:: wikimiki.org ::

Election

Election

An election is a decision making process whereby people vote for preferred political candidates or parties to act as representatives in government. This is the usual mechanism by which a democracy fills offices in the legislature, and sometimes in the executive and judiciary, and in regional and local government. This is also typically the case in a wide range of other private and business organizations, from clubs to voluntary associations and corporations. Electoral reform describes the process of introducing fair and democratic electoral systems where they are not in place, or improving the fairness or effectiveness of existing systems. Psephology is the study of results and other statistics relating to elections (especially with a view to predicting future results).

Definitions of democratic elections

In theory, the authority of the government in democracies derives solely from the consent of the governed. The principal mechanism for translating that consent into governmental authority is the holding of free and fair elections. government constituency, England.]] government There is a broad consensus as to what kind of elections can be considered free and fair. Jeane Kirkpatrick, scholar and former United States ambassador to the United Nations, has offered this definition: "Democratic elections are not merely symbolic....They are competitive, periodic, inclusive, definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present alternatives." The Democracy Watch (International) website, further defines fair democratic elections as, "Elections in which great care is taken to prevent any explicit or hidden structural bias towards any one candidate, aside from those beneficial biases that naturally result from an electorate that is equally well informed about the various assets and liabilities of each candidate". This was more formally stated in 2000 by Chief Justice Murray Gleeson of the Australian High Court as "The democratic and lawful means of securing change, if change be necessary, is an expression of the will of an informed electorate." The apparently simple requirement of an informed electorate is difficult to achieve in modern electorates with thousands of voters, most of whom have no prospects of knowing candidates other than by information published by third parties. The party with the most immediate interest in having structural biases is the government conducting the election. One possible result is the 'show' elections described below. Some other scholars argue that elections are at most secondary to a functioning democracy. They argue that the rule of law is more important. An example would be pre-unification Hong Kong, which was ruled by an unelected British administrator but was generally considered to be a free and open society due to its strong legal institutions.

Characteristics of elections

Who can vote

administrator A crucial issue in elections is the question of suffrage—who is allowed to vote—whether the electorate comprises the entire citizenry or some subset of it. The democracy of ancient Athens did not allow women, children, foreigners and slaves to vote—thus disenfranchising the majority of the population. Over the last few centuries since elections began to be held there has been a long struggle to expand the franchise to excluded groups. Originally in the U.S., for example, only white male property holders enjoyed the right to elect and be elected when the Constitution was signed in 1787. The property qualification disappeared by the early 19th century, and women won the right to vote in 1920. African Americans, however, did not enjoy full voting rights in the southern United States until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And finally, in 1971, younger citizens were given the right to vote when the United States lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. In Canada First Nations were long denied the vote. There are still many restrictions in place. Many countries do not allow those judged mentally incapable to vote, and some deny the vote to serving prisoners as well. In some cases, such as some U.S. states, convicted felons are also barred from voting upon release. Children are not permitted to vote in any country; however, the minimum voting age varies. In some countries, voting is compulsory. If an eligible voter does not attend a polling place, they may be subject to punitive measures such as a small fine.

Who is voted for

voting is compulsory In some states far more positions are filled through election than others. In all democracies it is often the case that some important positions are not filled through elections. Those institutions that were designed to not be too closely swayed by public opinion are often not elected. For instance judges are usually appointed for life, or until a specific age, to insulate them against popular pressure and help ensure their impartiality. This is often seen as an integral part of the separation of powers. separation of powers However, there are some counterexamples. In the United States some judges are elected, and in ancient Athens military generals were elected. separation of powers Also frequent is the erecting of an intermediate tier of electors between the people and the elected figure. For example, the President of the United States is not elected directly by the people but by the U.S. Electoral College. But since it is known who these people will vote for, the effect is the same as a direct election. Also, U.S. Senators were originally chosen by the state legislatures. And in the Westminster System the Prime Minister, who holds the most power, is formally chosen by the head of state and in reality by the legislature or by their party.

Types of election

In most democratic political systems, there are a range of different types of election, corresponding to different layers of public governance or geographical jurisdiction. Some common types of election are:
- Presidential election
- General election
- Primary election
- By-election
- Local election
- Co-option A referendum (pl referenda or referendums) is a democratic tool related to elections in which the electorate votes for or against a specific proposal, law or policy, rather than for a general policy or a particular candidate or party. Referendums may be added to an election ballot or held separately and may be either binding or consultative, usually depending on the constitution. Referendums are usually called by governments via the legislature, however many democracies allow citizens to petition for referendums directly, called initiatives. Referendums are particularly prevalent and important in direct democracies, such as Switzerland. The basic Swiss system, however, still works with representatives. In the most direct form of democracy, anyone can vote about anything. This is closely related to referendums and may take the form of consensus decision-making. Reminiscent of the ancient Greek system, anyone may discuss a particular subject until a consensus is reached. The consensus requirement means that discussions can go on for a very long time. The result will be that only those who are genuinely interested will participate in the discussion and therefore the vote. In this system there need not be an age limit because children will usually become bored. This system is however only feasible when implemented on a very small scale.

Electoral systems

Electoral systems refer to the detailed constitutional arrangements and voting systems which convert the vote into a determination of which individuals and political parties are elected to positions of power. The first step is to tally the votes, for which various different vote counting systems and ballot types are used. Voting systems then determine the result on the basis of the tally. Most systems can be categorized as either proportional or majoritarian. Among the former are party-list proportional representation and additional member system. Among the latter are First Past the Post (FPP) (relative majority) and absolute majority. Many countries have growing electoral reform movements, which advocate systems such as approval voting, single transferable vote, instant runoff voting or a Condorcet method. While openness and accountability are usually considered cornerstones of a democratic system, the act of casting a vote and the content of a voter's ballot are usually an important exception. The secret ballot is a relatively modern development, but it is now considered crucial in most free and fair elections, as it limits the effectiveness of intimidation.

Scheduling

The nature of democracy is that elected officials are accountable to the people, and they must return to the voters at prescribed intervals to seek their mandate to continue in office. For that reason most democratic constitutions provide that elections are held at fixed regular intervals. In most states elections are held between every three and six years. There are exceptions to this; the U.S. House of Representives stands for election every two years, while the President of Ireland holds a largely ceremonial position for seven years. Some nations have pre-determined and fixed election dates (e.g., the U.S.). This has the advantage of fairness and predictability. However, it tends to greatly lengthen campaigns, and makes dissolving the legislature more problematic if the date should happen to fall at time when dissolution is inconvenient (e.g. when war breaks out). Other states (e.g., the United Kingdom) only set maximum time in office, and the executive decides exactly when within that limit it will actually go to the polls. In practice this means the government will remain in power full term unless something special happens, such as a motion of no-confidence.

