“Evaluate the view that representative democracy is ineffective in the UK”
LoA: Representative democracy is ineffective in the UK due to the voting system used in the
UK and its impact on turnout/voting tactics, as well as the way that MPs operate once they
are in government (e.g. whips and promotion prospects).
Definitions: representative democracy is the election of MPs to represent constituents and
the public and vote on their behalf, unlike direct democracy which is when constituents vote
directly on an issue (referendums)
Criteria: Unrepresentative and fails to listen to the electorate.
Para 1 - FPTP is unrepresentative/ineffective
Representative democracy is ineffective because the electoral system that the UK
uses for general elections leads to a Parliament that does not reflect the way that
the public voted and it is not proportional.
FPTP = the party that achieves the biggest proportion of the votes in a constituency
receives an MP to sit in Parliament, and the party that gains the largest number of
MPs across the 650 constituencies is the winning party, the leader of which is called
to form a government by the King.
This means that the make-up of Parliament is not representative of how the country
voted as it is a WTA system; a PM can be appointed on a minority of the popular
vote, landslide effect (1/3 of votes makes you likely to win the majority of seats).
For example - Blair was re-elected on just 35.2% of the vote in 2005.
Winners' bonus - conservatives won 36.9% vote which translated to 50.9% seats…
Excludes minority parties - UKIP won 1 seat despite getting 3.9m votes in 2015.
Weak mandate and limited legitimacy -> unstable and often unpopular government
as it doesn't often reflect even a majority of the public's views due to the skewed
results.
Direct democracy is much more representative as everyone's vote is taken into
account and proportionally assessed (yes/no question).
BUT: more effective than a proportional system as it prevents coalitions which lead to lots of
compromise (2010-15 - many of Camerons' manifesto policies were abandoned - bill of
rights for example). Suggest weaknesses of STV or AMS.
COUNTER: there should be an element of compromise in order to find the middle ground
between parties and more fairly represent the largest amount of the UK population as
possible - following a manifesto often only appeals to 30% of the population.
Para 2 - discourages turnout and increases tactical voting
Since only major parties have a look-in (due to the fact that parties need to win a
large proportion of the vote in a concentrated area), minor parties are excluded.
This, combined with the fact that many seats are considered 'safe-seats' (e.g. Bootle
where only 14p was spent on campaigning per head vs Luton which is marginal and
£3.07 was spent), leads to voter apathy and reduces turnout as they believe their
vote will not count.
2001 - Labour re-elected on under 60% turnout!!!
Many resort to tactical voting as a result as they believe that the party they truly
want to win won't, and thus decide to block their least favourite party from winning
instead - vote swapping websites in 2015.
, BUT: excludes extremists - racist extreme parties are less likely to win, advs of safe-seats is
that there is a strong MP-constituency link that is likely to improve the representation of
constituents in Parliament and an advocation for local issues.
COUNTER: still prevents a large portion of the electorate from feeling like their vote had
counted and that their opinions are being fairly represented.
Para 3 - MPs often do not represent their constituents due to collective ministerial
responsibility, whips, and prospective promotions
Collective ministerial responsibility - principle by which ministers must support
cabinet decisions or leave executive - can argue their cause in private but once a
decision is made, it is binding. e.g. Robin Cook resigned as HoC leader in opposition
to Blair's gov's decision to go to war with Iraq; Iain Duncan Smith resigned 2016 due
to his inability to accept cuts to disability benefits.
Whips - ensure that MPs will vote in line with the party - make life hard for party
members who vote against the party line, extreme cases can lead to exclusion from
the party. Often means constituent views are abandoned in favour of national/party
ones.
Prospective promotions - whips suggest promotions (makes it even harder for
ambitious MPs to follow constituency views), ministerial code says to avoid conflicts
of interest as far as possible.
BUT: Hazel Blears supported protests against closure of parts of a hospital in her
constituency in 2006 - suggests this isn't always the case
COUNTER: rare for this to happen, more common for MPs to keep in their place for fear of
losing favour within their party, even at the cost of losing favour from their constituency -
2017 a number of MPs ignored their constituency's views on Brexit and voted in a different
ways to how the majority of their constituency had 1st Feb 2017 led to a petition to remove
these MPs (failed).
“Evaluate the view that changes to the UK franchise since 1832 have gone far enough”
LoA: Has gone far enough, whilst there could be some minor changes to how the elections
are conducted in order to improve turnout, the stronger argument is that these are
unnecessary and the franchise has changed enough as it considers everyone and all have an
equal vote, unlike in 1832.
Definitions: franchise = ability for someone to vote.
Criteria: issues with some of the solutions to improving turnout and issues with some
proposed changes such as compulsory voting/votes for prisoners outweigh the potential
positives, equality has been achieved and these changes could undermine this
Para 1 - yes - gone far enough, now equal
The Great Reform Act 1832 - abolished separate rep of most underpopulated 'rotten
boroughs' and creating seats for urban areas (e.g. Manchester), granted the vote to
some new categories of people in the countries, including tenant farmers, created a
standard qualification for the franchise in boroughs - all male householders living in
properties who paid £10+ yearly rental (middle class), increased electorate to
650,000 (5% adult pop).
