern democracy?

Can the use of the First Past the Post electoral system be justified in a modern democracy? [50] The 'first past the post' electoral system is a simple majority system whereby the country is divided into single member constituencies and voters select a single candidate who only requires a simple plurality of votes to win the election. It is extremely difficult to define a modern democracy, but the core ideas would be that it allows the people to govern (in most cases through elected officials) and fair and equal representation for all. Thus, for the FPTP system to be justified it must meet this criteria, and whilst it does usually fulfil it's role of creating strong, single party government it unquestionably fails in encouraging participation and providing equal representation and therefore it is hard to justify. One of the main reasons why it can be seen as justified is the fact that it provides strong and single party government. The United Kingdom has always employed a first past the post system and for this reason there has only been six coalition governments in its history and only two since 1940. These consistently single party governments for many have been vital in allowing laws to be passed and that with a coalition government, very little would be able to passed. The theoretical argument is that single party government leads to strong government and this is what

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1538
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

to what extent have conservatives supported one nation principles?

To what extent have Conservatives supported 'one-nation' principles? The belief that governments should be committed to reforms that make people feel part of the nation is a defining feature of one nation conservatism. The various factions of the ideology consist of differing degrees of one nation principles; in one nation Conservatism, this is the defining principle, in traditional Conservatism it is a minor consideration, whilst the New Right holds views that are against this belief. You should also be aware that ONC includes striking a pragmatic balance between business and the needs of the people, the idea of the government taking noblesse oblige and the idea of making decisions to keep the 'ship' afloat as opposed to directing it. Perhaps most obviously, one nation principles are at the centre of one nation conservatism. The idea of Britain being viewed as a nation is of great importance to one-nation thinkers and this is why they are committed to reforms that make people feel part of the nation. This brings in ideas of social responsibility and the belief that social reform is essential in order to preserve a fragile society; in terms of strengthening existing bonds, reducing resentment and making people feel part of the nation. However, a pragmatism that places great importance on maintaining the balance between social reform and a lack of interference in the

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 976
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

How and to what extent has modern liberalism departed from the ideas of classical liberalism?

How and to what extent has modern liberalism departed from the ideas of classical liberalism? Modern liberalism has made several significant departures from classical liberalism, most significantly resulting from their different views on what exactly constitutes freedom. Whereas classical liberals such as Adam Smith and John Locke believed in negative freedom - the freedom of interference by others, modern liberals see freedom as positive - the right of accessing the opportunities and resources needed to fulfil ones potential. It is from this key ideological difference that other differences arise. Perhaps the most significant departure from classical liberalism that this has resulted in is the Modern liberals' perception of the state. Traditionally, Liberals have been very suspicious of the state as a body with the potential to limit personal freedom, and therefore something to be treated with caution. Locke famously stated that the state lay "within the realm of coercion", prompting Liberals to be wary of state interference and seeing its role as to protect the individual from having their freedom impinged upon by others, rather than to interfere with positive aims. The Modern Liberal view stands in contrast to this original perspective; they believe that they state should intervene for positive impact, for example, the provision of equal opportunities, as without the

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 942
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay