1.1 democracy and suffrage Flashcards
Is the UK in a Participation Crisis? YES
✅ Argument: Yes, the UK is in a participation crisis
1. Falling turnout undermines legitimacy
Point: General election turnout has declined significantly.
Evidence: 2024 turnout = 59.8%, well below the post-war average of 76%.
Explanation: Fewer people voting means elected governments represent a shrinking proportion of the public. This weakens their democratic mandate.
Link: Suggests a disengaged public and a crisis in representative democracy.
- Party membership has collapsed
Point: Fewer people are engaging with political parties.
Evidence: Only 1.6% of the UK electorate are party members (2024).
Explanation: Parties are the main way people shape policy between elections. Without engagement here, participation is hollow.
Link: Shows apathy and detachment from the political system.
- Rise of slacktivism replaces real action
Point: People are substituting digital gestures for meaningful activism.
Evidence: 2.9 million signed a petition for a general election in 2024 — but it had no impact.
Explanation: Online participation often lacks real influence, making politics feel performative.
Link: Suggests the illusion of engagement masks the reality of disempowerment.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): Low turnout, weak party engagement and ineffective activism all point to a real decline in meaningful participation.
❌ Counter-Argument: No, participation is changing — not in crisis
- High turnout when stakes are high
Point: People are still willing to vote when they believe it matters.
Evidence: 2014 Scottish IndyRef = 84.6% turnout; 2016 Brexit = 72.2%.
Explanation: The public engages enthusiastically in high-stakes, meaningful decisions.
Link: Apathy is selective, not total — not a full crisis.
- Surge in alternative parties and causes
Point: Political energy has shifted, not vanished.
Evidence: Reform UK reached 200,000+ members in 2025; SNP surged post-IndyRef.
Explanation: People still join parties when they feel represented. Decline is in mainstream parties, not in engagement overall.
Link: Shows dissatisfaction with who represents them — not democracy itself.
- Digital tools are creating change
Point: E-democracy is becoming more influential.
Evidence: Age UK petition (590k+) and 2023 maternity pay petition led to a 10.1% pay increase.
Explanation: Online activism can shape agendas and even change policy.
Link: Participation is evolving, not dying.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): The forms of participation have shifted — from party politics to digital, issue-based activism. The public is still active, just in new ways.
Essay: Does the UK have a democratic deficit? ✅ Argument: Yes, the UK has a democratic deficit
- FPTP produces unrepresentative outcomes
Evidence: In 2024, Labour won a 170-seat majority with only 33.7% of the vote.
Explanation: Governments can be formed without majority support. This distorts representation and damages legitimacy.
Link: A voting system that doesn’t reflect the public will points to a democratic deficit.
- Power is held by unelected elites
Evidence: Lord Alli scandal (“Freebiegate”), Michelle Mone and the PPE Medpro contracts.
Explanation: Political influence and access can be bought or inherited, not earned democratically.
Link: Undermines equality and transparency in government.
- PMs and MPs can govern without electoral support
Evidence: Truss and Sunak became PMs without general elections; 23 by-elections due to misconduct since 2019.
Explanation: Politicians can enter office or remain in power without public approval.
Link: Suggests a lack of accountability and a break in democratic norms.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): Unrepresentative elections, unelected influence, and leadership without electoral backing all reveal serious democratic flaws.
❌ Counter-Argument: No, UK democracy is still functioning well
- FPTP offers stability and clear outcomes
Evidence: Labour gained a majority in 2024, avoiding hung parliament chaos.
Explanation: Strong governments can govern effectively without constant compromise.
Link: Democracy isn’t just about representation — it’s also about functionality.
- Checks and scrutiny do exist
Evidence: House of Lords blocked Rwanda plan; media exposed scandals like Freebiegate.
Explanation: Institutions and press still hold power to account between elections.
Link: Democratic health isn’t defined only by elections — scrutiny is alive and well.
- Accountability mechanisms are in place
Evidence: Peter Bone removed via 2015 Recall Act; voters decide by-elections.
Explanation: Misconduct is punished through formal mechanisms and public pressure.
Link: The public can still remove those who fail to serve them — democracy remains responsive.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): The UK may have flaws, but democratic structures, oversight and accountability remain strong and active.
⚖️ Essay: Should there be greater use of direct democracy in the UK?
