Evaluate the extent to which there is a democratic deficit in the UK (30)
The UK political system is one that has lasted for many hundreds of years. Though it has remained reasonably stable throughout this time, there have been many problems with UK politics. A democratic deficit is defined as any situation in which there is believed to be a lack of democratic accountability and control over the decision-making process. Many would argue that the UK suffers from a democratic deficit. This argument is supported by the illegitimacy of the house of Lords, the low turnout and participation in UK politics, and the failings of the first-past-the-post voting system. However, it is more likely that there is not a deficit of democracy in the UK, due to free speech and media, freedom of choice in elections and referendums, and elements of devolution.
Firstly, the illegitimacy of the House of Lords can be used to argue that the UK suffers from a democracy deficit. The Lords has many problems, and can be seen as an outdated, dysfunctional body that has no place in a
…show more content…
Under this system, the MP for each constituency is the one who gained the most votes. Many claim that this wastes votes, and is unfair. For example, in the 2010 General Election, the Conservative Party gained 36% of the vote and gained 47% of the seats in the House of Commons. Simply put, this demonstrates a lack of democracy- with the representatives of the people not being those chosen by the electorate. Yet, it can also be argued that FPTP is a healthy aspect of the UK system, as it ensures that extremist parties are unlikely to gain power, and it tends to create strong, majority governments. In addition, in a referendum in 2011, the UK electorate voted against changing this method, proving that its use reflects the will of the people, and is therefore not a cause of a deficit in UK
A proportionate electoral system (otherwise known as proportional representation or PR) grants its voters a voice in their vote. The way that the PR system works is that for every percentage of votes a party receives, they will be granted around the same percentage of seats in parliament. For example, if a party receives 35% of the votes, they would receive 35% of the seats in legislature. This is important for Canada because it gives smaller parties a better chance of retaining a seat. There are many different varieties of PR, due to the fact that at often times, the voting percentages do not evenly translate into the number of seats available (King, 2000). For instance, if a party receive 33.6% of the vote, they can’ receive 33.6% of seats. Because of this, numerous variations of the PR system have been created. The most common...
In this essay I will argue that British General Elections should be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation. First, I will argue that the system would be more democratic as every vote that is cast would be represented and this ...
...ment plays an important role in determining the relationship between its politicians and electorates. It also “[calculates] how votes are translated into seats of political power... it... also affects the party system, political culture, the formation of government and the structure of the executive” (Trac 5). Most importantly, candidates in an SMP system can be elected with minimal amounts of public support as they do not require a majority of the votes. To be elected to the legislature in the PR system, a candidate must have “at least 3% of the party vote across the province” (Ontario Citizens' Assembly 3). In contrast to the SMP system, the PR system better represents the views of the citizens, supports a stable and effective government, and is a simple yet practical voting system. It successfully caters to the needs of the voters, unlike the traditional system.
Heath, Joseph. "The democracy deficit in Canada." University of Toronto. homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~jheath/democracy.pdf (accessed October 17, 2013).
It has become widely accepted that Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. However, this system may not be in the best interest of Canada any more. There are many reasons why Canada should change its electoral system to a mixed member proportional one, a variant of proportional representation. With a first past the post system, the elected officials will always be of the majority and this excludes minorities from fair representation. Adopting MMP can create stronger voter turnouts, more personal campaigning, better individual representation, and better party selection. John Hiemstra and Harold Janson, are both in favour of a MMP electoral system. They understand that with the switch, the citizens will get more representation in parliament, their preferred choice will have some say in the House of Commons, and finally someone can be held accountable which creates a closer knit between citizens and Members of Parliament. Nelson Wiseman argues against the MMP system because he feels that there is nothing to be fixed in Canada. If the current system has been working well thus far, there is no need to change it. MMP would allow smaller parties to have their voices heard. Unfortunately first past the post tends to have an over representation of regional parties; contrary to first past the post system, MMP lets Canadians have advocates and legislators who the majority of citizens agree with. Another advantage of MMP is the elimination of strategic voting. With MMP people can finally vote for who they want to rather than choose who the majority may prefer. A change in the electoral system of Canada will create a more fair and just Parliament governing the citizens.
The authors describe some of the advantages of a MMP system: “Mixed electoral systems provide fairly proportional outcomes, maintain the geographic link between constituents and members, provide for greater choice, and allow the opportunity for smaller parties to represented in Parliament” (p. 11). This system works better than the current FPTP or plurality system, because it allows citizen’s a second opportunity to have a voice. This is important because it would allow our minority groups to have a greater political influence. As mentioned earlier, in the current system all votes for candidates who lost, were insignificant to the election outcome. The authors explain: “Only those votes that go to the eventual winner count towards electing a representative, which may discourage people from voting or promote disaffection with the system” (p. 3). Alternatively, the MMP system allows citizen’s a second opportunity to elect party members in order to proportionally represent the popular
First of all, let us start with First Past The Post. FPTP is the current voting system which is used for electing MPs to the House of Commons. Using this voting system voters choose one candidate they wish, by putting a cross in a box next to a candidate’s name. A candidate wins if he or she gets the most votes in the constituency. Plurality voting and Simple majority voting are two other names of FPTP. This voting system is easy to understand and gives voters possible view on which party might win elections. However, Liberal Democrats argue that FPTP has many disadvantages and beneficial only for Labour and Torries. That is why Liberal Democrats proposed an alternative for FPTP, the system named Proportional Representation (PR).
