The unreformed British parliamentary system was undemocratic, it excluded the majority of the population from voting including all women most working class men, many middle class men and all the poor. Its distribution of seats was inadequately representative and excluded important towns. It included rotten boroughs, the occasional sale of seats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence and plural voting. The system was dominated by the aristocracy and gentry, and many seats were uncontested. Lang, (1999). The purpose of this essay is to identify the factors that led to the nineteenth century parliamentary reform and go on to assess the impact that the reform made. Around the middle of the nineteenth century an extensive debate took place in Britain on the nature and desirability of ‘democracy.’ Who should be allowed to vote in general elections? Should the franchise be limited, as in the past, to those who had special qualifications, such as the ownership of property, which the rental value had to be at least at least 40 shillings per annum, and those who had an economic stake in the country? Property owners argued that the old system had worked in the past so surely it would continue to do so – and that the wealthy were naturally superior to the poor. Pearce, Stern, (1994). Others believed that the franchise was restricted and haphazard and that the qualifications for voting were outdated and illogical in their view every man had the right to vote, all men had been created equally and therefore all were entitled to a say in the way they were governed. A small but growing number also believed that women should have the vote on precisely the same terms as men. The population of England and Wales doubled between 1801-1851 many parishes began to burst at the seams. Towns like Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford and Leeds were seeing large population increases due to industrial growth. Earl Grey proposed such towns needed representation in the House of Commons, this would lead to large increase in the voting population if the proposal was successful. On the other hand rotten boroughs were parliamentary constituencies that had over the years declined in size, but still had the right to elect members of the House of Commons. Most of the constituencies were under the control and influence of just one man, the patron. As there were only a few individuals with the vote and no fair voting method (secret ballot) which encouraged bribery and corruption as it was easy for potential candidates to buy their way to victory.
Voting in the colonies came to have strict requirements regarding who was allowed to vote. Only white, male Christians who owned land had the right to vote (Doc 2). If you strayed from even one of these requirements you were not allowed to vote. This left politics to one particular group of people. General Assemblies were established in which governors were elected, by those could vote, to run theses courts (Doc 3). The House of Burgess was established as well as the General Assemblies and it consisted of representatives who were elected by the people (Doc 6).
During the 1750's, the most wealthy people in the town held the most property, meaning they obtained the most power and money. As time moved on, though, voting requiremen...
As the 19th century progressed, women were quite successful as they were able to get the civil rights such as to vote in local elections. However, some women wanted the right to vote in parliamentary elections. These women joined a campaign called the suffrage movement. I will explain all the factors of why women didn’t gain the right to vote before 1914 in this essay.
The Tory party were in office prior to parliamentary reform and for years they had time and again strenuously refused to widen the electorate, arguing what made the British political system so very successful was due to the fact that their was more emphasis on the landowning than the sheer numbers of electorate. The Tory party dominated British politics with the support of royals such as George III and George IV. However, by 1830 divisions in the party began to form and came to prominence. The cause of these divisions was the issue of Roman Catholic Emancipation which led to Tory hardliners threatening to support reform in order to ensure a wider electorate that would throw out any idea of emancipation with fervour. This split in the Tory government eventual became so bitter that the Tory government eventually collapsed in November 1830.
The founding fathers of the United States modeled the government on the principle of representative democracy, a form of government in which the people rule through elected government officials. However, they greatly distrusted the masses to sensibly vote for the leaders of the nation, and so they created the electoral college who directly voted for the president based on, But not limited to popular vote. Additionally, voting for the at the time was restricted to the land owning white males. In the early 1800’s, as states began to lift the voting restrictions, more and more people were permitted to vote. Simultaneously, around the 1820’s, Andrew Jackson, already a popular war hero of the battle of New Orleans,
Those very same influences may lead to the exploitation of the poorer class, allowing outsiders with sufficient resources to assimilate into British society. Therefore, making the possession of immovable property a requirement for political participation supports the Grandees’ motives in making a society that is not easily influenced by those with prope... ... middle of paper ... ...having it either ignored or taken away is unfathomable. The ability of the Grandees to not only dictate what consent is relevant, but to prohibit political participation as well exemplifies how far the ideal of democracy has come. However, when looking at what England had suffered through, the actions of the Grandees showed that hard times call for drastic measures.