Election campaigns

When elections are called, politicians and their supporters attempt to influence policy by competing directly for the votes of constituents in what are called campaigns. Supporters for a campaign can be either formally organized or loosely affiliated, and frequently utilize campaign advertising.

Difficulties with elections

Show elections

While all modern democracies hold regular elections, the converse is not true—not all elections are held by true democracies. Some governments employ other 'behind-the-scenes' means of candidate selection but organise a sham process that appears to be a genuine electoral contest, in order to present the facade of popular consent and support. Dictatorships, such as the former Soviet Union, have been known to hold such show elections. In the 'single candidate' type of show-election, there may only be one candidate for any one given position, with no alternative choices for voters beyond voting yes or no to this candidate. In the 'fixed vote' type of show-election such elections may offer several candidates for each office. In both cases, the government uses intimidation or vote-rigging to ensure a high yes vote or that only the government-approved candidates are chosen. Another model is the 'false diversity' type of show-election in which there may be several choices, all of which support the status quo. In theory, 'false diversity' elections would be recognised by a truly informed electorate but as noted above this may be impossible, for example where a government conducting elections also controls the media by which most voters are informed. Examples of this are given below.

Bias and limited options

Similar to the false diversity elections are those in which candidates are limited by undemocratic forces and biases. The Iranian form of government is an example of this. In the 2004 Iranian parliamentary elections almost all of the reformist candidates were ruled unfit by the Guardian Council of religious leaders. According to the Iranian constitution this was fully within the Council's constitutional rights, and designed to prevent enemies of the Islamic Revolution from coming to power. Even in the USA, socialist Victor L. Berger was twice denied a seat in the House of Representatives in 1919 because of his anti-war views. Simply permitting the opposition access to the ballot is not enough. In order for democratic elections to be fair and competitive, opposition parties and candidates must enjoy the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and movement as necessary to voice their criticisms of the government openly and to bring alternative policies and candidates to the voters. In states where these freedoms are not granted or where opposition party politicians are harassed and their events disrupted, elections may not reflect the legitimate views of the populace. A current example of such a state is Zimbabwe. In states with fragile democracies where there has been a history of political violence or blatantly unfair elections, international election observers are often called in by external bodies like the United Nations, and protected by foreign forces, to guarantee fairness. In addition, elections in which opposition candidates are not given access to radio, newspaper and television coverage are also likely to be biased. An example of this kind of structural bias was the 2004 re-election of Russian president Vladimir Putin, in which the state controlled media consistently supported his election run, consistently condemned his opponents, provided virtually unlimited free advertising to Putin's campaign, and barred attempts by his opponents to run campaign advertisements. For this reason, many countries ensure equal air time to election ads from all sizeable parties and have systems that help pay for election advertising or, conversely, limit the possibilities to advertise, to prevent rich parties or candidates from oustripping their opponents. Some allege that beyond the examples given here, there are more subtle and systemic forms of 'false-diversity' in elections which are not generally recognised. Noam Chomsky and other progressives argue that in the West, and especially the U.S., powerful corporate interests behind the media act as a filter that only lets preordained views be heard by the public and excludes third parties and alternative viewpoints.

Corruption of democracies

The very openness of a democracy means that in many states it is possible for voters to vote to get rid of democracy itself. Democracies have failed many times in history from ancient Greece to 18th and 19th century France (see Second Empire under Napoleon III), and perhaps most famously in 20th century Germany, when the Nazis initially came to power by democratic means (albeit by plurality vote). Throughout most of the developing world today democracies remain unstable, often collapsing to military coups or other forms of dictatorship. Thinkers such as Aristotle and many others long believed democracy to be inherently unstable and to always quickly collapse. Most democracies have some form of separation of powers so that even if a tyrant is elected the constitution would still have to be obeyed, in theory at least. Of course, an elected government can change the constitution, but this can be made difficult by, in some cases, requiring a 2/3 majority in two consecutive elected governments—the actual requirements vary by each constitutional system. To limit this danger the system used in many states indirectly places limits on how easily new parties can form. The first past the post electoral system makes it hard for new parties to quickly gain power. In states using proportional representation systems, there is a determined proportion of the popular vote that must be won before a party can be admitted to parliament. This election threshold may be simply the amount of votes required to get one seat, such as in the Netherlands, but it may also be set higher, to prevent small parties form getting a seat in government.

Elections around the world

External links

- [http://www.angus-reid.com/tracker/ Angus Reid Consultants: Election Tracker]
- [http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/election.watch/ CNN.com World News: Election Watch]
- [http://www.democracywatch.org#great_care Democracy Watch (International)'s Definition of Democracy]
- [http://www.electionworld.org Electionworld.org] Category:Ethics ja:選挙 simple:Election

Decision making

Decision making is the cognitive process of selecting a course of action from among multiple alternatives. Every decision-making produces a final choice. It can be an action or an opinion. It begins when we need to do something but we do not know what. Therefore decision-making is a reasoning process which can be rational or irrational. Common examples include shopping, deciding what to eat, and deciding whom or what to vote for in an election or referendum. Decision making is said to be a psychological construct. This means that although we can never "see" a decision, we can infer from observable behaviour that a decision has been made. Therefore we conclude that a psychological event that we call "decision making" has occurred. It is a construction that imputes commitment to action. That is, based on observable actions, we assume that people have made a commitment to effect the action. Structured rational decision making is an important part of all science-based professions, where specialists apply their knowledge in a given area to making informed decisions. For example, medical decision making often involves making a diagnosis and selecting an appropriate treatment. Due to the large number of considerations involved in many decisions, decision support systems have been developed to assist decision makers in considering the implications of various courses of action. They can help reduce the risk of human errors. The systems which try to realize of some human definion making functions are called Intelligent Decision Support Systems (IDSS), see for ex. [http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/701938.html "An Approach to the Intelligent Decision Advisor (IDA) for Emergency Managers, 1999"].

Decision making style

According to Myers (1962), a person's decision making process depends to a significant degree on their cognitive style. Starting from the work of Carl Jung, Myers developed a set of four bi-polar dimensions. The terminal points on these dimensions are: thinking and feeling; extroversion and introversion; judgement and perception; and sensing and intuition. He claimed that a person's decision making style is based largely on how they score on these four dimensions. For example, someone that scored near the thinking, extroversion, sensing, and judgement ends of the dimensions would tend to have a logical, analytical, objective, critical, and empirical decision making style.