✅ Argument: Yes, direct democracy should be used more
- Enhances legitimacy and accountability
Evidence: Brexit referendum, Recall of MPs Act (Peter Bone example).
Explanation: Public decisions and recall powers keep politicians responsive.
Link: Strengthens democratic legitimacy by giving power directly to citizens.
- Boosts participation and engagement
Evidence: 2.9M signed 2024 general election petition; 590k+ signed Age UK petition.
Explanation: People engage more when they feel their voice matters directly.
Link: Direct democracy revives public interest and trust in politics.
- Reflects popular will and leads to real change
Evidence: Citizens’ Assembly on Climate influenced green energy policy.
Explanation: Well-run democratic innovations show people can handle complex issues.
Link: Gives meaningful power to the electorate outside elections.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): Direct democracy improves legitimacy, revives engagement, and empowers citizens to shape real outcomes.
❌ Counter-Argument: No, it has serious risks
- It can undermine representative government
Evidence: Brexit created years of legislative paralysis and political division.
Explanation: Public decisions can clash with Parliament, leading to instability.
Link: Makes the system harder to govern and undermines Parliamentary sovereignty.
- Public decisions may be emotional or misinformed
Evidence: Brexit campaign used misleading NHS claims; £350M bus slogan.
Explanation: Voters can be swayed by emotion or false information.
Link: Weakens the quality of decision-making in complex issues.
- Risks of majoritarian tyranny
Evidence: Brexit overruled Scottish/Northern Irish Remain majorities.
Explanation: Direct votes don’t account for minority protections.
Link: Without parliamentary mediation, minority voices are silenced.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): While empowering, direct democracy can destabilise the system and marginalise key groups — it must be used carefully and rarely.
🧍♂️ Essay: Is representative democracy superior to direct democracy?
✅ Argument: Yes, representative democracy is superior
- More practical and efficient
Evidence: COVID laws needed fast decisions; Parliament acted quickly.
Explanation: Large-scale issues can’t wait for public votes — MPs handle urgency.
Link: Rep democracy is the only realistic system in a modern state.
- Better protects minorities and long-term interests
Evidence: Parliament includes multiple voices and long-term scrutiny.
Explanation: MPs balance popular views with ethical and inclusive policymaking.
Link: Prevents majority from oppressing minorities — unlike referendums.
- Allows expert judgment and accountability
Evidence: Rupert Lowe consulted constituents via mini-referendum, then voted.
Explanation: Reps can combine public will with knowledge and reflection.
Link: Blends public input with professional governance.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): Representative democracy is more stable, inclusive and suitable for a complex society — direct democracy is a supplement, not a replacement.
❌ Counter-Argument: No, direct democracy is more democratic
- Digital tools make direct input easier than ever
Evidence: E-petitions regularly reach 100k+; over 200 debated last Parliament.
Explanation: Technology means people can participate meaningfully between elections.
Link: Practical barriers to direct democracy are disappearing.
- Parliament is not fully representative
Evidence: House of Lords is unelected; MPs often don’t reflect voter demographics.
Explanation: Supposed “representatives” are often disconnected from the public.
Link: System fails to reflect real diversity or consensus.
- Trust in representatives is collapsing
Evidence: 2024 YouGov: 73% say politicians “don’t care” about them.
Explanation: Reps often act in party interest, not public interest.
Link: If reps can’t be trusted, direct democracy becomes the fairer option.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): In a system full of mistrust and elitism, direct democracy offers a purer and more responsive form of decision-making.
Essay: Should the voting age be lowered to 16?
✅ Argument: Yes, votes at 16 should be introduced
1. 16-year-olds already have key responsibilities
Evidence: Can work, pay tax, join the army, and consent to medical treatment.
Explanation: If they contribute to society, they should help choose its leaders.
Link: Democratic rights should reflect social and legal responsibilities.
- Early voting builds lifelong engagement
Evidence: Studies show voting when first eligible increases lifetime turnout.
Explanation: Captures young people while still in school/civic education.
Link: Could help reverse declining youth turnout long-term.
- Used successfully in UK nations already
Evidence: Scotland allowed 16-year-olds to vote in 2014 IndyRef and 2016 Holyrood elections
Explanation: They participated maturely, turnout matched 18–24s.
Link: Proven it works — time to apply UK-wide.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): 16-year-olds contribute to society and are politically ready — enfranchising them would make democracy fairer and stronger.
