Democracy essay plans
Is there a participation/democracy crisis in the UK
Yes- low turnout at elections undermines legitimacy
• 2015 66%, way below levels in 70s where turnout 78%
• Governments being elected on less than a majority of votes
• 2015- 37% voted for tory
• Government mandate to rule is less- don’t need to represent as many
people, can ignore some groups like youth if they don’t vote
• If less people are voting, govt turn tyrannical
But- low turnout hasn’t caused crisis yet
• Vote turnout has been increasing since 2001 and trend could continue
• 2015 68%, 2001 was 2001
• People may not be voting due to hapathy- content with current
government
• Voters may be living in safe seats- feel they don’t need to vote, but still
engaged
• Governments still rule with FPTP, despite low turnout- with majorities-
Blair had big majority despite low turnout
Yes- Party membership down
• 1% of electorate member of main parties- compared to highs of 5%
• Partisan dealignment- people don’t identify with a certain party
• Sharp drop in trust and engagement, parties have less volunteers, and
less people to draw candidates from
• Less people are loyal to parties- due to them being so similar
No- labour increased recently, more support for smaller parties, PG up
• Labour 500,000 plus- more people engaged- more registered supporters
• Growth of smaller parties- UKIP/SNP/green- taking votes away from
main parties
• Greenpeace has 3.9 million votes
,• Strong social media engagement- facebook groups for exchange of
opinions
No- isn’t a participation crisis due to the rise of PGs
• Formal participation with traditional voting may have decreased
• Pressure group and other ways of participating outside the ballot box
has increased
• Iraq war- 1 million people
• Greenpeace 2.8 million members
• Therefore no participation crisis as people are engaging with politics,
just maybe feel that traditional methods don’t have same impact- or are
contempt with system
• Both parties offer same
Yes- being member of PG doesn’t actually mean participation
• 1 million members for RPBS, but not all active members
• Many just cheque book members- wouldn’t organise social media
campaigns or turn up to protests
• Not all members would be actively pursuing pressure group goals
Yes- trust in the political system has decreased
• Sleaze scandals etc- expenses scandal seeing some imprisoned
• New devolved assemblies haven’t increased participation despite PR
• Problem deep rooted in the system
BUT- some changes to system have come from those scandals
Freedom of information act- increasing transparency, media more willing
to investigate politicians
Media ‘punishes’ politicians for mistakes- system is capable of holding
people accountable therefore no participation crisis
How well is our representative democracy working
Yes- government drawn from parliament- who are held accountable
,• Depends on the confidence of the commons to stay in government-
1979
• If government underperforms then voters can simply vote them out
• Backbenchers increasing rebellious against the government, to fight for
constituents beliefs, less control of whips
• More assertive against the government e.g 2016 constituents boundary
• More free votes nowadays and decreased CCR e.g brexit
No- fusion of power
• Elective dictatorship during large majority- can pass whatever they want
• Have about 120 reliable votes already + whip system to pass what they
want
• Control of legislative calendar to pass what they want they feel its best
to
• Whips can use promise of minister post as leverage
But overall- more assertive now even during majority, less majorities now,
but govt still has control
Yes- FPTP creates strong MP voter link
• Constituents vote for a single candidate rather than multiple candidates
• Means there is high accountability, easy to see if one person has helped
the constituency or not- easy to know who to contact e.g with surgeries
• Easily vote them out if don’t represent- especially with online now to
see how they’ve voted
• Also creates strong and stable government- only 2 hung parliaments
since 1945, can carry out mandate they’ve been elected on
No- wasted votes, safe seats, nowadays not always majority
• Less choice for voters compared to PR where you pick multiple
candidates and can split the ticket
• Safe seats- tactical votes- voters have no choice over who they have
representing them
• Often leads to candidates being elected on less than majority- more
people voted against than for
• Only 328 candidates have majority mandates
, Yes- house of lords more assertive
• Since 1999, removed a lot of HP and bishops, adding more life peers-
expertise
• Challenge government and become more assertive- over 300 defeats of
Blair, more assertive than commons
• Powerful check on the government especially during times of weak
government
No- unelected
• House of lords unelected, therefore representative democracy doesn’t
function well- as we don’t elect half of parliament- therefore they cannot
represent
• don’t represent use descriptively
• Cannot be held accountable for their decisions- therefore not working
Are pressure groups good for democracy
Yes- participation during times of declining turnout
• Offer opportunities to participate between elections
• Also offer alternative means of participation for those who are
uninterested in the main parties- who aren’t represented by them
• As there is declining participation for the main parties seen in
membership and votes- 24% for tory government in 2015, need
pressure groups participation to show government what people’s
interests are
No-not all members are active/undemocratic
• Cheque book membership
• Greenpeace 3.9 million members, but few active ones
• don’t contribute to political debate or campaigning- therefore aren’t
good
• Pressure groups on the inside are undemocratic- controlled by
unelected leaders and members cannot control visions of the group
• For example junior doctor strikes- force their agenda on the rest- better
to use formal methods rather than large scale strikes