Cognitive and personal biases in decision making

It generally agreed that biases can creep into our decision making processes, calling into question the correctness of a decision. Below is a list of some of the more common cognitive biases.
- Selective search for evidence - We tend to be willing to gather facts that support certain conclusions but disregard other facts that support different conclusions.
- Premature termination of search for evidence - We tend to accept the first alternative that looks like it might work.
- Conservatism and inertia - Unwillingness to change thought patterns that we have used in the past in the face of new circumstances. (See tradition.)
- Experiential limitations - Unwillingness or inability to look beyond the scope of our past experiences; rejection of the unfamiliar.
- Selective perception - We actively screen-out information that we do not think is salient. (See prejudice.)
- Wishful thinking or optimism - We tend to want to see things in a positive light and this can distort our perception and thinking.
- Recency - We tend to place more attention on more recent information and either ignore or forget more distant information. (See semantic priming.)
- Repetition bias - A willingness to believe what we have been told most often and by the greatest number of different of sources.
- Anchoring and adjustment - Decisions are unduly influenced by initial information that shapes our view of subsequent information.
- Group think - Peer pressure to conform to the opinions held by the group.
- Source credibility bias - We reject something if we have a bias against the person, organization, or group to which the person belongs: We are inclined to accept a statement by someone we like. (See prejudice.)
- Incremental decision making and escalating commitment - We look at a decision as a small step in a process and this tends to perpetuate a series of similar decisions. This can be contrasted with zero-based decision making. (See slippery slope.)
- Inconsistency - The unwillingness to apply the same decision criteria in similar situations.
- Attribution asymmetry - We tend to attribute our success to our abilities and talents, but we attribute our failures to bad luck and external factors. We attribute other's success to good luck, and their failures to their mistakes.
- Role fulfillment - We conform to the decision making expectations that others have of someone in our position.
- Underestimating uncertainty and the illusion of control - We tend to underestimate future uncertainty because we tend to believe we have more control over events than we really do. We believe we have control to minimize potential problems in our decisions.
- Faulty generalizations - In order to simplify an extremely complex world, we tend to group things and people. These simplifying generalizations can bias decision making processes.
- Ascription of causality - We tend to ascribe causation even when the evidence only suggests correlation. Just because birds fly to the equatorial regions when the trees lose their leaves, does not mean that the birds migrate because the trees lose their leaves. For an explanation of the logical processes behind some of these biases, see logical fallacy.

Cognitive neuroscience of decision making

The anterior cingulate cortex and orbitofrontal cortex are brain regions involved in decision making processes. A recent neuroimaging study, [http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/neuro/journal/v7/n11/abs/nn1339.html Interactions between decision making and performance monitoring within prefrontal cortex], found distinctive patterns of neural activation in these regions depending on whether decisions were made on the basis of personal volition or following directions from someone else.

Decision making in groups

Decision making in groups is sometimes examined separately as process and outcome. Process refers to the interactions among individuals that lead to the choice of a particular course of action. An outcome is the consequence of that choice. Separating process and outcome is convenient because it helps explain that a good decision making processes does not guarantee a good outcome, and that a good outcome does not presuppose a good process. Thus, for example, managers interested in good decision making are encouraged to put good decision making processes in place. Although these good decision making processes do not guarantee good outcomes, they can tip the balance of chance in favor of good outcomes. A critical aspect for decision making groups is the ability to converge on a choice. Politics is one approach to making decisions in groups. This process revolves around the relative power or ability to influence of the individuals in the group. Some relevant ideas include coalitions among participants as well as influence and persuasion. The use of politics is often judged negatively, but it is a useful way to approach problems when preferences among actors are in conflict, when dependencies exist that cannot be avoided, when there are no super-ordinate authorities, and when the technical or scientific merit of the options is ambiguous. In addition different processes to make decisions, groups can also have different decision rules. A decision rule is the approach used by a group to mark the choice that is made.
- Unanimity is commonly used by juries in criminal trials in the United States. Unanimity requires everyone to agree on a given course of action, and thus imposes a high bar for action.
- Majority requires support from more than 50% of the members of the group. Thus, the bar for action is lower than with unanimity, but it can create a group of "losers" in the process.
- Consensus decision-making tries to avoid "winners" and "losers". Consensus requires that a majority approve a given course of action, but that the minority agree to go along with the course of action. In other words, if the minority opposes the course of action, consensus requires that the course of action be modified to remove objectionable features.
- Sub-committee involves assigning responsibility for evaluation of a decision to a sub-set of a larger group, which then comes back to the larger group with recommendations for action. Using a sub-committee is more common in larger governance groups, such as a legislature. Sometimes a sub-committee includes those individuals most affected by a decision, although at other times it is useful for the larger group to have a sub-committee that involves more neutral participants. Less desirable group decision rules are:
- Plurality, where the largest block in a group decides, even if it falls short of a majority.
- Dictatorship, where one individual (typically with the greatest power) determines the course of action. Plurality and dictatorship are less desirable as decision rules because they do not require the involvement of the broader group to determine a choice. Thus, they do not engender commitment to the course of action chosen. An absence of commitment from individuals in the group can be problematic during the implementation phase of a decision. There are no perfect decision making rules. Depending on how the rules are implemented in practice and the situation, all of these can lead to situations where either no decision is made, or to situations where decisions made are inconsistent with one another over time.

Principles

The ethical principles of decision making vary considerably. Some common choices of principles and the methods which seem to match them include:
- the most powerful person decides
- method: dictatorship
- everyone participates in a certain class of meta-decisions
- method: parliamentary democracy
- everyone participates in every decision
- direct democracy, consensus decision making There are many grades of decision making which have an element of participation. A common example is that of institutions making decisions which affect those they are charged to provide for. In such cases an understanding of what participation is, is crucial to understand the process and the power structures at play.

