Blog Discussion Group One
Please answer one question from the following list. Blog "post" due at 11:55pm on September 4 and "comment" due at 11:55pm on September 7.
Politics, the State, and Nation.
1. Discuss some of the reasons why governments may exhibit inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Can anything be done to overcome these problems, or are they inherent in the nature of government?
2. Are some countries or world leaders more nationalistic than others? Too nationalistic? If so, what can be done about it?
3. What are some examples of states with more than one nation? Would it be better if such states broke up into separate states? Why?
Presidentialism & Parliamentarism
4. Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
5. Should the Unites States change its single member district/plurality system for elections to the House of Representatives to a proportional representation system?
2. Countries have varying degrees of nationalism, for example in places such as Russia the people and government cherish their past with a plethora of museums, statues, and historical sites. In countries such as China however both its leaders and its citizens have such deeply rooted nationalistic ideals that they deny their fallacies such as the Tiananmen Square event and boldly claim possession over independent states such as Taiwan and Tibet. I don't believe there is much to be done about China's nationalism as the ruling party of China known as the Communist Party of China has been the single ruling party since 1949 and their ideologies are extremely unlikely to change.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you answered the question using two different countries as examples. It shows your understanding of the subject and also accurately answers the question are some world leaders more nationalistic than others. Great ending too by adding the fact of China's Communist Party ruling since 1949.
Delete1. There are many ways in which a government may be ineffective or inefficient, depending on the type of government. For instance, the U.S. presidential system, with its many checks and balances, has numerous ways in which legislature can be stalled or stopped entirely. Presidential veto, filibustering and government shutdowns are all examples of when a government can be less than efficient or even stop running altogether. Thankfully, this inefficacy/inefficiency can be reduced or resolved entirely –all it takes is compromise. When government becomes too polarized, it can easily break down with infighting and abject brinkmanship. When government parties work together, there is much less of a chance that new legislation will be stalled or canceled (although it still happens -a president can still refuse to sign bipartisan legislation or veto it entirely).
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are many ways in which a government can become inefficient or ineffective and that compromise is a way to neutralize these issues. Another thing that could help a meltdown would be the use of diplomacy in political conversations. Diplomacy would make sure that each party was being respectful towards the other while stating their respective sides of the argument.
Delete4. I believe presidentialism is more democratic then parliamentarism. Presidentialism is what the United States goes by. We the people are able to vote for our president and who we feel is the best canidate to run. The president will usually serve for 4 years and may be re voted and serve up to another 4 year. The government and president are paired in one executive office. Parliamentarsim is where the legislature votes for their prime minister. They do not have a certain amount of time, so with that being said the prime minister needs to show the legislature what he can do and how good he can do it so that he can serve a numerous amount of years. The role of head of state and role head of government are in separate executive offices.
ReplyDeleteInteresting how you believe presidentialism to be a more democratic method. I believe there is some confusion however as US citizens do not directly vote for the president or vice president, it is actually the electoral college who votes for our president. Personally I find parliamentary governments more representative of the peoples wants
DeleteI believe that presidentialism is also more democratic than parliamentarism. The people do get a vote in who runs for leadership. The electoral college is the final deciding factor but society votes in the candidates who run for the office. The legislature that votes on a prime minister seems less democratic because the people have less power.
Delete5. I believe that the United States should stick to the single member district/plurality system for elections to the house of representatives. This system allows all geographic areas of the United States to have a vote as to who represents them in the House. All elected are held accountable for their actions and how the represent their state. They can be voted out easily at the next election and that makes the candidates fight harder for their state. I feel as if the majority of voters vote for one party then that is the party that should be in the house such as democrat or republican. Every system has ups and downs but this system is working out fine and geographic areas chose their representation in the House.
ReplyDeleteDalton,
DeleteI agree with you on the fact that the United States should stick to the single member district/plurality for elections to the house of representatives. With by doing this, all areas can and are able in the United States to vote on who may represent them. This is a key to being successful I think. The voters know their representatives well and I see it is able to work out and come through as being successful. I also see where you are coming from when you mentioned all are held accountable for their mistakes and what they do moving forward. I would argue the fact of it being easy to be voted out though, yes every candidate is fighting hard to win the battle but at some points in the years past we have had candidates serve longer. I think it is all about how they please the people of the United States and how good of work they are doing at that. Each candidate needs to know what they are doing and how to do it in oder to win over the people and their votes.
I agree, though every system has its ups and downs I believe that this system is also working just fine for America. It helps to pick a representative from each area that represents the most popular selection of that area.
Delete4. For this question I believe that presidentialism is more democratic than parliamentarism. A democracy is a form of government in which the people of the state vote and elect their officials. The United States runs under presidentialism which allows for the people to vote for presidents, senators, etc. to run the office. For parliamentarism the people don't have a say in who they elect as the executive leader, so the legislature would elect the executive leader not the people. This is why I think presidentialism is more democratic than parliamentarism.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy, in the terms of the common people, citizens, has many roots in American election systems, as seen by the world. Even though, some may consider in the parliamentarian system that voters have a less direct decision in the election of "supreme leader" for the nation, there are many important correlations between the two systems. This being that the presidential election is based off of an electoral college, a vote from individuals which represent each individual area.
Delete4. I believe that presidentialism is more democratic when compared to parliamentarism. Presidentialism is where a president, or head of the government, leads a set of governmental groups (executive, legislative, judicial) that all have varying purposes. Parliamentarism, however, is a system run by a prime minister that is not voted into power by the people who are of the society but rather is decided by other reasons such as family ties. Presidentialism, what the United States is under currently, allows the people to vote for who they believe is best fit to be leader. This way of government, in turn, is much more democratic than parliamentarism as the people of a parliamentarism government do not get to vote and are left with whoever is next in line rather than having a say.
ReplyDelete2. As the new age of technology and information unfolds, there is an ever-increasing sense of unity between people from many different nations across the globe. This world unity comes up against opposition from nationalistic countries and their leaders. As stated by Hague and Harrop, “Nationalism is a doctrine of modernity…simply the doctrine that nations do have a right to determine their own destiny – to govern themselves.” But its roots go deeper, into the history of the nation, the people, and how they were governed in the past. While there are countries which support both polar ends of the spectrum, one must realize that an individual, a citizen, of a country will be more supportive of a party, system, that gained them wealth, shares religious beliefs, or created positive life changes. This element of a country will be difficult to change, due to the citizens feeling empowerment from financial gain,individual sovereignty, and cultural and religious history.
ReplyDelete4. Which is more democratic: presidentialism or parliamentarism?
ReplyDeleteA democracy is a system of government where the eligible members of that state/Country are elected by voters. Using that definition I would definitely say that Presidentialism is more democratic (since it is the system that we use here in the United States).
- Presitdentialism is more democratic because the president is picked every four years by election (voters). With parliamentarism you generally have a leader that is elected by the legislature (typically a prime minister).
Hello Naomi, glad to read your post. I actually went back and forth with this question myself (before picking a different question). I have mixed feelings, as I believe parliamentarism is the epitome of a democracy - people elected by the people to represent them. As we here in America use the electoral college system, I feel we actually do not have as clear of a democracy as it might sound. After all, popular vote is much of a less of an impact that the electoral vote (as demonstrated with Trump and in the past - 5 times total!). However I do appreciate you thoughts! If you do read this, I would appreciate what you think about our electoral college system.
Delete(hope I get partial points for this this post - I was waiting for more people to respond and then forgot this was due...sigh. Ill do better next week)