Is there a participation/democracy crisis in the UK
Yes- low turnout at elections undermines legitimacy
• 2015 66%, way below levels in 70s where turnout 78%
• Governments being elected on less than a majority of votes
• 2015- 37% voted for tory
• Government mandate to rule is less- don’t need to represent as many
people, can ignore some groups like youth if they don’t vote
• If less people are voting, govt turn tyrannical
But- low turnout hasn’t caused crisis yet
• Vote turnout has been increasing since 2001 and trend could continue
• 2015 68%, 2001 was 2001
• People may not be voting due to hapathy- content with current
government
• Voters may be living in safe seats- feel they don’t need to vote, but still
engaged
• Governments still rule with FPTP, despite low turnout- with majorities-
Blair had big majority despite low turnout
Yes- Party membership down
• 1% of electorate member of main parties- compared to highs of 5%
• Partisan dealignment- people don’t identify with a certain party
• Sharp drop in trust and engagement, parties have less volunteers, and
less people to draw candidates from
• Less people are loyal to parties- due to them being so similar
No- labour increased recently, more support for smaller parties, PG up
• Labour 500,000 plus- more people engaged- more registered supporters
• Growth of smaller parties- UKIP/SNP/green- taking votes away from
main parties
• Greenpeace has 3.9 million votes
,• Strong social media engagement- facebook groups for exchange of
opinions
No- isn’t a participation crisis due to the rise of PGs
• Formal participation with traditional voting may have decreased
• Pressure group and other ways of participating outside the ballot box
has increased
• Iraq war- 1 million people
• Greenpeace 2.8 million members
• Therefore no participation crisis as people are engaging with politics,
just maybe feel that traditional methods don’t have same impact- or are
contempt with system
• Both parties offer same
Yes- being member of PG doesn’t actually mean participation
• 1 million members for RPBS, but not all active members
• Many just cheque book members- wouldn’t organise social media
campaigns or turn up to protests
• Not all members would be actively pursuing pressure group goals
Yes- trust in the political system has decreased
• Sleaze scandals etc- expenses scandal seeing some imprisoned
• New devolved assemblies haven’t increased participation despite PR
• Problem deep rooted in the system
BUT- some changes to system have come from those scandals
Freedom of information act- increasing transparency, media more willing
to investigate politicians
Media ‘punishes’ politicians for mistakes- system is capable of holding
people accountable therefore no participation crisis
How well is our representative democracy working
Yes- government drawn from parliament- who are held accountable
,• Depends on the confidence of the commons to stay in government-
1979
• If government underperforms then voters can simply vote them out
• Backbenchers increasing rebellious against the government, to fight for
constituents beliefs, less control of whips
• More assertive against the government e.g 2016 constituents boundary
• More free votes nowadays and decreased CCR e.g brexit
No- fusion of power
• Elective dictatorship during large majority- can pass whatever they want
• Have about 120 reliable votes already + whip system to pass what they
want
• Control of legislative calendar to pass what they want they feel its best
to
• Whips can use promise of minister post as leverage
But overall- more assertive now even during majority, less majorities now,
but govt still has control
Yes- FPTP creates strong MP voter link
• Constituents vote for a single candidate rather than multiple candidates
• Means there is high accountability, easy to see if one person has helped
the constituency or not- easy to know who to contact e.g with surgeries
• Easily vote them out if don’t represent- especially with online now to
see how they’ve voted
• Also creates strong and stable government- only 2 hung parliaments
since 1945, can carry out mandate they’ve been elected on
No- wasted votes, safe seats, nowadays not always majority
• Less choice for voters compared to PR where you pick multiple
candidates and can split the ticket
• Safe seats- tactical votes- voters have no choice over who they have
representing them
• Often leads to candidates being elected on less than majority- more
people voted against than for
• Only 328 candidates have majority mandates
, Yes- house of lords more assertive
• Since 1999, removed a lot of HP and bishops, adding more life peers-
expertise
• Challenge government and become more assertive- over 300 defeats of
Blair, more assertive than commons
• Powerful check on the government especially during times of weak
government
No- unelected
• House of lords unelected, therefore representative democracy doesn’t
function well- as we don’t elect half of parliament- therefore they cannot
represent
• don’t represent use descriptively
• Cannot be held accountable for their decisions- therefore not working
Are pressure groups good for democracy
Yes- participation during times of declining turnout
• Offer opportunities to participate between elections
• Also offer alternative means of participation for those who are
uninterested in the main parties- who aren’t represented by them
• As there is declining participation for the main parties seen in
membership and votes- 24% for tory government in 2015, need
pressure groups participation to show government what people’s
interests are
No-not all members are active/undemocratic
• Cheque book membership
• Greenpeace 3.9 million members, but few active ones
• don’t contribute to political debate or campaigning- therefore aren’t
good
• Pressure groups on the inside are undemocratic- controlled by
unelected leaders and members cannot control visions of the group
• For example junior doctor strikes- force their agenda on the rest- better
to use formal methods rather than large scale strikes