Decision making in one's personal life

Some of the decision making techniques that we use in everyday life include:
- listing the advantages and disadvantages of each option, popularized by Benjamin Franklin
- flipping a coin, cutting a deck of playing cards, and other random or coincidence methods
- accepting the first option that seems like it might achieve the desired result
- tarot cards, astrology, augurs, revelation, or other forms of divination
- acquiesce to a person in authority or an "expert"

Decision making in healthcare

In the health care field, the steps of making a decision may be remembered with the mnemonic BRAND, which includes
- Benefits of the action
- Risks in the action
- Alternatives to the prospective action
- Nothing: that is, doing nothing at all
- Decision

Path dependency

Main article: path dependency It is perhaps pertinent to note that the cost of making no decision at all itself is a factor, and that the benefit of making some decision, even a random choice, can be beneficial in the longer term. Thus the reversibility of an action may be a good way to judge whether or not an action or process is beneficial. A resource can also be viewed as something expendable, or bearing a cost, rather than the implication of selecting something irrevocably. Even life and death decisions have been priced this way, as in the insurance industry.

Decision making in business

Several decision making models for business include:
- Decision trees, Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), critical path analysis, and critical chain analysis
- Pareto Analysis
- Paired Comparison Analysis
- Grid Analysis
- PMI
- Force field analysis
- Six Thinking Hats
- Cost-benefit analysis
- buyer decision processes
- scenario analysis
- complex systems
- optimization and constrained optimization
- linear programming
- model (economics)
- min-max criterion
- Monte Carlo method
- Corporate finance: The investment decision, The financing decision, The dividend decision, working capital management decisions

References

- Myers, I. (1962) Introduction to Type: A description of the theory and applications of the Myers-Briggs type indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto Ca., 1962.
- Emerson, P J. Beyond the Tyranny of the Majority, a comparison of the more common voting procedures used in both decision-making and elections. The de Borda Institute is at www.deborda.org

External links

- In the USA: [http://www.smdm.org Society for Medical Decision Making]
- In the USA: [http://www.fimdm.org Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making]
- Decision Making Techniques:[http://www.mindtools.com/pages/main/newMN_TED.htm How to make better decisions]
- For an overview of Decision Making: [http://www.edwardmacneal.com/DecisionMaking/DM-frame.html MacNeal's Master Atlas of Decision Making]
- Emotional and Decision Making Lab, Carnegie Mellon, [http://computing.hss.cmu.edu/lernerlab/home.php EDM Lab] Category:Decision theory

Politician

A politician is an individual involved in politics to the extent of holding or running for public office. In Western democracies, the term is generally restricted to those officials who attain their position through election campaigns, rather than all members of the state bureaucracy. Such a distinction is less clear in non-democratic forms of government. In a state, individual politicians compose the executive branch of government and the office of Head of State (unless the head of state is a non-political figure, such as a king) as well as the legislative branch, and regional and local levels of government. Other organs of government such as the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the military are not usually regarded as being composed of politicians, despite the fact that the men and women involved do government work. Sometimes political scientists are also refered to as politicians. The Australian slang term for politicians is pollies. Some common offices for politicians can include:
- Alderman
- Congressman
- Councillor
- Governor
- Mayor
- Member of Parliament
- Minister
- Premier
- President
- Prime Minister
- School board member
- Senator

External link

- [http://politicalgraveyard.com/chrono/index.html List of American Politicians by Year Born or Died] Politicians Politician
- ja:政治家

Political party

A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain political power within a government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns. Some parties are not permitted to or choose not to seek power through elections and so may turn to other forms of pressure, sometimes terrorism. Parties often espouse a certain ideology, but may also represent a coalition among disparate interests. In parliamentary systems of government, most political parties have an elected leader who, if his or her party is elected, becomes head of government. In presidential systems, especially those with full separation of powers, there may not be a formal leader. In certain electoral situations, more common in elections using proportional representation than First Past the Post, a government may be formed of more than one party, called a coalition government. Partisanship is the tendency of supporters of political parties to subscribe to or at least support their party's views and policies in contrast to those of other parties. Differentiation is essential to most political parties: they must be different at least in some ways to other parties to compete in politics and win elections. Extreme partisanship is sometimes referred to as partisan warfare.

Nonpartisan, Single-party, two-party, and multi-party governments

In a nonpartisan system, no official political parties exist, or the law does not permit political parties. In nonpartisan elections, each candidate for office runs on her or his own merits rather than as a member of a political party. In nonpartisan legislatures, there are no typically formal party alignments within the legislature; even if there are caucuses for specific issues. Despite being nonpartisan, most members have consistent and identifiable voting patterns. Historians have frequently interpreted Federalist No. 10 to imply that the Founding Fathers of the United States intended the government to be nonpartisan. The administration of George Washington and the first few sessions of the US Congress were nonpartisan. The unicameral legislature of Nebraska is the only nonpartisan state government body in the United States. Many city and county governments are nonpartisan. Unless there are legal prohibitions against political parties, factions within nonpartisan governments generally evolve into political parties. In single-party systems, only one political party is legally allowed to hold effective power. Although minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they are legally required to accept the leadership of the dominant party. This party may not always be, however, identical to the government, although sometimes positions within the party may in fact be more important than positions within the government. In Dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may be even a deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Sometimes, political, social and economic circumstances, and public opinion are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries with less of an established democratic tradition, it is possible the dominant party will remain in power by using patronage and sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the definition between Dominant and single-party system becomes rather blurred. Examples of dominant party systems include the People's Action Party in Singapore and the African National Congress in South Africa. Also, one party dominant systems existed in Mexico with the Institutional Revolutionary Party until the 1990's, and in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the 1880s until the 1970s. Two-party systems are states such as the United States and Jamaica in which there are two political parties dominant to such an extent that electoral success under the banner of any other party is extremely difficult. One right wing coalition party and one left wing coalition party is the most common ideological breakdown in such a system but in two-party states political parties are traditionally catch all parties which are ideologically broad and inclusive. The relationship between the voting system used and the two-party system was described by Maurice Duverger and is known as Duverger's Law. Duverger's Law Multi-party systems are systems in which there are multiple parties. In nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom, there may be two strong parties, with a third party that is electorally successful. The party may frequently come in second place in elections and pose a threat to the other two parties, but has still never formally held government. In some rare cases, such as in Finland, the nation may have an active three-party system, in which all three parties routinely hold top office. It is very rare for a country to have more than three parties who are all equally successful, and all have an equal chance of independently forming government. More commonly, in cases where there are numerous parties, no one party often has a chance of gaining power, and parties must work with each other to form coalition governments. This has been an emerging trend in the politics of the Republic of Ireland.

