Constitutional and Administrative Law.
In this case, therefore, we find that after the elections, there is no party that gains the required simple majority. This means that it would be very difficult to use this rule to determine the winner as none of the existing parties have met the minimum requirements. However, it would be a good idea to consider using the number of votes that each of the parties have so that they can be able to know who the Prime Minister should be.
Sometimes back, there was an election that was held which had the Brown party win. This is the reason as to why there is a Prime Minister who is still ruling. From this election, it is clear that the Brown party did not achieve the simple majority and so are all the other parties. However, the Brown party forms a coalition with the Pink party and this nullifies its possibility of having the Prime Minister seat. It should therefore be automatic that the leader of the Brown party should not be the Prime Minister.
The Pink party is also in a coalition with the Brown party and therefore the leader of the Pink party can not at all become the Prime Minister. The only one that is left out that can become the Prime Minister is the leader of the Blue party. In addition, this will be the only remaining large party after the Brown party forms a coalition with the Pink party. The coalition is only valid as long as the elections are valid. Therefore, the leader of the Blue party should be the Prime Minister as it is the largest party in that election as the coalition should not be considered. The reason as to why they form a coalition is to have some powers in the House or rather to be properly presented there as they will be a bigger party in coalition as compared to when they are individual parties.
First Past the Post is a system of voting where the winner is usually the one who achieves some specific number of votes first during the elections. For instance, if there is an election that is being held in a country which embraces this system of voting and that it is mutually agreed that the winner will be the one who reaches the forty percent mark first, it would mean that the party that reaches this mark first will be the one that becomes the winner. This is not a very good system of voting in that a party may reach the mark first and fails to have the simple majority presentation in the parliament.
The reason behind this is that a party may be popular in the region where the elections are first held and therefore achieve the required number of votes while it has less popularity in the other areas. In this case, we find that the Pink party is a small party and therefore it may not have a lot of seats in parliament. This means that even when it comes to elections, this party may not get the required number of votes so that it can win the elections. There is therefore a need to look for another system that may be used in determining the winner in the elections other than the first past the post system. This system of voting is known to do well in those countries that have only two major parties. It is known to lock out any third party or minority party that may be in existence in such areas.
In this case, there is a need to adopt another system of voting which will benefit smaller parties such as the Pink party. A mixed member proportional voting system may be a better system that should be used in the elections. In this system, the number of parties is the one that determine the number of votes that will be cast. This means that all the parties will have equal presentation in the parliament and also during the election time. In addition, in this system, there are a set of members that are elected on the basis of their Geographic constituencies. These members are usually deducted from the partys overall votes and this is known to maintain the proportionality. Using this system, the Pink party will be properly presented and it may not need to form a coalition with the Brown party.
It is clear that the coalition wants to take advantage of the fact that they have simple majority. They want to pass bills that are not justified simply because they are more and due to their votes in the House, they are likely to win. In such a situation, there are chances that there may be passage of bills that are not very good. Therefore, there is a need for the higher power which would control and prevent such activities or such bills from passing. The monarch is the only one who can prevent such bill from passing as it is the one responsible for signing and letting it be an Act. It is also the only one who can push out the Prime Minister who has refused to get out of the seat.
In this case, the monarch has a number of options which heshe can employ so that it can prevent the bill from passing. First, it can ask or rather request that there may be a revision that will be done on the bill before it passes. The monarch may require that the bill be changed and the parts that are not good harmonized. This way, there may be no objection and the parties may need to just harmonize the bill so that it can be passed by the monarch.
Alternatively, the monarch may decide to reject the bill without giving any explanation. This way, there is a possibility that the coalition party will take the monarch to the court demanding for an explanation as to why the monarch has rejected the bill. This may take some time and, depending on the way the monarch handles the case in the court, it may or may not win on the bill. This may also be a tedious process, bearing in mind that the monarch has a lot of powers but rarely uses them. Heshe is only represented by the Crown and has a main duty of preventing those who wield from becoming very powerful. Even though the royal prerogative is rarely used, it may be necessary to employ these powers in a case like this, as this is the only way that a solution will be achieved in such a baseless situation. The monarch should therefore not give assent to the bill as it is unconstitutional.
It is evident that in this case the coalition party will take the monarch and the conventions which are responsible for the use of the prerogative powers to the court. In its accusation, the coalition party is likely to sue the monarch for not allowing the bill to be passed. On its claim, the coalition party may claim that the monarch is denying the party their freedom and it is not just in its judgment. The reason is that it is obvious that the coalition party will have more votes that the other side of the government. This means that if they were to vote by simple majority, they might win and the bill might pass. This is an unconstitutional bill and therefore it would block the use of justice and democracy in the area. This is the main reason as to why the monarch may not give assent to the bill.
The coalition party may argue that this decision that is arrived at by the monarch is not a fair one to make in that it does not really present the views of the majority in the government. Their argument is not a valid one and therefore it will only pass if they base it on the parliamentary acts 1911 and 1949. These two parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 are known to have limited the powers of the House of the Lords from blocking or delaying any bill.
In this case, the court decision will have to be based on the decision of the monarch. The court also has the duty to help in maintaining law and order. In addition, it has to help the monarch to ensure that all the parties that are powerful do not use their powers to rule unfairly and at the same time to pass bill that are undemocratic and those that would affect the government in later years. Therefore, it is necessary that the court consults the monarch before making any decision as this is the only way that they will come up with a ruling that would help to prevent unnecessary decisions which would otherwise be difficult to achieve. This is because the coalition party has the simple majority that would be necessary for the bill to be passed. Therefore, there is a need for the royal prerogative to act using its extra ordinary measures at such an extra ordinary time.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment