Marcus Ethridge, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, argues in a 2011 policy analysis published by the libertarian Cato Institute that the U.S.

They maintain, in essence, that 'the policy preferences of Members of Congress at or near the median are among the crucial determinants of policy outcomes.' As a result, they argue, gridlock is not determined by party control of the government, but rather by an interplay between the existing policy and the spectrum of individual preferences held by congressional representatives. Along these lines, David Brady, a professor of political science at Stanford University, and Craig Volden, a professor of public policy and politics at the University of Virginia, explain gridlock by pointing to two interrelated factors: first, 'the preferences of members of Congress regarding particular policies' and second, ' supermajority institutions – the Senate filibuster and the presidential veto'. Constitution and Senate voting rules for enabling situations of legislative gridlock. Law professors such as Sanford Levinson and Adrian Vermeule, as well as political commentators such as Matthew Yglesias and Debbie Parks, have criticized the U.S. Political Gridlock by author Ned Witting identifies many of the causes of gridlock in the United States and outlines ways to get government working again. Gridlock may also occur within the Senate, when no party has a filibuster-proof majority. In United States politics, gridlock frequently refers to occasions when the House of Representatives and the Senate are controlled by different parties, or by a different party than the party of the president. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the gridlock caused by the separation of powers and checks and balances of the U.S. These problems happen less with representative democracy.See also: United States Presidents and control of Congress U.S. There is also the issue of the ‘tyranny of the majority’, where the interests of minorities can be ignored. There are arguments that the people would not have the knowledge or time to make important political decisions, with turnout in most UK referendums being low and some decisions being made for emotional rather than thought through reasons, with their interests, rather than those of the state in mind. So direct democracy makes governments are directly accountable to the citizens of the state, and is especially used in the UK to solve constitutional issues regarding how we are governed.Īrguments against direct democracy include how difficult it is to reach agreement in a modern state with millions of people. The party system also means representatives follow the order of party leaders rather than the interests of the voters. In the UK, the government calls the referendum, but in some countries, such as Switzerland and the USA, the people can trigger a referendum by way of petition, which is called an initiative.Īrguments for direct democracy in the UK include the problems caused by the voting system of FPTP, which doesn’t produce true representation in terms of seat won, as well as producing a socially unrepresentative Parliament of predominantly white males. The last one was the Scottish Independence referendum, and the next will be a referendum on EU membership in 2017. The UK doesn’t use referendums as much as some other countries.

show of hands at a public meeting) or referendums. With direct democracy, the people take decisions themselves (e.g.

Deadlock definition politics