Parties and directions

Political parties are often considered on a political spectrum. One typical spectrum has the Left associated with radical or progressive policies and the Right with conservative or traditional policies. Other analyses include other dimensions such as the political parties' acceptance of parliamentary democracy as opposed to authoritarian or totalitarian attitudes, and economic policies, the Left favoring social-democracy, socialism or communism, while the Right tends to favor laissez-faire economics or Fascism. Centrist parties often adopt a collection of policies that defy easy placing on the political spectrum. Many parties will have (formal or informal) factions within them that have differing views on policy direction.

Colors and emblems for parties

:Main article: see political colour Generally speaking, over the world, political parties associate themselves with colors, primarily for identification, especially for voter recognition during elections. Red usually signifies leftist, communist or socialist parties. Conservative and Christian democratic parties generally use blue or black. Recently in the United States, this trend has been reversed. Pink sometimes signifies socialist. Yellow is often used for liberalism. Green is the color for green parties and Islamist parties. Orange is sometimes a color of nationalism, such as in The Netherlands, or is a color of reform such as in Ukraine. In the past, Purple was considered the color of royalty, but is rarely used in modern-day political parties. Brown is generally associated with fascist or neofascist parties, going back to the Nazi Party's brownshirt security guards. Color associations are useful for mnemonics when voter illiteracy is significant. Another case where they are used is when it is not desirable to make rigorous links to parties, particularly when coalitions and alliances are formed between political parties and other organizations, for example: Red Tory, "Purple" (Red-Blue) alliances, Red-Green Alliances, Blue-Green Alliances, Pan-green coalitions, and Pan-blue coalitions. The emblem of socialist parties is often a red rose held in a fist. Communist parties often use a hammer, a sickle, or both.

International organizations of political parties

During the 19th and 20th century, many national political parties organized themselves into international organizations along similar policy lines. Notable examples are the International Workingmen's Association (also called the First International), the Socialist International (also called the Second International), the Communist International, (also called the Third International), and the Fourth International, as organizations of Working class parties, or the Liberal International (yellow), and the International Democrat Union (blue). Worldwide green parties have recently established the Global Greens. The Socialist International, the Liberal International, and the International Democrat Union are all based in London.

External links

- [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php U.S. Party Platforms from 1840-2004 at The American Presidency Project: UC Santa Barbara]
- [http://www.electionworld.org/parties.htm Political parties around the world]
- [http://www.politicalresources.net/ Political resources on the net]
- [http://www.broadleft.org/ Leftist political parties of the world] Category:Elections Category:Political parties ko:정당 ja:政党 simple:Political party

Government

A government is the body that has the power to make and enforce laws within an organization or group. In its broadest sense, "to govern" means to administer or supervise, whether over an area of land, a set group of people, or a collection of assets. The word government is derived the Greek Κυβερνήτης (kubernites), which means "steersman", "governor", "pilot" or "rudder".

Definitions

One approach is to define government as the decision-making arm of the state, and define the latter on the basis of the control it has over violence and the use of force within its territory. Specifically, the state (and by extension the government) has been considered by some to be the entity that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory. This view has been taken by the political economist Max Weber and subsequent political philosophers. The exact meaning of it depends on what is understood by “legitimate”. If we use the term in an ethical sense, then this definition would suggest that an organisation might be considered a state by its supporters but not by its detractors. An alternative definition is to take "legitimate" violence to be simply that which has active or tacit acceptance by the vast majority of the population. In this view, the presence of insurrection or civil war against an entity would jeopardise its claim to be a state, provided the insurrection enjoyed significant popular support. Similarly, an entity that shared military or police power with independent militias and bandits could be considered to have a monopoly on “legitimate” violence but to be failing to enforce it, reducing its claim to statehood. In practice, such situations are often described as "failed states". Government can also be defined as the political means of creating and enforcing laws; typically via a bureaucratic hierarchy. Under this definition, a purely despotic organization which controls a territory without defining laws would not be considered a government. Another alternative is to define a government as an organisation that attempts to maintain control of a territory, where "control" involves activities such as collecting taxes, controlling entry and exit to the state, preventing encroachment of territory by neighbouring states and preventing the establishment of alternative governments within the country. In Commonwealth English, the word "Government" can also be used to refer only to the executive branch, in this context being a synonym for the word "administration" in American English (e.g. the Blair Government, the Bush Administration). In countries using the Westminster system, the Government (or party in Government) will also usually control the legislature. The French use of the word gouvernement covers both meanings, whereas Canadian French generally uses it to mean the executive branch. The German word Regierung refers only to government as the executive branch; the wider meaning of the word, government as a system, can be translated as Staatsgewalt.

Forms of government

Various forms of government have been implemented. A government in a developed state is likely to have various sub-organisations known as offices, departments, or agencies, which are headed by politically appointed officials, often called ministers or secretaries. Ministers may in theory act as advisors to the head of state, but in practice have a certain amount of direct power in specific areas. In most modern democracies, the elected legislative assembly has the power to dismiss the government, but in those states that have a separate head of government and head of state, the head of state generally has great latitude in appointing a new one.

Theories

There are a wide range of theories about the reasons for establishing governments. The four major ones are briefly described below. Note that they do not always fully oppose each other - it is possible for a person to subscribe to a combination of ideas from two or more of these theories.

Greed and oppression

Many political philosophies that are opposed to the existence of a government (such as Anarchism, and to a lesser extent Marxism), as well as others, emphasize the historical roots of governments - the fact that governments, along with private property, originated from the authority of warlords and petty despots who took, by force, certain patches of land as their own (and began exercising authority over the people living on that land). Thus, it is argued that governments exist to enforce the will of the strong and oppress the weak.

Order and tradition

The various forms of conservatism, by contrast, generally see the government as a positive force that brings order out of chaos, establishes laws to end the "war of all against all", encourages moral virtue while punishing vice, and respects tradition. Sometimes, in this view, the government is seen as something ordained by a higher power, as in the divine right of kings, which human beings have a duty to obey.

Natural rights

Natural rights are the basis for the theory of government shared by most branches of liberalism (including libertarianism). In this view, human beings are born with certain natural rights, and governments are established strictly for the purpose of protecting those rights. What the natural rights actually are is a matter of dispute among liberals; indeed, each branch of liberalism has its own set of rights that it considers to be natural, and these rights are sometimes mutually exclusive with the rights supported by other liberals.

