democrat Flashcards
(29 cards)
1
Q
PR upheld AUS
A
- high diversity of political parties
- electoral compromise (blended pref voting, prop voting)
- compulsory enrolment and voting
2
Q
PR undermined AUS
A
- two-part system entrenched in the lower house
- pref voting disadvantages minor parties
- undermines individual liberty and donkey votes
3
Q
PR upheld US
A
- single member electorate in both houses means trustee links to constituents
- FPP
- voluntary enrolment and voting emphasise individual liberty
4
Q
PP upheld AUS
A
- free and fair electoral system, compulsory voting high levels of voter turnout (89.92%)
- senates PR electoral system enables parliamentary participation with diverse ideologies
- range of pressure groups
- statutes such as Racial Discrimination Act 1975
5
Q
PP undermined AUS
A
- statutes may infringe political freedoms and rights
- participation of indigenous Australians is limited by social, cultural, economic and geographical barriers
- growing disillusionment and mistrust with politics
6
Q
PP upheld US
A
- free electoral system
- no restrictions on the formation of political parties
7
Q
PP undermine US
A
- electoral system is not always fair- gerrymanders, race, class and wealth distort the effectiveness of electoral participation
- disenfranchised some groups
- only two political parties are viable
8
Q
ROL upheld AUS
A
- constitutional SOP
- judicial independence protected by S72
- cabinet, ministry and public service accountable through parliamentary independence eg. senate standing committee for the scrutiny of delegated legislation
9
Q
ROL undermine AUS
A
- exec dominance of parliament
- parliamentary privilege provides immunity
- exec decision to appoint judge unchecked
10
Q
ROL upheld US
A
- strict constitutional SOP
- judicial independence is protected by article 3, appointments require consent from senate
- Congress and courts check presidential power
11
Q
ROL undermine US
A
- increasing partisanship is undermining the checks and balances between congress and the presidency
- judicial appointment is a politicised process
- misuse of the presidential pardon power
12
Q
JI upheld AUS
A
- section 72, separates the power of appointment and dismissal
- HC interpreted S71 narrowly preserving the independence of chapter 3 courts
13
Q
JI undermine AUS
A
- executive appointment of a judge is unchecked
- legislation can diminish the judge’s discretion to interpret the law
14
Q
JI upheld US
A
- constitution article 2 requires the consent of the two political branches of govt (president nominates, senate confirms, congress impeaches or removes)
- constitution establishes a strict separation of the federal judicary
15
Q
JI undermine US
A
- seven states elect SC judges by popular vote
- appointments can become a political contest between the president and the senate eg. Justice Kavanaugh
16
Q
NJ upheld AUS
A
- adverserial trial processes robustly uphold fairness and NJ through due process (OHIE)
- Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution such as Administrative Appeals Tribunal to increase access to justice
- const rights to a jury trial- section 80 and legal representation (implied) for federal offenses
17
Q
NJ undermine AUS
A
- courts can deny appeals
- flaws in the jury system
- wrongful convictions (Andrew Mallard 1995)
- access and equity issues
18
Q
NJ upheld US
A
- adversarial trial processes robustly uphold fairness and NJ through due process (OHIE)
- use of ADR to increase justice and equality and parties
19
Q
NJ undermine- US
A
- barriers to access and equality related to the cost of the adversarial trial system
- lengthy, courts have backlogs
20
Q
PP- AUS and US example uphold
A
- BLM, School Strike 4 climate change, extinction rebellion
21
Q
PP- AUS undermine example
A
AFP raids on Journalists 2019
22
Q
ROW- AUS example uphold
A
DPP v Keating 2013
23
Q
ROL- AUS example undermine
A
M68 v Minister 2015
24
Q
ROL- US undermine and uphold example
A
Donald Trump
25
JI- AUS uphold example
Brandys Case 1955
26
JI- AUS undermine example
Wik and amendments to Native Title Act 1998
27
JI- US undermine example
electing judges
28
NJ- AUS uphold example
Coleman v Power 2004
29
NJ- AUS undermine example
Patient A 2014
