In politics, a political agenda is a list of subjects or problems (issues) to which government officials as well as individuals outside the government are paying serious attention to at any given time. The political agenda is most often shaped by political and policy elites but can also be influenced by activist groups, private sector lobbyists, think tanks, courts, world events, and the degree of state centralisation. Media coverage has also been linked to the success of the rise of political parties and their ability to get their ideas on the agenda (agenda-setting). Although the media does often have an effect on the political agenda, these results are not always immediate, which can produce a lag in the political agenda.
>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
👉 Political agenda in the context of Landslide victory
A landslide victory is an election result in which the winning candidate or party achieves a decisive victory by an overwhelming margin, securing a very large majority of votes or seats far beyond the typical competitive outcome. The term became popular in the 1800s to describe a victory in which the opposition is "buried", similar to the way in which a geological landslide buries whatever is in its path. A landslide victory for one party is often accompanied by an electoral wipeout for the opposition, as the overwhelming support for the winning side inflicts a decisive loss on its rivals. What qualifies as a landslide victory can vary depending on the type of electoral system, as the term does not entail a precise, technical, or universally agreed-upon measurement. Instead, it is used informally in everyday language, making it subject to interpretation. Even within a single electoral system, there is no consensus on the exact margin that constitutes a landslide victory.
A landslide victory implies a powerful expression of popular will and a ringing endorsement by the electorate for the winner’s political platform. A landslide can be viewed by a winning candidate or party as a mandate or a tacit authorization from the public to implement their proposed policies and pursue their agenda with confidence. Emboldened by the result, the winner may undertake ambitious reforms or significant policy shifts to reflect the electorate’s desire for meaningful change. However, it can also indicate deep political polarization in an electorate or an unfair election.
In this Dossier
Political agenda in the context of Hacktivism
Hacktivism (or hactivism; a portmanteau of hack and activism) is the use of computer-based techniques such as hacking as a form of civil disobedience to promote a political agenda or social change. A form of Internet activism with roots in hacker culture and hacker ethics, its ends are often related to free speech, human rights, or freedom of information movements.
Hacktivist activities span many political ideals and issues. Hyphanet, a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant communication, is a prime example of translating political thought and freedom of speech into code. Hacking as a form of activism can be carried out by a singular activist or through a network of activists, such as Anonymous and WikiLeaks, working in collaboration toward common goals without an overarching authority figure. For context, according to a statement by the U.S. Justice Department, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, plotted with hackers connected to the "Anonymous" and "LulzSec" groups, who have been linked to multiple cyberattacks worldwide. In 2012, Assange, who was being held in the United Kingdom on a request for extradition from the United States, gave the head of LulzSec a list of targets to hack and informed him that the most significant leaks of compromised material would come from the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, or the New York Times.
Political agenda in the context of Virginia Plan
The Virginia Plan (also known as the Randolph Plan or the Large-State Plan) was a proposed plan of government for the United States presented at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The plan called for the creation of a supreme national government with three branches and a bicameral legislature. The plan was drafted by James Madison and Edmund Randolph.
The Virginia Plan was notable for its role in setting the overall agenda for debate in the Convention and, in particular, for setting forth the idea of population-weighted representation in the proposed national legislature. The Virginia Plan favored the interests of states with large populations, and the New Jersey Plan was proposed in response to protect small state interests.
Political agenda in the context of Pseudohistory
Pseudohistory is a form of pseudoscholarship that attempts to distort or misrepresent the historical record, often by employing methods resembling those used in scholarly historical research. The related term cryptohistory is applied to pseudohistory derived from the superstitions intrinsic to occultism. Pseudohistory is related to pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology, and usage of the terms may occasionally overlap.
Although pseudohistory comes in many forms, scholars have identified common features in pseudohistorical works. Pseudohistory is almost always motivated by a contemporary political, religious, or personal agenda. It frequently presents sensational claims or a big lie about historical facts which would require unwarranted revision of the historical record. Another hallmark is an underlying premise that powerful groups have a furtive agenda to suppress the promoter's thesis—a premise commonly corroborated by elaborate conspiracy theories. Works of pseudohistory often point exclusively to unreliable sources—including myths and legends, often treated as literal historical truth—to support the thesis being promoted while ignoring valid sources that contradict it. Some works adopt a position of historical relativism, insisting that there is no such thing as historical truth and that any hypothesis is equal to any other. Many works conflate mere possibility with actuality, assuming that if something could have happened, then it did.
Political agenda in the context of Party line (politics)
In politics, "the line", "the party line", or "the lines to take" is an idiom for a political party or social movement's canon agenda, as well as ideological elements specific to the organization's partisanship. The common phrase "toeing the party line" describes a person who speaks in a manner that conforms to their political party's position, with the position frequently defined by the party leadership. The party structure pushing its representatives in parliament to vote along the line is referred to as party discipline, and efforts to enforce it are referred to as "whipping".
Likewise, a party-line vote is one in which most or all of the legislators from each political party voted in accordance with that party's policies. In several countries, a whip attempts to ensure this. The Marxist–Leninist concept of democratic centralism involves strict adherence to, and defence of, a communist party's positions in public known as the general line of the party or political line.