Social contract

One of the most influential theories of government in the past two hundred years has been the social contract, on which modern democracy and most forms of socialism are founded. The social contract theory holds that governments are created by the people in order to provide for collective needs (such as safety from crime) that cannot be properly satisfied using purely individual means. Governments thus exist for the purpose of serving the needs and wishes of the people, and their relationship with the people is clearly stipulated in a "social contract" (a constitution and a set of laws) which both the government and the people must abide by. If a majority is unhappy, it may change the social contract. If a minority is unhappy, it may persuade the majority to change the contract, or it may opt out of it by emigration or secession.

Operations

Governments concern themselves with regulating and administering many areas of human activity, such as trade, education, medicine, entertainment, and war.

Enforcement of power

Governments use a variety of methods to maintain the established order, such as police and military forces, (particularly under despotism, see also police state), making agreements with other states, and maintaining support within the state. Typical methods of maintaining support and legitimacy include providing the infrastructure for administration, justice, transport, communication, social welfare etc., claiming support from deities, providing benefits to elites, holding elections for important posts within the state, limiting the power of the state through laws and constitutions (see also Bill of Rights) and appealing to nationalism. Different political ideologies hold different ideas on what the government should or should not do.

Territory

The modern standard unit of territory is a country. In addition to the meaning used above, the word state can refer either to a government or to its territory. Within a territory, subnational entities may have local governments which do not have the full power of a national government (for example, they will generally lack the authority to declare war or carry out diplomatic negotiations).

Scale of government

Main articles: government ownership, government spending The scale to which government should exist and operate in the world is a matter of debate. Government spending in developed countries varies considerably but generally makes up between about 30% and 70% of their GDP.

DemocracY

Democracy

Executive (government)

Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the executive is the branch of a government charged with implementing, or executing, the law and running the day-to-day affairs of the government or state. The de facto most senior figure in an executive is referred to as the head of government. The executive may be referred to as the administration, in presidential systems, or simply as the government, in parliamentary systems. In some constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom, the monarch, who is the Head of State, is the de jure and theoretical head of the executive, and the Prime Minister, who he or she technically appoints, is the head of the monarch's government (i.e. "Her Majesty's Government"). In practice, however, a symbolic or figurehead Head of State does not actively exercise executive power, though decisions may be formally made in his or her name. Along with the Prime Minister or executive President, the executive branch consists of the cabinet and the executive departments or ministries of the government.

Executives under different systems

Executive authority within a presidential system is exercised by a president who is also head of state. The president will not usually be designated by the legislature, and may instead be elected directly, or in the case of the President of the United States, indirectly, by an electoral college. Under presidential systems the legislature and the executive are formally distinct, and it is usually expressly forbidden for the president and other executive officers to be members of the legislature. In parliamentary systems, the executive branch is generally comprised of a prime minister and a cabinet, who must directly or indirectly secure the support of the legislature. In a semi-presidential system (such as France, for example) executive powers are shared between the president and a prime minister.

Role of the executive

It is usually the role of the executive to:
- Enforce the law. To achieve this the executive administers the prisons and the police force, and prosecutes criminals in the name of the state.
- Conduct the foreign relations of the state.
- Command the armed forces.
- Appoint state officials, including judges and diplomats.
- Administer government departments and public services.
- Issue executive orders (also known as secondary legislation, ordinances, edicts or decrees). Most constitutions require that certain executive powers may only be exercised in conjunction with the legislature. For example, often the consent of the legislature is required to ratify treaties, appoint important officials, or to declare war. In the United Kingdom, however, the executive is exempt from most such limitations under the royal prerogative.

Judiciary

The judiciary, also referred to as the judicature, consists of the system of courts of law for the administration of justice and to its principals, the justices, judges and magistrates among other types of adjudicators. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, it is one of the three branches of government. The primary function of the judiciary is to adjudicate legal disputes. The judiciary is also responsible for interpreting the law in some
legal systems; in
- Common law jurisdictions, this is a fundamental principle; case law is created by the courts' interpretations;
- civil law jurisdictions, courts interpret the law, but are, at least in theory, prohibited from creating law, and thus, still in theory, do not issue rulings more general than the actual case to be judged; in practice, jurisprudence plays the same role as case law;
- 'Socialist' law, the primary responsibility for interpreting the law belongs not to the judiciary but to the legislature. This difference can be seen by comparing the United States, France and the People's Republic of China:
- in the United States Federal Government, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the law;
- in France, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the Conseil d'État for administrative cases, and the Court of Cassation for civil and criminal cases;
- in the PRC, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the National People's Congress.

Differences between civil, socialist and common law

The idea found in civil and socialist law that the judiciary does not interpret the law in creative ways has its origins in Roman law. It is said that the famed Byzantine Emperor Justinian had the Corpus Juris Civilis compiled and all other decisions by jurists burned to create certainty in the law. Again in the 19th century, French legal scholars at the time of the development of the Code Napoleon advocated the same kind of approach — it was believed that since the law was being written down precisely, it should not need interpretation; and if it did need interpretation, it could be referred to those who wrote the code. Napoleon, who was an advocate of this approach felt that the task of interpreting the law should be left with the elected legislature, not with unelected judges. This contrasted with the pre-revolutionary situation in France, where unelected parlements defending the interests of the high bourgeoisie would often slow the enforcement of royal decisions, including much needed reforms. However, in practice, this idea was found difficult and judges in France and other countries that Napoleon had conquered or where there was a reception of the Civil Code approach judges once again took on an important role like their English counterparts. At present in civil law jurisdictions in practice judges interpret the law to about the same extent as in common law jurisdictions – though it may be acknowledged in theory in a different manner than in the common law tradition which actually saw judges making the law. For instance, in France, the jurisprudence constante of the Cour de cassation or the Conseil d'État is equivalent in practice with case law. In theory, in the French civil law tradition, a judge does not make new law; he or she merely interprets the intents of "the Legislator." The role of interpretation is traditionally approached more conservatively in civil law jurisdictions than in common law jurisdictions. When the law fails to deal with a situation, doctrinal writers and not judges call for legislative reform, though these legal scholars sometimes influence judicial decision making. Civil law judges also refer to the interpretation of codal provisions and they look for an underlying rationale not only in the particular text, but its relationship to the whole structure of the code as an organizing structure that reflects order in a civil society. Socialist law adopted the position of civil law, but added to it a new line of thought derived from Communism — the interpretation of the law is ultimately political, and should serve the purposes of Communism, and hence should not be left to a non-political organ (even though in practice, the judiciary was not much of a non-political organ).

