Evaluate the extent to which the UK suffers from a democratic deficit?
A democratic deficit is where there is a perceived short-fall in the system that gives rise to our
democracy. Whilst we do have a representative democracy in the UK, the extent to how democratic
our country is is often questioned. Although there is universal suffrage and there are elections held
occasionally, the problems facing referendums, unelected groups and the voting system itself leads
one to believe that the UK does, to some extent, suffer from a democratic deficit.
Whilst the House of Commons is a fully elected body of people, the House of Lords is an unelected
body, consisting of hereditary peers and appointed members. They share the task of making and
shaping laws and checking and challenging the work of the government. This concept of unelected
bodies questions the fairness of the electoral process in the UK; it is not democratic for people who
have not been elected to be able to contribute directly to the law and the way in which the country
is run - an unelected body is not a democratic representation of the country. However, although it is
evident for why this may suggest the UK suffers from a democratic deficit, one can argue that the
House of Lords provide the opinion of educated individuals of different professions and fields of
experience who will convey the country's best interests and what they think it right.
The UK can be seen as a very democratic country. It has free and fair elections with universal
suffrage, giving everyone a fair and equal say, alongside regular elections. The voting system in the
UK, the First Past The Post system, may be one of the biggest contributor for why some believe the
UK suffers from a democratic deficit. Firstly, with the First Past the Post system, there is a huge
chance of disproportionality as the link between the proportionality of votes won by parties and the
proportion of the seat they gain can be weak; this occurred in 1951 when the Conservatives formed
a majority government despite having won fewer seats than Labour. As the public's votes were not
mirrored in the number of the seats in Parliament, this system can be seen as being somewhat
undemocratic. Moreover, there is a systematic bias with the FFTP voting system as larger parties,
namely the Conservatives and Labour, benefit at the expense of smaller parties. As suggested in the
example before, the system lacks proportionality; for example, despite the Liberal Democrats
winning 7.36% of the vote share, they only gained 1.5'% of seats, and conversely, whilst the
Conservatives won 42.25% of the voting share, they gained a total of 48.92% of seat in Parliament.
People question the legitimacy of the voting system as they question whether the distribution of
results should affect the final outcome; in this case, they may argue that the Liberal Democrats
should have as many seats shares as their vote shares as so many minority votes were disregarded.
With this voting method, people's votes can be seen as disenfranchised and , due to this, people are
discouraged from voting these smaller parties as they feel as though they are wasting their votes as
it is unlikely that they will get the majority in their constituency; instead, they are inclined to vote
larger parties, regardless if they agree with their policies, in order for them to feel like their vote has
contributed. As a result, it is believed that the UK has a two-party system with a single party
government; as this does not mirror the proportionality of votes and, therefore, what the public
wishes, it could be argued that the UK suffers from a democratic deficit.
However, the First Past The Post voting system, whilst there are some clear flaws, can also been
seen as a democratic and a logical system. As the system usually produces a clear electoral choice,
people are more likely to receive the change that they voted for as the single party can implement
changes without contradicting to changes wanted by other parties. Also, people are given MPs that
will provide representation for their constitution; it is more likely for their interests and grievances
to be heard and voiced, and this suggests there is a real sense of democracy as people's voices are
being heard.
Whilst the voting system in the UK can be criticised for not representational, referendums give the
public direct and unmediated control, which means that the public's views are properly articulated
A democratic deficit is where there is a perceived short-fall in the system that gives rise to our
democracy. Whilst we do have a representative democracy in the UK, the extent to how democratic
our country is is often questioned. Although there is universal suffrage and there are elections held
occasionally, the problems facing referendums, unelected groups and the voting system itself leads
one to believe that the UK does, to some extent, suffer from a democratic deficit.
Whilst the House of Commons is a fully elected body of people, the House of Lords is an unelected
body, consisting of hereditary peers and appointed members. They share the task of making and
shaping laws and checking and challenging the work of the government. This concept of unelected
bodies questions the fairness of the electoral process in the UK; it is not democratic for people who
have not been elected to be able to contribute directly to the law and the way in which the country
is run - an unelected body is not a democratic representation of the country. However, although it is
evident for why this may suggest the UK suffers from a democratic deficit, one can argue that the
House of Lords provide the opinion of educated individuals of different professions and fields of
experience who will convey the country's best interests and what they think it right.
The UK can be seen as a very democratic country. It has free and fair elections with universal
suffrage, giving everyone a fair and equal say, alongside regular elections. The voting system in the
UK, the First Past The Post system, may be one of the biggest contributor for why some believe the
UK suffers from a democratic deficit. Firstly, with the First Past the Post system, there is a huge
chance of disproportionality as the link between the proportionality of votes won by parties and the
proportion of the seat they gain can be weak; this occurred in 1951 when the Conservatives formed
a majority government despite having won fewer seats than Labour. As the public's votes were not
mirrored in the number of the seats in Parliament, this system can be seen as being somewhat
undemocratic. Moreover, there is a systematic bias with the FFTP voting system as larger parties,
namely the Conservatives and Labour, benefit at the expense of smaller parties. As suggested in the
example before, the system lacks proportionality; for example, despite the Liberal Democrats
winning 7.36% of the vote share, they only gained 1.5'% of seats, and conversely, whilst the
Conservatives won 42.25% of the voting share, they gained a total of 48.92% of seat in Parliament.
People question the legitimacy of the voting system as they question whether the distribution of
results should affect the final outcome; in this case, they may argue that the Liberal Democrats
should have as many seats shares as their vote shares as so many minority votes were disregarded.
With this voting method, people's votes can be seen as disenfranchised and , due to this, people are
discouraged from voting these smaller parties as they feel as though they are wasting their votes as
it is unlikely that they will get the majority in their constituency; instead, they are inclined to vote
larger parties, regardless if they agree with their policies, in order for them to feel like their vote has
contributed. As a result, it is believed that the UK has a two-party system with a single party
government; as this does not mirror the proportionality of votes and, therefore, what the public
wishes, it could be argued that the UK suffers from a democratic deficit.
However, the First Past The Post voting system, whilst there are some clear flaws, can also been
seen as a democratic and a logical system. As the system usually produces a clear electoral choice,
people are more likely to receive the change that they voted for as the single party can implement
changes without contradicting to changes wanted by other parties. Also, people are given MPs that
will provide representation for their constitution; it is more likely for their interests and grievances
to be heard and voiced, and this suggests there is a real sense of democracy as people's voices are
being heard.
Whilst the voting system in the UK can be criticised for not representational, referendums give the
public direct and unmediated control, which means that the public's views are properly articulated
