arguments - democracy and political participation Flashcards
advantages of direct democracy
everyone gets a say
technology makes it easier to find out what people think
equal weight given to each vote
encourages popular participation
develops sense of community and responsibility
disadvantages of direct democracy
Can divide community - scotland voted remain in EU, england left
Tyranny of majority - minority often ignored/intimidated by majority
Can undermine representative democracy - politicians avoid difficult decisions for country even though it’s what they’ve been voted in to do
Lack of accountability - people can’t be held directly accountable if it goes wrong
Difficult for large populations - what if winston churchill had to call a referendum every time he was going to send troops into battle in WWII
Decision making could be too complicated for ordinary citizens - many people did not understand brexit
advantages of representative democracy
Can be voted out if something goes wrong
Representatives can become experts in field and make informed decisions
Encourages pluralist democracy - contrasting ideas and opinions from opposite parties/groups
Possibility of compromise
Gives a right to minority - raised causes that would not be raised in direct democracy
Better training for future leaders of country
disadvantages of representative democracy
Don’t always do what’s best for country - more to better their career, pursue own agendas
Some politicians may be corrupt or incompetent
Not all voters get representative they want - first past the post
May not address minorities concerns - politicians seek to win over majorities to stay in power
Politicians play on fear to maintain power
Some constituencies have safe seats so vote has more weight - little unfair
democratic deficit in the uk
the FPTP system for general elections produces disproportional results, renders many votes waster and elects governments with a relatively small proportion of the popular vote. It discriminates against small parties with dispersed support.
The House of Lords has considerable influence but is an unelected body.
The sovereignty of Parliament, in theory, gives unlimited potential power to the government.
The powers of the Prime Minister are partly based on the authority of an unelected monarch.
MPs from devolved areas (e.g. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) can vote in measures that no longer affect their constituents. (The West Lothian question).
Powerful vested interests provide funding to political parties.
Voter turnout in general elections varies, with a historic low of 59.4% in 2001.
is the uk in urgent need of democratic reform
UK democracy is outdated
UK democracy is ineffective
The peers in the house of lord are unaccountable
FPTP is not good
We need effective checks like a strong judiciary or codified constitution
Our rights are notprotected
Referendums are silly
Without urgent reform, the UK is heading to crisis - may spell the end of the UK as a democratic nation
Easy to operate and understand
Maintains strong links between MPs and constituents
Keeps out fringe/extremist parties
advantage of replacing the House of Lords with an elected chamber
It would remove an unelected, unaccountable body from the UK’s democratic process
disadvantages of replacing the House of Lords with an elected chamber
Replacement might cause greater rivalry with the HoC, leading to gridlock in the political process
The expertise in the Lords could potentially be replaced by career politicians
advantages of replacing the FPTP electoral system with a more proportional one
It would remove the negative features of FPTP, such as safe seats, minority constituencies, unfair representation and governments with a minority of support
disadvantages of replacing the FPTP electoral system with a more proportional one
Proportional systems make coalitions more likely and harder to hold to account. The systems are more complex and risk losing the close MP-constituency link that currently exists
advantages of codifying the uk constitution
It would clarify the processes of the UK political system and provide a higher law that would be entrenched, rather than the flexibility of the current uncodified constitution
disadvantages of codifying the uk constitution
A codified constitution might prove too rigid and there are questions about who would write it and how it would be implemented. It would raise questions over the location of sovereignty
It would give more power to unelected judges
advantages of creating a devolved english parliament to equalise devolution
It would solve the West Lothian question and create a more equal level of representation across the UK
disadvantages of creating a devolved english parliament to equalise devolution
England is too large a single entity to work within a devolved system but regional devolution has been rejected by voters (2004 North East England devolution referendum - 77.9% no vote on a turnout of c44%)
advantages of introducing state party funding
it would allow politicians to focus on their main job instead of fundraise
It would, potentially, remove the need to acquire money from powerful groups and vested interests that donate for their own ends, not the national interest
disadvantages of introducing state party funding
The process of fundraising helps to keep politicians and parties connected to voters
Questions over how funding would be allocated and whether taxpayer money should be given to parties that some might find objectionable
advantages of introducing compulsory voting
It would increase turnout in all elections, helping to improve the legitimacy of elected officials
disadvantages of introducing compulsory voting
forcing people to vote might not improve public engagement with politics
The right to vote also includes the right not to vote
advantages of replacing the monarch with an elected head of state (president)
It would remove an unelected figurehead and replace them with an elected and accountable figure
disadvantages of replacing the monarch with an elected head of state (president)
the monarchy is popular and, being neutral, can act as a unifying figure in a way an elected politician cannot
arguments that britain is experiencing a participation crisis
2001 general election: 59.4% turnout (a historic low - which was 12% lower than it had been in 1997)
membership of conservative in under 200000
voting turnout hasn’t got to the high that it was before 2001
e-petitions criticised as actual participation because they require little effort
arguments that britain is not suffering from a participation crisis
boost of labour party members in 2015 - membership was reduced to £3 a year
voter turnout has increased since 2001
the uk is in the middle of the league table of voting turnout between countries so could be much worse
lots of people sign digital petitions that could elicit a response from the government if they reach a certain threshold
arguments for extending the franchise to over 16s
With the spread of citizenship education, younger people are now better informed about politics than ever before
Voting turnout among 18-24 year old age group is very low. This may encourage more people to vote and become engaged with politics
The internet and social media now enable younger people to be better informed about politics
It could be said that if one is old enough to serve in the army, get married or pay tax, one should be old enough to vote
The radicalism of the very young could act as a useful balance to the extreme conservatism of older voters
arguments against extending the franchise to over 16s
It could be said that people of 16 and 17 years old are too young to be able to make rational judgements
It is felt that many issues are too complex for younger people to understand
Few people in this age group pay tax so they have a lower stake in society
It is argued by some that the very young tend to be excessively radical as they have not had enough experience to consider issues carefully