Local government

Local governments are administrative offices of an area smaller than a state. The term is used to contrast with offices at nation-state level, which are referred to as the central government, national government, or (where appropriate) federal government. In modern nations, local governments usually have less powers than national governments do. They usually have some power to raise taxes, though these may be limited by central legislation. In some countries local government is partly or wholly funded by subventions from central government taxation. The question of Municipal Autonomy - which powers the local government has, or should have, and why - is a key question of public administration and governance. The institutions of local government vary greatly between countries, and even where similar arrangements exist, the terminology often varies. Common names for local government entities include state, province, region, department, county, district, city, township, town, borough, parish, municipality, shire and village. However all these names are often used informally in countries where they do not describe a legal local government entity. Main articles on each country will usually contain some information about local government, or links to an article with fuller information. The rest of this article gives information or links for countries where a relatively full description is available.

Australia

As a federal country, Australia has a number of States and Territories with wide ranging powers, and a lower tier of Local Governments. These arrangements are described in the articles Australian States and Territories and Local Government in Australia

India

France

According to its constitution, France has 3 levels of local government : 22 Régions and 4 Régions d'outre-mer (Réunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana). 96 départements and 4 départements d'outre-mer (Réunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana). There are 36 679 municipalities(in French: Communes). However, intercommunalities are now a level of government between municipalities and departements. Corsica and Paris (both a commune and a département) are local government sui generis.

Germany

As a federal country, Germany is divided into a number of states (Länder in German), which used to have wide powers, but whose main remaining power today (2004) is their ability to veto federal laws through their Bundesrat representation. The system of local government is described in the article on States of Germany.

Japan

Since the Meiji restoration, Japan has had a simple and clear local government system. First, Japan is divided into 47 prefectures. Each prefecture comprises cities, villages and towns. In Hokkaido, Nagasaki and Okinawa, there are branches of the prefectural government sometimes referred to as "Subprefectures".

New Zealand

New Zealand has two tiers of authorities. The top tier comprises the regional councils. The second tier is the territorial authorities consisting of city councils, district councils and one island council. Five territorial authorities are unitary authorities, that is they also perform the functions of a regional council.

Philippines

For a description of the arrangements in force, see the section on Regions and Provinces in the article on the Philippines. [Institute of Development Management and Governance] [http://www.geocities.com/idmguplb]

United Kingdom

Main article: Local government in the United Kingdom The system of local government is different in the four countries of the United Kingdom.

England

The most complex system is in England, the result of numerous attempts at reform and reorganisation over the centuries. Above the level considered here is the European Union, the United Kingdom and whatever government offices may exist for England as a whole. England currently has no elected officials responsible solely for the entire country. The top level of local government within England is now the region. There are nine regions including Greater London, which in some ways is a unique case. Each region has a government office and assorted other institutions. Regions appear to have been introduced in their present form around 1994 and the policy of the current administration is to increase their power, including the introduction of elected assemblies where desired. The layers of government below the regions are mixed. Traditional counties still exist, although in the 1990s some of the districts within the counties became separate unitary authorities and a few counties have been disbanded completely. There are also metropolitan districts in some areas which are similar to unitary authorities. In Greater London there are London boroughs which are a similar concept. Counties are further divided into districts (also known as boroughs in some areas). Districts are divided into wards for electoral purposes. Districts may also contain parishes and town council areas with a small administration of their own. Other area classifications are also in use, such as health service and Lord-Lieutenant areas. See also: Ceremonial counties of England, Districts of England, Administrative counties of England, Subdivisions of England, UK topics

Wales

Wales has a uniform system of unitary authorities, referred to as counties or county boroughs. There are also communities, equivalent to parishes.

Scotland

Local government in Scotland is arranged on the lines of unitary authorities, with the nation divided into 32 council areas.

United States

Local government of the United States refers to the governments at the city, town, village, or civil township level in the United States of America. In the more general sense, local government also refers to state government, regional government, and county government.

Business

Business refers to at least three closely related commercial topics. The first is a commercial, professional or industrial organization or enterprise, generally referred to as "a business." The second is commercial, professional, and industrial activity generally, as in "business continues to evolve as markets change." Finally, business can be used to refer to a particular area of economic activity, such as the "record business" or the "computer business" (see Industry). This article is concerned primarily with the first definition of individual businesses, but also contains links to general business and management topics, in the sense of the second definition. Individual businesses are established in order to perform economic activities. With some exceptions (such as cooperatives, non-profit organizations and generally, institutions of government), businesses exist to produce profit. In other words, the owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for expending time, effort and capital.

Types of Businesses

There are many types of businesses, and, as a result, businesses can be classified in many ways. One of the most common focuses on the primary profit-generating activities of a business, for example:
- Manufacturers produce products, from raw materials or component parts, which they then sell at a profit. Companies that make physical goods, such as cars or pipes, are considered manufacturers.
- Service businesses offer intangible goods or services and typically generate a profit by charging for labor or other services provided to other businesses or consumers. Organizations ranging from house painters to consulting firms to restaurants are types of service businesses.
- Retailers and Distributors act as middle-men in getting goods produced by manufacturers to the intended consumer, generating a profit as a result of providing sales or distribution services. Most consumer-oriented stores and catalogue companies are distributors or retailers.
- Agriculture and mining businesses are concerned with the production of raw material, such as plants or minerals.
- Financial businesses include banks and other companies that generate profit through investment and management of capital.
- Information businesses generate profits primarily from the resale of intellectual property and include movie studios, publishers and packaged software companies.
- Utilities produce public services, such as heat, electricity, or sewage treatment, and are usually government chartered.
- Real estate businesses generate profit from the selling, renting, and development of properties, homes, and buildings.
- Transportation businesses deliver goods and individuals from location to location, generating a profit on the transportation costs. There are many other divisions and subdivisions of businesses. The authoritative list of business types for North America (although it is widely used around the world) is generally considered to be the NAICS, or North American Industry Classification System. The equivalent European Union list is the [http://www.fifoost.org/database/nace/nace-en_2002AB.php NACE].

Business departments

Within businesses one can often find similar departments, named (and not limited to):
- Administration
- Finance & controlling
- Human ressources
- Management
- Marketing & sales
- Production/service
- Purchasing

Business and Government

Most legal jurisdictions specify the forms that a business can take, and a body of commercial law has developed for each type. Some common types include partnerships, corporations (also called limited liability companies), and sole proprietorships.

Business and Management

The study of the efficient and effective operation of a business is called management. The main branches of management are financial management, marketing management, human resource management, strategic management, production management, service management, information technology management, and business intelligence.

