An American Model Of The On The Prime Minister

It’s been argued ever since the constitution was made how in touch the congress members where with the people who elect them and this argument still goes on today. With the 425 members of the House each has a district which averages nearly 650,000 people, this is a vast number with many arguing that there is little chance that congress can be in touch with the people when they have to represent such vast numbers. However, the other side of the argument displays evidence that in fact the members of congress are able to stay in touch and represent the people who elect them.

Another reason why the House of Commons is more effective in checking government power is Prime ministers Question Time, which is a weekly slot where MPs can ask one notified question of the Prime Minister and one unscripted supplementary question. These are also usually dominated by the PM and the leader of the opposition who can ask four or five supplementary questions. Question Time also extends to other ministers, forcing them to answer oral questions from MPs. On occasion Prime Minister question time can expose a PM or seem to sum up the political weather, for example Tony Blair said to John Major “You’re weak, weak, weak”. Furthermore, PM questions are very high profile due to the high amount coverage via the media and the one occasion in the week where much of the population will form a judgement on the two main party leaders. Also, the vast majority of the government can only be questioned in the House of Commons.

Based on the way that the President’s office was created, the makeup of the Congress can present a challenge or an

Many people would like to believe that the president is the most powerful person in the world. However, the structure of America has put restraints on the president that a Prime Minister would not have. There are many differences between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. These differences include regulations, term of office, powers, and cultures. Throughout this paper you will learn that just being the leader of their country is about as similar as these two people get.

When looking how effectively a country represents its citizens, it is important to take into account the manner in which they are represented. The two main types of representation are descriptive and agency representation. Descriptive representation is the concept that those who represent the American people should not only have the same political interest, but should also mirror the demographic makeup of the people. Agency representation, which is what the United States congress looks like, is when the representation does not reflect the demographic, but they speak for their constituents’ interests in congress. The constituents are able to hold the representatives accountable and can choose not to elect them in the next term, so the representatives

When the United States was founded, the theme behind the new government was to establish an efficient system without doling out too much power to any one person. The Founders intended to prevent a rebirth of tyranny, which they had just escaped by breaking away from England. However, when members of Congress such as Tom Foley, who served as a Representative from 1964 through 1995, and Jack Brooks, who served as a Representative from 1952 through 1994, remain in the legislative system for over forty years, it is evident that tyranny has not necessarily been eradicated from the United States (Vance, 1994, p. 429). Term limits are a necessity to uphold the Founders’ intentions, to prevent unfair advantages given to incumbents, and to

I do agree with you completely this is a democracy and in it we are supposed to vote for who is to represent us. I think that we should be appointed by the president but as candidates for the people to vote on.

James Madison states in Federalist 48 that “The legislative department is everywhere… drawing all power into its impetuous vortex”(Will). Congress corrupts with power and the only way to stop this is to impose term limits on the US Congress. Term limits are laws that keep one politician from being in Congress for too long. Term limits are on the rise with the public, but are hard to get accepted in Congress. Because of this, the last time a bill that proposed term limits was even voted on was on May 26, 1993. Many wonder why term limits were not originally put in the Constitution but term limits were not needed when the Constitution was written because most founding fathers were not career politicians, now many are career politicians and an amendment to the Constitution is needed. Term limits should be implemented in the United States Congress because they help prevent corruption, provide beneficial turnover in Congress, have public support, and, contrary to popular belief, they can be implemented easily.

Congressional terms have no limits. Controversy exists between those who think the terms should be limited and those who believe that terms should remain unlimited. The group that wants to limit the terms argues that the change will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. Those who oppose term limits believe that we would sacrifice both the stability and experience held by veteran politicians. They also point out that our election process allows the voter to limit terms, at their discretion. While experience and stability are important considerations, congressional terms should be limited to a maximum of two.

Members of Congress are voted to office by their electorate as their representatives at the congress level of democracy. In their capacity, they may decide to exercise their powers by the will of the people or according to their personal judgment. When the members of Congress opt to be the people’s delegate, their actions in the House and other congressional engagements are a reflection of the will of their district. As such, the delegate representative does not have or exercise the autonomy to represent and decide for their district. Instead, a strenuous consultation process is required to keep the people in control of all relevant decisions.

In 1787, one of the most debated issues was the size of the House of Representatives. During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates proposed that 40,000 citizens should be represented by one congressional district. However, George Washington intervened and argued that 40,000 was too high, and reasoned that 30,000 was more reasonable and allow people to be represented adequately Washington’s proposal was incorporated in Article One, Section Two of the Constitution which states “representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.” While the number of representatives did increase throughout the history of the United States, the number has been set at 435 members since 1929. Congress in 1929 passed the Permanent Apportionment Act that set the number of representatives at 435, which was set after a 1910 census. Currently each representative represents 700,000 citizens and congressional seats are redistricted around the nation based on population changes. But the currently number of representatives does not adequately represent the present population and a single district cannot represent a huge number of people. Therefore, the current number of representatives must be increased.

Having term limits would be good because there would be a definite change every so many years. If the people did not like what was going on then they would know that as soon as the term was over they could be replaced.

Research Question: How do powers of an American president differ from a British prime minister, including limitations and how does that contribute to their perceived effectiveness as a leader?

Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers.

One major issue that allows the Prime Minister execute such a high degree of ministerial power is the Cabinets ability to use party discipline to ensure it has its party’s support. MPs of the party must always “toe the party line” to guarantee the will of the PM is carried out. If any elected member of the Prime Ministers’ party were to vote against the PM, the PM has the executive