Compare democratic and non-democratic governments

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to D on ending a government (card A is real vote data; cards B and C are exact; card D is made up). Card A, "The vote of no confidence of March 28, 1979". Who made it: the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, as recorded in the division list. When: March 28, 1979. For whom: the public. Why: to decide whether the Labour government kept the confidence of the House. Table, columns Side | Members by party | Votes: Aye, against the government | Conservative 279, Liberal 13, Scottish National 11, Ulster Unionist 5, United Ulster Unionist 1, Democratic Unionist 1, Independent 1 | 311; No, for the government | Labour 303, Plaid Cymru 3, Ulster Unionist 2, Scottish Labour 2 | 310. Notes in our words: the House had 635 seats. The Speaker, the deputy speakers, the tellers and members who did not vote are not counted. The government lost, and a general election followed on May 3, 1979. Card B, "Article 67 of the Basic Law of Germany". Who made it: the Parliamentary Council, in 1949; English text published by the German Federal Ministry of Justice. When: in force May 23, 1949. For whom: the people of Germany. Why: to say how a Chancellor may be removed. Excerpt: "(1) The Bundestag may express its lack of confidence in the Federal Chancellor only by electing a successor by the vote of a majority of its Members and requesting the Federal President to dismiss the Federal Chancellor. The Federal President must comply with the request and appoint the person elected. (2) Forty-eight hours shall elapse between the motion and the election." Card C, "The Constitution on the President's term and removal". Who made it: the Constitutional Convention. When: September 17, 1787. For whom: the states and the people. Why: to set the term of the President and how a President may be removed. Excerpt 1 (Article II, Section 1): "He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years," Excerpt 2 (Article II, Section 4): "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Excerpt 3 (Article I, Section 3): "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." Card D, "Dovria (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Dovria's legislature has 150 seats, and a majority is 76. The Reds hold 62 seats, the Blues 58 and the Greens 30. A Red prime minister governs with the Greens' support. The Greens now withdraw that support.

2. 1.

   Dovria adopts a rule like card B. The Blues (58 seats) and Greens (30) vote against the prime minister but cannot agree on a successor. Ren reads cards B and D. What follows?

   • The prime minister falls: 88 seats against is more than the 76 that a majority needs in the legislature, so the motion carries
   • The prime minister stays: card B removes a head of government only by electing a successor, and none is chosen
   • The prime minister stays because the Reds are the largest party, with 62 seats against 58 and 30
   • The legislature is dissolved for a new election, since no successor was chosen and the term cannot continue
3. 2.

   Suppose the Commons in 1979 needed a majority of all 635 seats, as card B does. Tala reads card A. If all 311 aye voters backed one successor, would that remove the government?

   • No: 311 votes fall short of the 318 that a majority of 635 seats requires, so the government would have survived
   • No: the Conservatives held 279 seats on card A, short of the 318 they would need on their own
   • Cannot tell: card A leaves out members who did not vote, so no total can be set against 311
   • Yes: 311 to 310 is a majority of the votes cast, and card B asks for a majority of the members who actually vote that day
4. 3.

   Milo compares what a successful motion does on card A and on card B. Which statement is best supported?

   • Both end in a new election, since a head of government cannot be replaced unless the voters are asked again to choose
   • In 1979 the Commons chose the next prime minister by vote, as card B has the Bundestag do
   • Under card B the Federal President picks the successor, so the Bundestag has no say in the choice
   • In 1979 the loss led to a general election; under card B the Bundestag elects a successor, who is then appointed
5. 4.

   Claim: "A parliament can remove a head of government more easily than the US Congress can." Pia tests it against cards A to C. What is the best verdict?

   • Untestable: the cards cover three countries with different constitutions, so no comparison can be drawn
   • True of both: a majority ended the 1979 government, while card C needs a two-thirds vote to convict a President
   • It depends: a bare majority ended the 1979 government, but card B adds a successor and a majority of Members
   • False of both: cards A and B each need more than card C asks for, a two-thirds vote to convict

6. Use this

   Cards A to C on turning votes into seats (card A is real data; cards B and C are summaries in our words). Card A, "The 2015 general election in the United Kingdom". Who made it: figures from the election results, as tabulated in reference works and checked against the Wikipedia article on the election. When: May 7, 2015. For whom: the public. Why: to elect the 650 members of the House of Commons. Table, columns Party | Share of votes in the United Kingdom | Seats won: Conservative | 36.9 percent | 331; Labour | 30.4 percent | 232; UK Independence | 12.6 percent | 1; Liberal Democrat | 7.9 percent | 8; Scottish National | 4.7 percent | 56; Green | 3.8 percent | 1. Notes: other parties and the Speaker hold the other 21 seats. A majority is 326 seats. Each seat goes to the candidate with the most votes in one constituency. The Scottish National Party stands only in Scotland, which has 59 of the 650 seats, and it won 56 of them. Card B, "Two ways to turn votes into seats". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Rule 1, used in the United Kingdom: one member for each constituency, won by the candidate with the most votes. Rule 2, a proportional rule: seats are shared among the parties in line with each party's share of the national vote. Card C, "Two arguments". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Argument 1: single-member constituencies give each voter one local member to hold to account, and they usually give one party a majority of the seats. Argument 2: a fair system gives each party about the share of seats that it won of the votes, so no voter's choice is wasted.