One of the most influential and celebrated scholars of British consistutional law , Professor A.V Dicey, once declared parliamentary soverignity as “the dominant feature of our political insitutions” . This inital account of parliamentray soverginity involved two fundamental components, fistly :that the Queen-in-Parliament the “right to make or unmake any law whatever” and that secondly “no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” . However this Diceyian notion though an established principle of our constitution now lies uneasy amongst a myriad of contemporary challenges such as our membership of the European Union, the Human Rights Act and a spread of law making authority known as ‘Devolution’. In this essay I shall set out to assess the impact of each of these challenges upon the immutability of the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British constitution.
The former senator and New York delegate, Nathan Sanford debated in support of universal suffrage and eradicating property requirements [for white males] (Hewitt, Lawson 290). Sanford, in the Report of the Proceedings and Debate of the Convention of 1821, expresses his views on universal suffrage and the reasons for removing property qualifications (Hewitt, Lawson 290-91). He stated, “The questions before us is the right of suffrage – who shall, or who shall not, have the right to vote … to me, the only qualifications seem to be the virtue and morality of the people” (Nathan Sanford – “Arguments for Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821”). Sanford claims that all men should be given the right to vote; the ownership of land should not be the factor in deciding who can vote. He fought for universal suffrage because it meant that the right to vote would be given to all [white] men. (Hewitt, Lawson 289-90). Nathan Sanford believed that American government should protect, grant, and expand the rights of the American people; this included expanding the popular rights to all men (Hewitt, Lawson 298-291). “The course of things in this country is for the extension and not the restriction of popular rights” (Nathan Sanford – “Arguments for Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821”). Sanford claimed that if voting rights were expanded to all men, property would not suffer
It is essential to expand on this title, before I begin my response. The question is asking whether the Westminster System (in the traditional and historic sense of the term) is still an accurate descriptor of British politics - given the significant amount of political evolution that has occurred over the last two centuries. Perhaps the Westminster Model has become anachronistic in the internet age? Or, perhaps its core components can still be observed in contemporary British politics? Maybe an informed revision of the Westminster Model is what is needed? I will address all of these various possibilities in my essay, through a systematic analysis and comparison of the key features of the Westminster Model and their resemblance to the features
The House of Lords reform has been discussed for a very long time, it is more than a 100 years since the parliament act was passed. In 1910 the House of Lords vent to anger when Peers refused the Liberal government’s budget. According to the House of Lords reform Timeline, the first reform happened in 1911 and 1949 where acts were introduced that significantly diminished the House of Lords powers. The House of Lords second reform bill reading was on the 9th July 2012, 100 conservative MPs were unhappy with the bill. They said it was going to end up in making a greater friction between the modificated House of Lords and the commons. Reforming the House of Lords would solve some problems as well as it would cause problems.
Gallagher, M., and P.Mitchell. ed. 2008. The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Taylor, H. (1910). The constitutional crisis in Great Britain: Bicameral system should be retained with House of Lords reorganized on an elective basis. Concord, N.H: Rumford Press. 6th edition
"In what ways and to what extent does the political system of the UK fit Lijphart’s models of democracy? How has this changed over recent decades?"
There has been much debate about the legalisation of compulsory voting throughout political history and more importantly its place in a democratic society. Compulsory voting at a Commonwealth level was recognised in Australia in 1924 under section 245(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as stated: “It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election” (Australian Electoral Commission, 2011). Since the introduction of compulsory voting there has been both strong advocacy and opposition in terms of its legitimacy in society, which this essay will highlight through the concept of its consistency with representative democracy and its ability to ensure parties reflect the will of all people. On the contrary, opponents argue that it increases the number of safe seat electorates as well as forcing the ill informed to vote. Australian politics is built on the concept of representative democracy, a term used to describe any political system where the will of the citizens with equal political rights is reflected in law-making and governing (Miragliotta, et al 2013, p.2).
Industrial Countries all over the world have seen a steady decline in voter participation; Great Britain is a great example of this. The country has witness turnout in elections falling slowly as time pass. However, the election of 2001 dropped the country from their average of 76% voter turnout to just a 59.4% turnout. Comparatively, Australia, a former colony of Britain, has enjoyed high and steady voter participation since 1924 because of the implementation of compulsory voting. This system has proven to be not only effective in bring voters to the polls, but also effective in improving Australia’s democracy. By evaluating these two countries with similar political structure; one can see the difference in compulsory voting turnouts compared to voluntary voting turnout. Furthermore, if Britain were to follow Australia’s example, would the country see the same positive effects of compulsory voting in their democracy?