❌ Counter-Argument: No, voting should remain at 18
- 16-year-olds lack maturity and life experience
Evidence: Most still in education, financially dependent, no independent life.
Explanation: Easily influenced by parents, schools, or peers — weakens vote quality.
Link: Voting should require full independence and judgment.
- Very few demand the vote at 16
Evidence: No mass youth movement calling for this reform; low awareness in polls.
Explanation: If young people don’t ask for the vote, why prioritise it?
Link: Other reforms (e.g. democratic deficit, PR) may matter more.
- Political education is patchy across UK
Evidence: Citizenship not compulsory in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Explanation: Without education, lowering voting age risks uninformed choices.
Link: Need better prep before extending the franchise.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): While symbolically fair, lowering the voting age without civic preparation risks disengagement and manipulation.
🗳️ Essay: Should voting be made compulsory in the UK?
✅ Argument: Yes, voting should be compulsory
- Increases turnout and legitimacy
Evidence: Australia = 91% turnout with compulsory voting.
Explanation: Higher turnout gives governments stronger democratic mandates.
Link: Solves apathy and strengthens representation.
- Civic duty, like jury service or taxation
Evidence: Citizens already do mandatory tasks to support democracy.
Explanation: Voting is essential to the health of the system — not just a right, but a responsibility.
Link: Encourages a stronger political culture.
- Reduces social and class-based turnout gaps
Evidence: In UK, middle-class voters dominate turnout; working-class often underrepresented.
Explanation: Compulsory voting ensures all voices are heard equally.
Link: Makes democracy more inclusive and fair.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): Compulsory voting ensures high turnout, fairer results and stronger democratic legitimacy — it levels the playing field.
❌ Counter-Argument: No, voting should remain voluntary
- It undermines individual liberty
Evidence: People should be free to choose whether or not to participate.
Explanation: Compulsory voting forces people to endorse a system they may not support.
Link: A democratic right shouldn’t be a legal obligation.
- Doesn’t fix the quality of engagement
Evidence: Spoiled ballots still common in compulsory systems (e.g. Australia).
Explanation: More votes doesn’t mean better decisions — just box-ticking.
Link: Doesn’t address political apathy or disillusionment.
- Risks punishing the politically disengaged
Evidence: Fines can disproportionately affect marginalised or vulnerable citizens.
Explanation: Turns political disengagement into criminality.
Link: Could make people feel resentful or even less engaged.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): Forcing disengaged people to vote risks resentment and tokenism — better to inspire, not coerce.
👨⚖️ Essay: Should prisoners be allowed to vote?
✅ Argument: Yes, prisoners should have the right to vote
- Human rights should apply to all
Evidence: ECHR ruled UK’s total ban breaches Article 3 of Protocol 1 (2005).
Explanation: Democracy includes the unpopular — citizenship shouldn’t be removed.
Link: Voting is a civil right, not a privilege.
- Encourages rehabilitation and reintegration
Evidence: Voting connects inmates to civic life and future responsibilities.
Explanation: Helps maintain identity and reduces alienation from society.
Link: Reinforces rehabilitation — a key aim of sentencing.
- Some prisoners are still part of society
Evidence: Short-term or non-violent offenders lose voting rights for minor crimes.
Explanation: The punishment doesn’t fit the denial of a fundamental democratic right.
Link: Blanket bans are overly harsh and arbitrary.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (Yes side): Voting is a core democratic right and a tool for rehabilitation — denying it undermines human dignity and social justice.
❌ Counter-Argument: No, prisoners should lose the right to vote
- They have broken the social contract
Evidence: Committing a crime removes some civic rights (e.g. freedom, movement).
Explanation: Temporary loss of voting rights reflects moral consequences.
Link: Justice must involve consequences beyond prison.
- Public opinion is strongly against it
Evidence: Consistent UK polling shows 60–70% oppose prisoner voting rights.
Explanation: Maintaining a ban reflects public morality and trust in justice.
Link: Democracy also means reflecting the values of the majority.
- Voting is a privilege that must be earned
Evidence: Other rights are conditional (e.g. parole, early release).
Explanation: Loss of vote reinforces seriousness of criminal conduct.
Link: Keeps clear distinction between citizens who obey the law and those who don’t.
🧾 Mini Conclusion (No side): Prison means loss of rights — and the vote should be one of them. Reinstating it may weaken the moral authority of law.