7. 5.

   Bo tests the two arguments on card C against card A. Which statement is best supported?

   • Argument 1 fails, since no party won a majority of the votes, and a clear majority needs one
   • Neither fits, since the largest party won fewer than 40 percent of the votes and also fewer than 400 of the 650 seats
   • Argument 2 fits, since each party won about the share of seats that matched its share of the votes
   • Argument 1 fits, as one party won a majority; argument 2 does not, as 36.9 percent of votes brought 50.9 percent of seats
8. 6.

   Zee measures each party's share of seats minus its share of votes. Which party gains the most, and which loses the most?

   • The Scottish National Party gains the most, since 56 seats from 4.7 percent is the largest rise per vote
   • Labour gains the most, about 5 points; the Liberal Democrats lose the most, about 7 points
   • The Conservatives gain the most, about 14 points; the Greens lose the most, since they won just 1 seat
   • The Conservatives gain the most, about 14 points; UK Independence loses the most, about 12 points

9. Use this

   Cards A to D on who holds final power (the excerpts are exact; card D is made up). Card A, "The Tenth Amendment (1791)". Who made it: Congress proposed it and the states ratified it. When: 1791. For whom: the people of the United States. Why: to say who holds the powers the Constitution does not list. Excerpt: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Card B, "The Supremacy Clause (1787)". Who made it: the Constitutional Convention. When: September 17, 1787. For whom: the states and the people. Why: to say which law prevails in a conflict. Excerpt (Article VI): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Card C, "The Scotland Act 1998, section 28". Who made it: the Parliament of the United Kingdom. When: 1998; subsection (8) was added in 2016. For whom: the people of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. Why: to set up the Scottish Parliament and say how it relates to Westminster. Excerpt 1 (section 28(7)): "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland." Excerpt 2 (section 28(8), added by the Scotland Act 2016): "But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament." Card D, "Two cases (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Case 1: Congress and the state of Tarn pass conflicting laws on the same matter. Tarn argues that the Constitution never gave Congress power over it. Case 2: Parliament at Westminster passes a law on a matter that has been devolved to Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has not consented to it.

10. 7.

    Esme compares card A with excerpt 1 on card C. Which statement about where final power sits is best supported?

    • Neither text gives the regional body any power, since final power sits with the central legislature in both
    • Both texts protect the regional body's powers, since each names powers that the region keeps for itself
    • The Scottish Parliament holds powers Westminster cannot touch, since excerpt 2 requires its consent for devolved laws
    • The Tenth Amendment reserves some powers to the States, but Westminster keeps the power to make laws for Scotland
11. 8.

    Case 2 on card D: Westminster passes a law on a devolved matter without Scotland's consent. Jun reads card C. What follows?

    • The law is void, since devolved matters belong to the Scottish Parliament and Westminster cannot pass them
    • The law is void until the Scottish Parliament consents, since excerpt 2 makes that consent a condition
    • The law is valid, but it breaks a recognised practice: excerpt 2 says Parliament will not normally do it
    • The law is valid, and nothing is expected of Westminster here, since excerpt 2 sets no practice
12. 9.

    Case 1 on card D: Congress and Tarn pass conflicting laws, and Tarn argues Congress lacked the power. Kira reads cards A and B. What follows?

    • The state law prevails, since card A reserves to the States any power the Constitution leaves undelegated to Congress
    • The federal law prevails, since card B makes the laws of the United States the supreme law of the land
    • Neither law stands, since conflicting laws are void until the Supreme Court settles which one governs
    • It turns on whether Congress had the power: card B makes supreme only laws made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution
13. 10.

    Claim: "In both countries the central legislature has the last word." Ari tests it against cards A to C. What is the best verdict?

    • True of both: each central legislature may make laws that bind each region of its own country
    • Not equally: Westminster may legislate for Scotland on any matter, while Congress is held to delegated powers
    • True of both, since card B and excerpt 2 each declare the central law supreme over the regional law
    • False of both: each text protects a sphere of regional power that the central legislature cannot enter without consent