Roane yazbeck

201906323

1. The simplest fundamental type is a simple plurality system. It gives people the choice to
select individual candidates instead of people representing parties. It is also tends to yield
administrations with higher majorities rather than more people presenting un-usefully.It
also helps governments decide more easily as well as helping broad-based parties, strong
opposition… On the other side, it has the potential to exclude minorities as well as limit
female legislators. It mat also result in a high number of lost votes in numerous seats for
someone who has very low chance of getting elected.

The alternate perspective is proportional representation, in which giving the priority to

provide appropriate representation for all public opinions, even if this enhances or
weakens the cohesiveness of government as a consequence. It reduces squandered votes,
benefits minorities, and forces parties to broaden their appeal beyond their core districts.

Another option is an intermediate form of the mixed system, in which two rounds of
elections are held if majority is not achieved at first. Thus limiting the candidates in the
second round to the two most voted, preventing good results and ensuring that the
majority's selection is clear.

According to Colomer, electoral transformation throughout the world has tended to go in

the direction of more inclusive formulas, resulting in fewer risks for the parties involved.

I agree that each nation should choose or adopt its preferred electoral system based on its
practices and beliefs; no one solution fits all nations. However, I believe that the mixed
hybrid system is the best at providing clarity and preventing strategic voting. France does
this, as do many of its former African colonies, as well as Iran and other former Soviet
republics.

2. A political party is a group of people that works towards having influence in a state,
frequently through aiming on holding seats in government positions, and typically
comprises more than one interest in society. Political parties fulfill seven general duties,
regardless of where they operate:

- Political legitimacy can be defined as the set of actions by which leaders tend to
establish their legitimacy, or claim it, based on their representations of the desirable
regime desired by the governed.

- Citizens' integration and mobilization The activity of bringing citizens together with
their talents, interests, and values around shared initiatives or causes that contribute to
enhancing the quality of life and the harmonious growth of the entire community.
 - Representation. To represent is to behave reactively in the interests of the person
represented. The representative must act autonomously and wisely; he must be the
doer.

- Structuring the popular vote Thus, the total number of people who voted for a specific
candidate divided by the number of electors who voted for them.

- Listening, consulting, and gathering interests to position them at the center of

negotiations and choices.

- Recruitment of public-sector leaders. This is how a political party may obtain more
clout in the decision-making process and at decision-making tables.

- Policy formulation that facilitates policy options: political parties turn their vision
statements and voices into actual actions through policies and accountability
mechanisms.

The balance between these roles varies depending on the state. Some people may choose to focus
on two of them based on the country's regime, which might be autocratic or democratic. The
constitutional framework and electoral processes are cornerstones that define this country's
regime and so influence how political parties are founded and run. After all, political parties and
administrations are in some manner linked and operate in the same nation.

3. There are two approaches to measuring democracy. The first technique is to evaluate a
specific system along a set of parameters that define what it means to be democratic, then
combine them into a single score. The most frequent strategy is to develop a standard set
of indicators, split them into analytical frameworks for analyzing them, and form a group
of specialists in one place to consistently apply the methodology. The most well-known
example is the Freedom House index, which is based in the United States. This rating
analyzes a country's level of freedom along two essential dimensions: political rights and
civil freedoms. The second method of measuring democracy is to encourage democracy
activists in each country to compile a list of the most pressing areas for democratic or
democratization change, possibly with a checklist of everything they might want to
include.

The first technique is the most well-known and often employed, but the second strategy
may also be beneficial by listening to people's wants and needs. Reading numbers can be
a helpful indicator for many things, but there are certain things in life that cannot be
quantified with numbers or graphed, so I can't claim one technique is better than the
other. Of course, one is easier and more often utilized, but if I had to pick between the
two, I would create a third technique that incorporates both, evaluating data and listening
to advocates.

Each state differs from the others in so many ways; we have diversity, uniqueness, and
particularity all over the world, which is why one solution that can be applied everywhere
 is never the best option. Each state has a distinct feature, and each feature has an
appropriate approach.

4. NGOs detain many functions. They usually share these following points:
- They should be formal, registered and operate according to structures and action
plans.
- They ideaally hope to be self-governing according to their constitution and work
around it so they can be independent of any other external force and work according
to their vision and cause.
- They are private, which means being independent from governments.
- They do not make profit, and even when these organizations sell a product, it is to
raise funds, not for profit.
- They serve the public, and this is their interest.

NGO activities usually consist of social work, evironmental work, human rights etc... they
usually have an important play in:

- Society development: working on bettering the mental health and well-being of

society members thus improving in other aspects.

- Improving communities: This refers to a process to the action of cooperation, helping

each other’s, and building fruitful social relationships between the citizens and the
institutions aimed at the improvement of living conditions on a physical, social, and
economic level.

- Promoting citizen participation: citizen participation is one of the tools of our

democracy, which aims to create spaces for dialogue where collective visions can be
developed.

NGOs have a crucial role in helping and supporting state institutions and covering the gaps these
institutions were not able to fill. They are crucial for some societies, such as Lebanon, for
instance. Since the beginning of the economic collapse, the COVID pandemic, and the Beirut
blast, we have seen how many NGOs were created and how many of them are doing the work
the government is not able to provide.

5. One of the political economy's founding fathers, Adam Smith, provided a standard
description. Political economy, which is considered a legislator, has two aims:
first, give opportunity to people to be able to provide for themselves and sustain a
healthy and financially stress-free for themselves; and second, to yield the state with
enough revenue to provide public services.

John Maynard Keynes is often regarded as the most important economist of the
twentieth century. Keynes is a thinker to whom every economist must go, either to
explain and develop his theory or to invalidate it. Contrary to popular belief, Keynes
did not advocate for the government to undertake an active economic strategy in all
circumstances. He believes that budgetary accounts, in particular, must be balanced
over time. On the other hand, he believes in cyclical intervention to boost demand
and, more importantly, to spur investment.

I don't find that much contradiction between the views of Adam Smith and John
Maynard Keynes. I also find both theories and views clear and understandable. What
one must not forget here is that Adam Smith was the father of political economy, and
therefore he was the first one to link politics to the economy; however, Keynes came
years later to build upon what he had learned from Smith and other economists and
create his theories. Keynes did not start from scratch, and that by itself helped him
think and interpret with more clarity. If I want to compare both views, I would say
that they are complementary. It started with Smith and continued with Keynes,
passing by many between them, of course, and even where contradictions were found,
economists were still building on what Smith and others from his era found.