Out of all potential replacements for the existing FPTP (First Past the Post) system, Proportional Representation by far the most widely touted. Used in more than half of countries worldwide, it has been advocated by many groups as a replacement for the existing system on the basis of its ability to accurately represent the wishes of the constituency. There are several different types of Proportional Representation, with varying levels of proportionality, vote thresholds, and regional representation. These are: Mixed-Member Proportional, Party-List Proportional, Open List Proportional and Single Transferable Vote (which is sometimes counted separately). Using the 2015 UK parliamentary elections as an example, we can analyze the several main
Greece was once at the pinnacle of the world. Its philosophy, sculptures, paintings, theater, and architectures have been some of the great gifts it has left for us, but the most important one is democracy. It is believed that democracy was created in a city of ancient Greece; this city is known as Athens. The success Athens had as a city is credited to the way they ran their government. In this city everyone had an equal say on what they wanted to get done. Undoubtedly, democracy has been the best ancient idea for every country in the world to keep. Great Britain has an amazing history as a super power that had at one point had its own empire. They were definitely successful, yet they were did not have a democracy set up, and it actually took several years for Great Britain to do that. So when did Great Britain become democratic and why? The main reason why Great Britain transitioned from a monarchy to a democracy was because of the Industrial Revolution.
Question Parliamentary sovereignty is a key doctrine of the UK’s unwritten constitution. It is undermined by the supremacy of European Union Law. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is one of the imperative components of supreme legal authority in UK constitution.
This voting method takes a radically different approach that the above mentioned majoritarian system, and does away with the riding system completely. Rather than listing candidates for a riding, ballots now contain a list of federal political parties. When votes are tallied, seats in the House of Commons are then assigned in a manner that ensures that the makeup of the house matches as closely as possible the percentage of the popular vote each individual party received. This method improves hugely on the aforementioned systems – while it maintains the simplicity of FPTP and AV (in fact, as voters now need to only pick a party rather than a person, it may be even simpler), it also solves many of their shortcomings. As votes are assigned proportionally, the resulting seat distribution following an election would be much closer to the wishes of the general population than a winner-takes-all method such as FPTP.
Minority rule is when a party that only received a small percentage of the overall votes gets total control in parliament, completely disregarding the true opinions of the majority of voters. This type of democratic rule is well in play under the use of First Past the Post as our electoral system. For example, in one of the more memorable UK elections, in 2015, the winning party the Conservatives received only 37% of the votes, which means that nearly 2/3 of the population voted for a different party than the one in control. Shockingly if you add up all of the differences in votes to seats in parliament, parliament as a whole has and misrepresentation error of over 50%. How can you be confident and trust in a governing body to make good decisions for your country when the very makeup of that body has that much of an error rate.
The concept of American democracy in the United States, the Constitution approaches the idea of democracy from a few unique perspectives on the successfulness or unsuccessfulness of our American democracy. The government system that is united, reinforced, and protected by the constitution for the people who live within the United States physical boundaries. We the people may not always total agree with all America’s ideas but the foundation of what it means to be an American and invest the saying, “We the people” is a very strong idea that has existed for centuries. The word “Democracy” is a combination of two Greek words, “demo-meaning people” and “kratos-meaning power” to put both words together it form “demokratia” it describes a government
A memorable expression said by President Abraham Lincoln reads, “Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Democracy, is a derived from the Greek term "demos" which means people. It is a successful, system of government that vests power to the public or majority. Adopted by the United States in 1776, a democratic government has six basic characteristics: (i) established/elected sovereignty (where power and civic responsibility are exercised either directly by the public or their freely agreed elected representative(s)), (ii) majority rule(vs minority), (iii) (protects one’s own and reside with) human rights, (iv) regular free and fair elections to citizens (upon a certain age), (v) responsibility of
Most of the substantial achievements of government described have occurred because it was reacting to demands made by the public to deal with serious social and economic problems. So if we want our government to live up to its potential as a force for good in society, we need it to be as democratic as it can be. That is why it is crucial to understand exactly why our democracy is falling short, and what can be done to fix that. While many politicians ignore our democratic deficit, most Americans are painfully aware of it. Surveys find that they are increasingly concerned that their democratic government is not working for them the way that