1867 - borough householders
LoA: Representative democracy is ineffective in the UK due to the voting system used in the
UK and its impact on turnout/voting tactics, as well as the way that MPs operate once they
are in government (e.g. whips and promotion prospects).
Definitions: representative democracy is the election of MPs to represent constituents and
the public and vote on their behalf, unlike direct democracy which is when constituents vote
directly on an issue (referendums)
Criteria: Unrepresentative and fails to listen to the electorate.
Para 1 - FPTP is unrepresentative/ineffective
Representative democracy is ineffective because the electoral system that the UK
uses for general elections leads to a Parliament that does not reflect the way that
the public voted and it is not proportional.
FPTP = the party that achieves the biggest proportion of the votes in a constituency
receives an MP to sit in Parliament, and the party that gains the largest number of
MPs across the 650 constituencies is the winning party, the leader of which is called
to form a government by the King.
This means that the make-up of Parliament is not representative of how the country
voted as it is a WTA system; a PM can be appointed on a minority of the popular
vote, landslide effect (1/3 of votes makes you likely to win the majority of seats).
For example - Blair was re-elected on just 35.2% of the vote in 2005.
Winners' bonus - conservatives won 36.9% vote which translated to 50.9% seats…
Excludes minority parties - UKIP won 1 seat despite getting 3.9m votes in 2015.
Weak mandate and limited legitimacy -> unstable and often unpopular government
as it doesn't often reflect even a majority of the public's views due to the skewed
results.
Direct democracy is much more representative as everyone's vote is taken into
account and proportionally assessed (yes/no question).
BUT: more effective than a proportional system as it prevents coalitions which lead to lots of
compromise (2010-15 - many of Camerons' manifesto policies were abandoned - bill of
rights for example). Suggest weaknesses of STV or AMS.
COUNTER: there should be an element of compromise in order to find the middle ground
between parties and more fairly represent the largest amount of the UK population as
possible - following a manifesto often only appeals to 30% of the population.
Para 2 - discourages turnout and increases tactical voting
Since only major parties have a look-in (due to the fact that parties need to win a
large proportion of the vote in a concentrated area), minor parties are excluded.
This, combined with the fact that many seats are considered 'safe-seats' (e.g. Bootle
where only 14p was spent on campaigning per head vs Luton which is marginal and
£3.07 was spent), leads to voter apathy and reduces turnout as they believe their
vote will not count.
2001 - Labour re-elected on under 60% turnout!!!
Many resort to tactical voting as a result as they believe that the party they truly
want to win won't, and thus decide to block their least favourite party from winning
instead - vote swapping websites in 2015.
, BUT: excludes extremists - racist extreme parties are less likely to win, advs of safe-seats is
that there is a strong MP-constituency link that is likely to improve the representation of
constituents in Parliament and an advocation for local issues.
COUNTER: still prevents a large portion of the electorate from feeling like their vote had
counted and that their opinions are being fairly represented.
Para 3 - MPs often do not represent their constituents due to collective ministerial
responsibility, whips, and prospective promotions
Collective ministerial responsibility - principle by which ministers must support
cabinet decisions or leave executive - can argue their cause in private but once a
decision is made, it is binding. e.g. Robin Cook resigned as HoC leader in opposition
to Blair's gov's decision to go to war with Iraq; Iain Duncan Smith resigned 2016 due
to his inability to accept cuts to disability benefits.
Whips - ensure that MPs will vote in line with the party - make life hard for party
members who vote against the party line, extreme cases can lead to exclusion from
the party. Often means constituent views are abandoned in favour of national/party
ones.
Prospective promotions - whips suggest promotions (makes it even harder for
ambitious MPs to follow constituency views), ministerial code says to avoid conflicts
of interest as far as possible.
BUT: Hazel Blears supported protests against closure of parts of a hospital in her
constituency in 2006 - suggests this isn't always the case
COUNTER: rare for this to happen, more common for MPs to keep in their place for fear of
losing favour within their party, even at the cost of losing favour from their constituency -
2017 a number of MPs ignored their constituency's views on Brexit and voted in a different
ways to how the majority of their constituency had 1st Feb 2017 led to a petition to remove
these MPs (failed).
“Evaluate the view that changes to the UK franchise since 1832 have gone far enough”
LoA: Has gone far enough, whilst there could be some minor changes to how the elections
are conducted in order to improve turnout, the stronger argument is that these are
unnecessary and the franchise has changed enough as it considers everyone and all have an
equal vote, unlike in 1832.
Definitions: franchise = ability for someone to vote.
Criteria: issues with some of the solutions to improving turnout and issues with some
proposed changes such as compulsory voting/votes for prisoners outweigh the potential
positives, equality has been achieved and these changes could undermine this
Para 1 - yes - gone far enough, now equal
The Great Reform Act 1832 - abolished separate rep of most underpopulated 'rotten
boroughs' and creating seats for urban areas (e.g. Manchester), granted the vote to
some new categories of people in the countries, including tenant farmers, created a
standard qualification for the franchise in boroughs - all male householders living in
properties who paid £10+ yearly rental (middle class), increased electorate to
650,000 (5% adult pop).
1867 - borough householders
