Representative Democracy In Australia

-The act of losing the right to vote for inmates has been around for ages, actual its been around since ancient Greece and Rome. This act was known as ' ' Civil Death ' '. Civil Death is when a person loses all or almost all civil rights due to incarceration. When it comes to inmates losing the right to vote many are on the fence. For instance Steve Chapman, a columnist and editorial writer at the Chicago Tribune, he completely disagree with inmates losing their right to vote. He believes that if ex-convicts are trusted to own property, marry or even reproduces why cant they have the option of help choosing are future leaders. Steve was even quoted saying ' 'If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn 't let them out of prison in the first place. ' ' However, on the other side of the fence lies people like Roger Clegg President of the Center for Equal Opportunity debate. Roger Clegg completely disagrees with Steve Chapman. In fact Roger believes that inmates or even ex-convicts are not trustworthy and shouldn’t be able to vote. Roger let his opinion known by this following statement “We don’t let children vote, for instance, or non citizens,or the mentally incompetent why? Because we don’t trust them and their judgment So the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy." When it comes to prisoners voting I’m on the fence. A good part of

According to Steve Chapman, a syndicated columnist and editorial writer at the Chicago Tribune, “Depriving ex-convicts of the ballot is a mindless form of punishment that only discourages them from becoming upstanding members of the community.” Chapman makes the point that if it is thought that ex-convicts cannot change after serving time in prison, why let them out? If we allow ex-convicts to own property, drive cars, marry, reproduce, etc., why can’t we trust them when it comes to choosing our leaders?

Australia is a democratic country5. Democracy itself is defined to be a system of government by the whole population

The United States is a representative democracy which means that the “leaders can make decisions by winning a competitive struggle” It also depends on the person when the question “how democratic should it be?” is asked. A representative democracy such as the one in the United States right now can be useful because it lessens the chance that power can be abused because there is an equal balance between the judiciary, legislative and the executive branch. Also, a representative democracy and its elections provide a chance for all of America’s voices to be heard through polls. For example, this year is an election year, so in a few months, many Americans will be expressing their views through a vote, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. However,

In reference to the Australia’s system of democracy, the pluralist theory of the state portrays the distribution of political power accurately in comparison to its rival theories, being Marxism and elitism. However, the theory faces certain limitations within the Australian political system.

Australia operate under a federal system of government. Essentially this means there is a division of law making power between the central government and state governments. This system was created by the

Implementing a fugitive democracy is an idea I often wonder about in a society. If norms were different, would it enable people to be different? The article explains, in a representative democracy, there is a form of lawless behavior that occurs where individuals in society encompass some of the wildest, disorderly, spirits, rebels, traitors, and“outcasts.” Why does it seem like our society constructed by laws and regulations attempt to tame these spirits? For these spirts are the ones that keep the human race alive and free, seem to challenge the structural norms that come before us, and wakes people up. The author is correct about one thing, in a way politics does control us. Its presence alone has the ability to deceive, sanction, and silence

Firstly, a discussion of prison in general is necessary. In other words, what constitutes prisons, its aims and objectives and prison culture (Reeves, 2015). Currently there are 38,845 prisoners in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). We will look at the history of prisons and the modern application of prisons and in conjunction with the ‘critical criminology’ (Hudson, 2002). This serves as a ‘control’ for our later discussion when we discuss race, class and gender.

In conclusion, its indispensable that the Australian citizens be engaged in the content of the Bill of Rights, thus giving Australians the opportunity of greater outcomes, ownership, associations and human rights protection. The challenge for Australians is to take ownership of our constitutional arrangement and by doing so, an enactment of a Bill of Rights would provide a starting point to respect the rights of minorities and protect basic constitutional principles, such as the independence of judiciary and the rule of law.

Australia stands alone as the only democratic western country without a Bill of Rights. Australia has experienced division amongst its people on whether a bill of rights is necessary for the protect of the rights of the nation. The purpose of this essay is to examine if a Bill of Rights is necessary for the protection of the Australian citizens from the government. There are many tenable arguments for leaving Australia as is without the application of a bill of right to the constitution, but there are also equal arguments for the need of a bill of rights. In the first section of this essay, the main arguments for a bill of rights will be addressed. In the second section of this essay, the case against a bill of rights being implemented in Australia will be discussed. As the debate for or against a Bill of rights grows and external and internal Pressure arise.

The Australian political system consists of many different levels of power. While the government is set up with a system of checks and balances, the power of different people, agencies, and organizations depends on rules, laws and ultimately the Australian Constitution. There are many different components to the Australian political system. They range from the Queen, exercised by the Governor-General, all the way down to the people. The people could be the most important part of the political system, without the people there is no Australia. But there are two components to the political system that stand out the most. They are the Australian Prime Minister and the Australian Parliament. These two parts have different responsibilities to the

For someone to have been given a custodial sentence, a very serious crime has to have been committed. That person has broken the law; they’ve contravened society’s norms and value’s, why should they be given the same rights and privileges as someone who abides by those rules. There’s a lot of emphasis on a prisoners human rights and what they should be entitled to but what about their victims? When a person commits a crime they have infringed upon, took away, someone else’s human rights. Mark Wallace of the Taxpayers Alliance comments “it would be disgusting to let tens of thousands of criminals to have an equal vote as the law abiding majority. These convicts never gave a second thought to the rights of others when they committed their crimes so their right to vote should be forfeited” (Mail Online February 2010). John Hirst, as well as being a convicted killer, also has a history of violence, arson and burglary. What about his landlady’s right to life? A life he took away with seemingly no remorse. Another prisoner, Peter Chester, convicted for the rape and murder of his seven year old niece, used taxpayers money to appeal to the high court for his right to vote, but where’s the consideration for his victim and victim’s family. Prisoners who have committed the most heinous crimes could have a say in how the country is governed and how the law is made. What message does that send to the

Today it is almost always associated with a representative democracy, which forms a compromise between the theories of people's sovereignty and a government following a tradition. Although the king or queen can be seen as head of government, it is the prime minister who governs the country. Its power derives directly or indirectly from

Voting. In a country of representative democracy, it can define your future. It ensures that our elected representatives are preferred by most of the electorate.  This is why it is compulsory, to vote if you are enrolled, in all Federal, State and local government elections, statutory elections and polls. It is the right and the responsibility of everyone on the electoral roll to vote. You must be at least 18 years of age to vote in Australia. 18! What about 17 and 16 year olds. When you turn 16 you can leave school, be employed for a full-time job and be liable for tax , just to list a few rights. Why is this list missing the eligibility to vote? This is

Australia, in it's relatively short history has always had an emphasis on social, personal and political freedoms – and a strong allegiance to the system of democracy. Democracy has since spread to corners of the globe thanks to uprisings such as the Arab Springs which has spread democracy throughout the Middle East and North Africa (Andelman, 2012). As time and technological advancements progress the concept of democracy has been challenged, but never overthrown. One of the fundamental tenets of democracy is the power of the people to have a say in the running of a state, be it the Athenian style of 'direct democracy' or our current style of 'representative democracy'. The major way in which the citizenry were able to have their say on important issues was through the use of voting.