External links

- [http://business-articles.us/ Business Articles]
- [http://www.growfolio.com/ growFolio - Online Business Magazine for Fresh Thinkers]
- [http://finance.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Finance] Aggregates some really good business articles
- Category:Academic disciplines Category:School subjects ja:ビジネス th:ธุรกิจ

Organization

:Alternative meaning: Organisation (band). An organisation (Commonwealth English) or organization (American English, and Oxford English) is a formal group of people with one or more shared goals. This topic is a broad one. Organisations are studied by researchers from several disciplines: sociology, economics, political science, psychology, engineering, etc. The area is commonly referred to as organisation theory, organisational behaviour or organisation analysis. it however consists of a number of different theories and perspectives, some of which are compatible and others that are competing. Among those that are or have been most influential are:
- Weberian organisation theory (referring to Max Weber's chapter on Bureaucracy in his book 'Economy and Society'
- Marxist organisation analysis
- Scientific Management (mainly following Frederick W Taylor)
- Human Relations Studies (going back to the Hawthorne studies, Maslow and Hertzberg)
- Administrative theories (with work by e.g. Henri Fayol and Chester Barnard)
- Contingency theory
- New institutionalism and new institutional economics
- Network analysis
- Economic Sociology
- Organisation ecology (or demography of organisations)
- Transaction cost economics
- Agency theory (sometimes called principal - agent theory)
- Studies of organisation culture
- Postmodern organisation studies
- Labour Process Theory
- Critical Management Studies
- Unicist Natural Organisation The most prestigious scientific journals focused on the study of organisations include organisation, Organisation Studies, Administrative Science Quarterly and Academy of Management Review. "Organisation" can also be used to define how the different parts of computer hardware are linked in order to execute the many computational activities most efficiently. Organisations that are legal entities: government, international organisation, non-governmental organisation, armed forces, corporation, partnership, charity, not-for-profit corporation, cooperative, university. The study of organisations includes a focus on optimising [organisational structure]. According to management science, most human organisations fall roughly into four types:
- Pyramids or hierarchies
- Committees or juries
- Matrix organisations
- Ecologies Organisation studies also includes research efforts to inform the effective management of organisations, and addresses organisational culture, organisational learning and managing change as major factors affecting organisational effectiveness, beyond the basics of organisational structure.

Pyramids or hierarchies

A hierarchy exemplifies an arrangement with a leader who leads leaders. This arrangement is often associated with bureaucracy. Hierarchies were satirised in The Peter Principle (1969), a book that introduced the term hierarchiology and the saying that "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence". An extremely rigid, in terms of responsibilities, type of organisation is exemplified by Führerprinzip.

Committees or juries

These consist of a group of peers who decide as a group, perhaps by voting. The difference between a jury and a committee is that the members of the committee are usually assigned to perform or lead further actions after the group comes to a decision, whereas members of a jury come to a decision. In common law countries legal juries render decisions of guilt, liability and quantify damages; juries are also used in athletic contests, book awards and similar activities. Sometimes a selection committee functions like a jury. In the middle ages juries in continental Europe were used to determine the law according to consensus amongst local notables. Committees are often the most reliable way to make decisions. Condorcet's jury theorem proved that if the average member votes better than a roll of dice, then adding more members increases the number of majorities that can come to a correct vote (however correctness is defined). The problem is that if the average member is worse than a roll of dice, the committee's decisions grow worse, not better! Staffing is crucial. Parliamentary procedure, such as Robert's Rules of Order, helps prevent committees from engaging in lengthy discussions without reaching decisions.

Staff organisation or cross-functional team

A staff helps an expert get all his work done. To this end, a "chief of staff" decides whether an assignment is routine or not. If it's routine, he assigns it to a staff member, who is a sort of junior expert. The chief of staff schedules the routine problems, and checks that they are completed. If a problem is not routine, the chief of staff notices. He passes it to the expert, who solves the problem, and educates the staff -- converting the problem into a routine problem. In a "cross functional team," like an executive committee, the boss has to be a non-expert, because so many kinds of expertise are required.

Matrix organisation

This organisational type assigns each worker to two bosses in two different hierarchies. One hierarchy is "functional" and assures that each type of expert in the organisation is well-trained, and measured by a boss who is super-expert in the same field. The other direction is "executive" and tries to get projects completed using the experts. Projects might be organised by regions, customer types, or some other schema. See matrix management.

Ecologies

This organisation has intense competition. Bad parts of the organisation starve. Good ones get more work. Everybody is paid for what they actually do, and runs a tiny business that has to show a profit, or they are fired. Companies who utilise this organisation type reflect a rather one-sided view of what goes on in ecology. It is also the case that a natural ecosystem has a natural border - ecoregions do not in general compete with one another in any way, but are very autonomous. The pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline talks about functioning as this type of organisation in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1294443,00.html this external article] from The Guardian.

"Chaordic" organisations

The chaordic model of organising human endeavours emerged in the [1990]s, based on a blending of chaos and order (hence "chaordic"), comes out of the work of Dee Hock and the creation of the VISA financial network. Blending democracy, complex system, consensus decision making, co-operation and competition, the chaordic approach attempts to encourage organisations to evolve from the increasingly nonviable hierarchical, command-and-control models. Similarly, see Emergent organisations, and the principle of self-organisation. See also group entity for an anarchist perspective on human organisations.

Election

Definitions of democratic elections

Characteristics of elections

Who can vote

Who is voted for

Types of election

Electoral systems

Scheduling

Election campaigns

Difficulties with elections

Show elections

Bias and limited options

Corruption of democracies

Elections around the world

See also

External links

Decision making

Decision making style

Cognitive and personal biases in decision making

Cognitive neuroscience of decision making

Decision making in groups

Principles

Decision making in one's personal life

Decision making in healthcare

Path dependency

Decision making in business

See also

References

External links

Politician

See also

External link

Political party

Nonpartisan, Single-party, two-party, and multi-party governments

Parties and directions

Colors and emblems for parties

International organizations of political parties

See also

External links

Government

Definitions

Forms of government

Theories

Greed and oppression

Order and tradition

Natural rights

Social contract

Operations

Enforcement of power

Territory

Scale of government

See also

Relevant lists

DemocracY

Executive (government)

Executives under different systems

Role of the executive

See also

Judiciary

Differences between civil, socialist and common law

See also

Local government

Australia

India

France

Germany

Japan

New Zealand

Philippines

United Kingdom

England

Wales

Scotland

United States

See also

Business

Types of Businesses

Business departments

Business and Government

Business and Management