in modern Election System most of the candidate belong to the political parties is it good for democracy
Answers
Answered by
5
yes because he don't use money power and don't harm anyone
Answered by
6
Candidate selection is the process by which political parties decide who will be on the ballot paper as their recommended candidate(s). The way in which they make that choice is mainly determined by their own internal rules and procedures. Nomination is the legal process by which election authorities screen the candidates recommended by the party, approve their candidacy, and print their names on the ballot paper.
In each election, thousands of persons could potentially stand for election, but it would be impossible for voters to make an informed choice among them. Political parties therefore act as useful and necessary gate-keepers narrowing down the list of candidates to a small enough pool.
Parties can select their candidates in many different ways. In numerous cases, the existing legal framework establishes that political parties should “democratically” elect their candidates, but this concept is very vague, and there are few if any applicable legal provisions. Only in a few cases does legislation lay down the process by which candidates should be selected, and the selection process can have a direct impact on the depth and breadth of the democratic process—particularly if a given party’s candidate selection process is non-transparent[1]
There are two concepts that are central to the issue of party selection of candidates. One iscentralisation, that is, what level in the party – local, regional or national –controls the candidate selection. The second is participation, meaning who – ordinary members or top leadership – controls the process at the level where the decision is taken.
Centralisation
In an extremely centralised system, a national party agency would decide on the candidate selection without any involvement by the more local branches of the party. At the other end of the scale would be a system where the most local branches of the party would decide on candidates without any approval or participation from the national level. As in so many other fields, the actual practice is usually somewhere between the two extremes.
In most political parties, candidates are chosen at the local level even though the national level of the party has a varying degree of influence. The influence can be pro-active by encouraging, recommending, or forcing the local branch to chose a particular candidate – or negative by the national level party reserving the right to veto candidates. In both cases, the party has to strike a difficult balance between national level strategies and local sensitivities.
Participation
A situation with extremely low participation would be if the party leader alone would decide on the candidates. The other extreme would be if the ordinary members of the party would decide without any participation or involvement of the party leaders.
The latter can be illustrated with the case of the United States, where members (or in some states, all registered voters) can elect the party candidate(s) through direct votes in primary elections. The election is between all candidates that present themselves, and the process takes place under the supervision of the government – largely outside the control by the party organisation. The government also ensures that the person who won the primary election is the one who will be on the ballot paper representing the party.
Other parties in different countries have chosen to have varying degrees of member participation in the selection process, from party-run primary elections to indirect elections where party branches send delegates to a national congress.
What determines the selection process?
Factors such as electoral system, party ideology, political culture, and the organisation of government have been thought to have an influence on the centralization and participation in the candidate selection process. However, there is no evidence that any of them is decisive.
It would be natural for national party agencies to be more influential in multi-member district systems (where more than one person is elected to the legislature from each constituency), while single-member constituencies would give more power to local branches.
In the same logic, federal systems would tend to favour decentralized candidate selection, parties with an inclusive political ideology would favour participatory selection procedures,
[1] See for example: Field, Bonnie N. and Siavelis, Peter M. Endogenizing legislative candidate selection procedures in nascent democracies: evidence from Spain and Chile(Democratization, vol 8, No. 3, May 2011) and Ashiabgor, Sefakor (et al). Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical and Practical Perspectives: Selecting Candidates for Legislative Office. (National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, 2008).
,.......... . ,......,, . ...... Plzzz mark as brainliest answer
In each election, thousands of persons could potentially stand for election, but it would be impossible for voters to make an informed choice among them. Political parties therefore act as useful and necessary gate-keepers narrowing down the list of candidates to a small enough pool.
Parties can select their candidates in many different ways. In numerous cases, the existing legal framework establishes that political parties should “democratically” elect their candidates, but this concept is very vague, and there are few if any applicable legal provisions. Only in a few cases does legislation lay down the process by which candidates should be selected, and the selection process can have a direct impact on the depth and breadth of the democratic process—particularly if a given party’s candidate selection process is non-transparent[1]
There are two concepts that are central to the issue of party selection of candidates. One iscentralisation, that is, what level in the party – local, regional or national –controls the candidate selection. The second is participation, meaning who – ordinary members or top leadership – controls the process at the level where the decision is taken.
Centralisation
In an extremely centralised system, a national party agency would decide on the candidate selection without any involvement by the more local branches of the party. At the other end of the scale would be a system where the most local branches of the party would decide on candidates without any approval or participation from the national level. As in so many other fields, the actual practice is usually somewhere between the two extremes.
In most political parties, candidates are chosen at the local level even though the national level of the party has a varying degree of influence. The influence can be pro-active by encouraging, recommending, or forcing the local branch to chose a particular candidate – or negative by the national level party reserving the right to veto candidates. In both cases, the party has to strike a difficult balance between national level strategies and local sensitivities.
Participation
A situation with extremely low participation would be if the party leader alone would decide on the candidates. The other extreme would be if the ordinary members of the party would decide without any participation or involvement of the party leaders.
The latter can be illustrated with the case of the United States, where members (or in some states, all registered voters) can elect the party candidate(s) through direct votes in primary elections. The election is between all candidates that present themselves, and the process takes place under the supervision of the government – largely outside the control by the party organisation. The government also ensures that the person who won the primary election is the one who will be on the ballot paper representing the party.
Other parties in different countries have chosen to have varying degrees of member participation in the selection process, from party-run primary elections to indirect elections where party branches send delegates to a national congress.
What determines the selection process?
Factors such as electoral system, party ideology, political culture, and the organisation of government have been thought to have an influence on the centralization and participation in the candidate selection process. However, there is no evidence that any of them is decisive.
It would be natural for national party agencies to be more influential in multi-member district systems (where more than one person is elected to the legislature from each constituency), while single-member constituencies would give more power to local branches.
In the same logic, federal systems would tend to favour decentralized candidate selection, parties with an inclusive political ideology would favour participatory selection procedures,
[1] See for example: Field, Bonnie N. and Siavelis, Peter M. Endogenizing legislative candidate selection procedures in nascent democracies: evidence from Spain and Chile(Democratization, vol 8, No. 3, May 2011) and Ashiabgor, Sefakor (et al). Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical and Practical Perspectives: Selecting Candidates for Legislative Office. (National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, 2008).
,.......... . ,......,, . ...... Plzzz mark as brainliest answer
ajstyles2452:
Thanks a lot
Similar questions