Democracy Flashcards
(31 cards)
FPTP needs reform: evidence of under- representation of small parties
Leads to under-representation of small parties- reform 3rd most popular 14% of vote yet only 5 seats.
Contrast- AMS- 2 votes- 1 for party and 1 for candidate.
FPTP needs reform: over-representation of large parties
Labour 2024 34% of votes and 63% of seats.
FPTP: evidence of tactical voting
MakeVotesMatter found that 1/5 people intended to tactically vote in 2024.
FPTP doesn’t need reform: Lack of popularity of reform
2011 AV referendum- low turnout (42%) and 68% voted against replacing FPTP.
FPTP doesn’t need reform: Pace of results
Starmer arrived to Downing Street as PM at 12:40pm the day after election.
FPTP doesn’t need reform: MP- constituency link
Small FPTP constituencies and responsibility of one MP leads to good representation. Eg. 5 Tory MPs support for a Labour amendment to speed up compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal- rebelling against conservative whip.
Arguments for extending the franchise: low turnout
Currently, election turnout is low- 59.9% in 2024- and extending the franchise to 16-17.
Intro of compulsory voting- like in Australia where turnout is always above 90%.
Arguments for extending the franchise: Interest in politics
Fridays for Future; BLM; makes voting a habit
Arguments for extending the franchise: Representation
Would give 16-17 year olds a say on issues affecting them eg. Ui tuition fees.
Arguments against extending the franchise: Giving vote to 16-17 year olds
16 year old responsibilities are limited- recognition that they are still children: few are in full-time employment and they can’t be deployed to the front line.
Arguments against extending the franchise: Making voting compulsory
Undemocratic: deprives people of choice and fails to address reasons behind people no voting.
Arguments for increasing use of direct democracy: High popularity
High turnouts
Scottish independence: 84%
Brexit: 72%
Arguments for increasing use of direct democracy: Other reasons for use of referendums
Directly involve people in decision making of key decisions- in a time of low trust in politicians.
Gives a more frequent say, preventing government becoming an ‘elective dictatorship’.
Arguments for increasing use of direct democracy: Citizens’ assemblies
Climate Assembly UK- to investigate people’s views on achieving net-zero and some suggestions made have influenced decision making- such as advancing the ban on sale of new petrol and diesel cars
Arguments against increasing the use of direct democracy: factors undermining the benefit of referendums
Brexit referendum held for Tory party benefit, to prevent them losing votes to UKIP.
Perhaps 2011 AV referendum failed due to dissatisfaction with LibDems.
Susceptible to misinformation.
Arguments against increasing the use of direct democracy: Not always popular
AV referendum 2011 had 42% of turnout.
Arguments for extending the franchise to 16-17 year olds: other legal rights/ responsibilities.
Able to leave school, starting work, joining the armed forces, age of consent; autonomous enough for these and hence to vote.
Arguments for extending the franchise to 16-17 year olds: Tax
Liable for tax at 16 and so should be able to be consulted on how their taxes are spent via electing representatives. Taxation without representation violates democratic principles.
Arguments for extending the franchise to 16-17 year olds: would equalise voting rights across the UK
Since 2015, 16+ can vote in Scottish Parliament elections; means people in the UK are given different levels of political power based on region; breaks principle of equal citizenship.
Arguments against extending the franchise to 16-17 year olds: Could misuse.
Disproportionally get information from social media, making their views more susceptible to manipulation; 71% of 16-24 have SM as their main form of news.
Arguments against extending the franchise to 16-17 year olds: Turnout
Turnout amongst 18-24 year olds is the lowest of all age groups; therefore extending vote may have very little impact on turnout.
Arguments for extending the franchise to prisoners: Human rights.
Not giving the vote to prisoners undermines human rights; Hirst v United Kingdom 2005. Should be reformed to guarantee fundamental rights.
Arguments for extending the franchise to prisoners: pluralism
Prisoners’ votes would force government to listen to marginalised voices; could help to address overcrowded prisons crisis.
Arguments against extending the franchise to prisoners: have broken the law
Particularly prevalent since prisoners’ votes would mean their influence over the criminal justice system; have no regard for parliament decisions in this sense.
