Franchise

Question 1

Franchise over time

Answer 1

Franchise has widened gradually over time

Question 2

Analysing the Franchise - legitimacy

Answer 2

1. One consequence of widening the franchise is legitimacy which is the degree to which power is rightful and acceptable. In a democracy, power should come from the people not just some people, if only a small part of the population could voter power will only be legitimate for a small part of the people but not others. The widening of Franchises overtime has improved the legitimacy of government and parliament

Question 3

analysing the franchise - impact on representatives

Answer 3

The right to vote for women meant that women’s interests were more taken into account and better represented. Nancy Astor became the first female MP in 1919. Same for the labour party - it suddenly became the 2nd largest party

Question 4

does everyone have the right to vote

Answer 4

No, people in prison, members of the HoL, people convicted of electoral malpractice and those in mental institutions, people without British citizenship, those under 18

Question 5

arguments that under 18s should get the right to vote

Answer 5

1. Represents young people better - EMA
2. Encourage participation - giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote would empower them meaning they play a more active role in helping decide on issues that affect their futures
3. 16-year-olds are adults in some ways. At 16, one can have a baby, join the military, give consent to medical treatment, join a trade union, and get married. If they are old enough and mature enough for this then they are mature enough to make an informed decision on who to vote for like those other issues
4. The growth of online and social media usage has increased political awareness amongst young people and had led to recent movements such as school students striking over environmental issues after Greta Thunberg held a protest outside Sweden’s parliament in 2019, which sparked a wave of students in the UK walking out of lessons in support.

Question 6

under 18s should not get the right to vote

Answer 6

1. Under 18s are not well informed and are more likely to be taken in by fake news and extreme politics, they know very little about politics and are likely to not use or misuse this right, better political education is needed before this age group are given the right to vote - this argument has been used to disenfranchise people
2. Young people already have low turnout - voter turnout is very low amongst 18-24-year-olds, giving under 18s the right to vote won’t make much difference for representation - there is little evidence to support the idea that they want to right to vote
3. 16&17-year-olds are still children, they have to still be in education or training, they can only marry with parent’s permission and a vast majority don’t pay taxes and are still fully dependent on their parents and guardians

Question 7

arguments that prisoners should get the right to vote

Answer 7

1. Removing the right to vote removes civic responsibility, which damages rehabilitation, It alienates them from society. Some think prison should be about rehabilitation, a place to create opportunities for healing and personal transformation that is absent in the lives of prisoners and must include the most basic right of the democratic process - the right to choose who governs and denying them that right dehumanises prisoners.
2. Prisoners have rights - fundamental rights that should not be removed that are protected by the HRA the ECHR ruled it as a violation of the human rights act and they should have a say, though the ECHR doesn’t apply anymore due to Brexit - the ECHR’s ruling set a precedent.
3. Currently individuals are convicted of a crime but not given a custodial sentence, they are still allowed to vote, but they are treated differently from convicted criminals who are locked up, which is unfair in a supposedly democratic society
4. More representation - rights of 100,000 inmates would be taken seriously - prisons are currently in a bad state

Question 8

arguments that prisoners should not get the right to vote

Answer 8

1. Prisoners forfeit the right to a say in how society is run when they commit crimes against society. Criminals should not have the right to say on the law and how the criminal justice system works - they make up less than 0.20% of the population it would not make a major difference given the use of FPTP
2. Prison votes would have a significant impact on some constituencies
3. Not having the right to vote acts as a deterrent.