Widening the franchise Flashcards
What is meant by the franchise and suffrage
Elections in the UK become more democratic through progressive extension in the franchise, this happend on the basis of social class, then on gender and finallly on the basis of age. Voting equality was achieved largely through parliament responding to popular pressure from below to widen the franchise.
They are both terms to describe the right to vote in public elections.
Democracy emerged as people gained universal suffrage
How has the franchise been extended in the UK?
- 1832 Great reform act gave the vote to middle class men
- 1867 Second reform act gave the vote to urban male working class voters.
- 1918 and 1928 acts gave voting rights to women
- 1968 Representation of the people act lowered the voting age from 21 to 18
Who is still denied the right to vote
- Members of the house of lords
- EU citizens resident in the UK and anyone other than British, Irish.
- Convicted people detained in prison
- People found guility within the last 5 years of corrupt or illegeal practises with relation to an election
- Uk citizens in other countries.
Should the franchise be extended to 16 and 17 yer olds - YES They have responsiblities witthout rights
- Voters can leave full time education at 16, consent to sexual relationships, pay direct tax, join the army, and enter into civil partnership. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE.
Should the franchise be extended to 16 and 17 year olds - NO Immature voters
There are questiones raised over maturity, most 17 and 16 year olds are in full time education and live with their parents, they are not full citizens, their educational development remains incomplete.
They may be unlikely to have knowledge or be interested in politics.
Should the franchise be extended to 16 and 17 year olds - YES Deffered representation
Unlike women and the working class of old, young people are not permantly denied political representation, it is simpley delayed or deffered.
Should the franchise be extended to 16 and 17 year olds - YES Stronger political engagement
- 18-24 tend to have the lowest turnout, it would help strengthen understanding and interest.
- Scotish refferndum 2014 turnout was 75% amongst 16-17 uyear olds and only 54% among 18-24 year olds.
Should the franchise be extended to 16 and 17 year olds - NO Undermining turnout
There is a possibility that lowering the voting age, turnout rates may decline, as young voters are less likely to vote than older voters, many and possibly most, 16-18 year olds may chose not to vote.
The Isle of Man enfranchised 16-17 year olds and in 2006 turnout in this groups was 55.3% and then declined even further in 2016 to 46.2%.
Should the franchise be extended to 16 and 17 year olds - YES Irrational cut off age
The notion that the current voting age is a reflection of intellectual and educational development, citizenship education is compulsory in uk secondary schools as of 2002, there are no restirictions applied to politically ignorant and poorly educated adults.
There are already 20,000 young people under the age of 18 active in youth councils and 600 elected members of the youth parliament showing that young people are ready to engage.
Should voting in the UK be compulsory - YES Increased participation
- Almost certaintly would result in turnout rates increasing, it would help solve the UKs ‘participation crisis’.
- In the 1924 election in Australia turnout fell to 60%, since then it has never fallen below 91%.
This is because of the failures of the current FPTP, leading to wasted votes. All votes casted for MPS more than they win and all votes casted for losing candidates are wasted. In Belgium 2014 federal election turnout was 89% due to compulsory voting.
- VOTERS WILL STILL be given the option to spoil their ballot if they really do not want to vote.
In 2015 David Winnick raised the need for compulsory voting in the commons, ‘If we want our democracy to flourish, common sense dictates we should do what we can to get far more people to participate in elections’.
Should voting in the UK be compulsory - NO Abuse of freedom
Compulsionm arguably is a violation of democracy, the right not to vote is arguably as signficant as the right to choose who to vote for.
Non-voting may be entirely rational, it could be a principled rejection of the political system
Should voting in the UK be compulsory - YES It provides greater legitamacy
Governments formed on the basis of compulsory voting would be much more likely to rest on a popular majorty, of 50% plus.
- A much larger percentage of the electorate gives the government a more secure mandate to govern.
- Never occured in the UK, 2005 the Labour partys popular support was just 22% of the total electorate
Should voting in the UK be compulsory - NO Cosmetic democracy
Arguably it adresses the symptom but not the cause of the problem, making voting compulsory would undoubtedly increase turnout, but it would not adress the issues siuch as accelerating decline in political engagement. SIMPLY MASKS these issues.
Hirst v UK 2005
Protocol 1, Article 3 of the human rights act 1998 protects, ‘free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature.
Prison reform turst supported the case brough by Hirst, the court (ECHR) ruled that the blanket ban in the UK on prisoners right to vote broke protocol 1 Article 3.
Government compliance
It wasnt until 2017 when the government ensured that prisoners can registered to vote, although this will only effect a small number of people.
