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Others believed that the franchise was restricted and haphazard and that the qualifications for voting were outdated and illogical in their view every man had the right to vote, all men had been created equally and therefore all were entitled to a say in the way they were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.
It could be argued that Gladstone’s failure to unite his party, during a time when their ultimate support and confidence in his leadership was crucial, was a significant tactical error that contributed heavily towards the failure of the 1886 Home Rule Bill. The results of the 1885 general election were to have a significant impact on the political landscape of Britain; despite winning the most seats, the Liberals did not have an overall majority.As Parnell and the Irish Parliamentry Party (IPP) held the balance...
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 ...
During Jackson's Presidency suffrage rights were limited to white males that owned property and were wealthy. With Jackson's presidency, a new type of democracy was proposed. This was a democracy that extends the suffrage rights to all white males irrespective of their social/economic status. However, this new and extreme proposal for that time brought a political disagreement regarding whether the extension of suffrage was proper and beneficial for the American society. Suffrage was extended because people were all created equal and all contribute to the society regardless of their wealth and property ownership. Many were in favor of extending suffrage rights, though many were against it to. Among the arguments that were pro extending suffrage, such as how it would be for the common good, the most valid argument was that a person's virtue and morality should determine voting eligibility rather than owning property, while the poorest arguments against extending suffrage were that it would jeopardize property and minority rights, release debtors from prison, and encourage wicked politicians.
Throughout American History, people of power have isolated specific racial and gender groups and established policies to limit their right to vote. These politicians, in desperate attempt to elongate their political reign, resort to “anything that is within the rules to gain electoral advantage, including expanding or contracting the rate of political participation.”(Hicks) Originally in the United States, voting was reserved for white, property-owning gentleman
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...
Australia has one of the oldest systems of compulsory voting, and arguably the most efficient (Hill, 2010). Compulsory enrolment at the federal level was introduced in 1911 this later became mandatory voting in 1924 (Hill, 2010). Mandatory voting was introduced in Australia to combat the problem of low voter turnout and it was successful in doing so; 59% turnout in 1922 surged to 91% in 1925 after the first federal election (Hill, 2010). “Australia never had a rights culture understood in the classical liberal sense of individualized rights” (Hill, 2010. Pg.428). Australia was unified in 1901 and shortly after compulsory voting became mandate. The citizen’s of Australia have never known a...
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.
Dinkin, M., and White, I.2008. Voting system in UK. Library of House of Commons: Parliament and Constitution Centre. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/108_icpr_final.pdf (accessed November 20, 2010)
...le, Pennsylvania tried to keep voting rights limited to certain property requirements, but expanded it to any male taxpayer that has lived in the state for at least one year could vote. With each state drafting their own constitution, it was a spark for the newly independent colonies to start their own democracy and set of laws that the majority of Americans were happy with.
When the constitution was written, the idea of universal suffrage was too radical for our founding fathers to address. They decided to leave the states with the authority to decide the requirements for voting. (Janda) By allowing the states to decide who voted, the authors had not intended for each state's discriminations to prevent the country from maintaining true democracy. However, by not setting up a nationwide regulation, the authors launched the country into a century and a half long fight for freedom and equality for all.
The House of Lords reform would solve more problems owing to the fact that it would make the house more representative. Ethnic minorities currently make up a small percentage in the house. In addition they are little women in the house, so having more women that know how real life is and h...
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.
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
Democracy can be defined as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Arguably in this respect, the Great Reform Act of 1832 did not move Britain towards democracy, as the electoral system was not made free, nor was the power fully vested in the people. The Great Reform Act did however instigate an introduction of other crucial reforms which gradually made Britain a more democratic country, such as the 1918 Representation of the People Act, which introduced women into the electorate for the first time in British history. Therefore, it is justified to argue that the Great Reform Act was indeed the key turning point as although it didn’t expand the franchise as much as some of the other Acts did, it provided the foundation on which a more democratic and representative government was established.
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?