There are a number of various ways that can be used in order to address the ever-growing problem of democratic deficit in the UK, which is based around factors such as the low participation rates and general apathy towards politics in the wider public.
Firstly, the idea of compulsory voting that involves every citizen having a civic duty, rather then a right to vote, which has been introduced in over 20 countries worldwide, a good example being Australia. In Australia, the system has been a success, producing an impressive turnout of 94% in the 2013 election, which therefore means that the Australian government will have a much higher level of legitimacy compared to the UK. However, critics of compulsory voting argue that such a system is undemocratic by itself as it does not provide a citizen with a choice on whether to vote or not, resulting in a serious debate around the issue. However, I must agree with the critics of the system, as the people voting because they have to, are likely to be less passionate and well informed about the person they have to
…show more content…
Digital democracy is closely linked with e-democracy, which is the idea of allowing people to use digital devices in order to cast their vote, which is said to have the potential to greatly increase electoral turnout by allowing some voters to vote using digital devices, which they wouldn’t have otherwise done with a traditional electoral system. However, it is important to understand that there is a severe danger of some sort of manipulations being done in order to influence the potential result of an election, through hacking or some sort of fraud. Overall, the idea of digital democracy will likely gain popularity with time as the ability of governments to provide secure ways of such e-voting to be
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.
Since the turn of the twenty first century, in Canada voter turnout has made a significant and consecutive decline. In the last five federal elections on average only sixty-one per cent of eligible voters voted. If each eligible citizen voted in an election the government would be on par with the primary interests of the people. The easiest way to achieve this objective is by implementing a compulsory voting system. Mandatory voting systems are appealing because all citizens are affected by decisions made by the government, so it makes sense to have all those affected apart of the election process. As a result, the voting results would be more representative of the country and that would lead to an increase of stability and legitimacy. It would also be beneficial to Canadians because would cause political parties to address and focus on the needs of every socio-economic level. However, one of biggest problems that accompanies mandatory voting laws is that the choice to exercise the right to vote is taken away. Another primary concern about compulsory voting is that a large number of uninterested and uninformed voters are brought to the polls. Conversely, uninformed voters will become familiar with and learn the polling procedures and electoral system over time and uninterested voters are not forced to mark a name on the ballot. Compulsory voting laws would only make registration and attendance at the polls mandatory, not voting itself. Therefore the freedom to exercise the right to vote or not is still intact. A greater emphasis on alternate voting practices may be established such as electronic or online voting. Positive changes would not only be evident in the policies of political parties but also in the voting procedure. Th...
Previously, Hasen describes Democrats as being the ones who want more people to have access to voting. Republicans, on the other hand, are painted as the ones who want stricter voter registration to preserve the integrity of elections. A problem with our voting system is we cannot be sure of the integrity, as in almost every election, there is some sort of fraud claim. Hasen looks into one of the main problems in our voting system; how we vote. Hasen discusses why different methods of electronic voting are present, what they intended to accomplish by implementing these systems, and the issues associated with
The results of recent elections in Britain have raised many significant questions about the current political situation in the country, particularly concerning the electoral system. Therefore, the problem of “crisis” in Britain’s democracy has been the subject of wide speculation among analysts and political scientists over recent years. In addition, it is widely recognized that the traditional electoral system in the UK - first past the post - is the main cause of that crisis and should be replaced as part of a plan to reconstitute the democratic culture (Kelly 2008). By longstanding critics of the system, opponents advocate the use of proportional representation (PR) for selecting MPs. Due to this problem, it is going to be a referendum on changing the electoral system of the country's parliamentary elections.
A compulsory voting system similar to the one used in Australia is not a system Canada should implement. Compulsory voting in the context of a democratic society can be a misleading term (Lever, 2010). Canada practices the secret ballot process in voting, and so it is impossible to verify if someone has cast a legally valid ballot. If countries have a singular goal of simply increasing voter turnout, compulsory voting could remedy this problem and it should be more accurately defined as being compulsory voter turnout (Lever, 2010). The belief that compulsory voting inherently improves democracy is misleading (Lever, 2010). Canada should not force its citizen’s to vote because other then increasing voter turnout, compulsory voting would infringe on the right of the voter to not vote, it would not lead to a more informed or engaged population, the legitimacy of government would suffer, and the resources required to implement and maintain the compulsory voting system would be extremely costly to the federal government.
Regardless of the political environment, it is the responsibility of voters to take initiative in becoming politically involved. However, the current electoral system in the United States is not one that fosters voter participation, but instead often discourages voting altogether. This is evidenced through the lackluster voter turnout in the United States, which is amongst the lowest of any democratic nation. While it is convenient to blame this lack of democratic participation on a lazy and apathetic public, the root of the problem lies elsewhere. The current system of winner-take-all elections, strategic gerrymandering, incumbency advantage and governmental unresponsiveness to constituent desires is enough to deter even the most politically consci...
In fact, according to Elections Canada, during the 2011 federal elections, only 61.1% of Canadians exerted their duty as citizen. Hence, some think compulsory voting can remediate the situation. However, mandatory voting is what really could hurt democracy. By forcing every eligible voter to go to the polls, misinformed voters will randomly cast their ballot. Sceptics may believe that by fining individuals who refuse to go to the polls, there will be less ignorant voters. For example, in Australia, where voting is compulsory, Australians who do not cast their ballots have to “pay a 20$ penalty” (Australian Electoral Commission). However, by financially penalising citizens who do not exert their duty, many will be so dissatisfied by the incumbent government that they will simply vote for a party that would not make voting an obligation. These people would ignore the party’s other policies instead of being informed on all the challenges that the country faces and how each party plans on solving them. Nonetheless, the elections are an occasion to elect a leader whose ideologies on many aspects, from immigration to the environment, matches the voter’s most. As a responsible voter, one has to know the policies of each party and has to try to obtain enough “social-scientific knowledge to [assess] these positions” (Brennan 11), which takes a lot of time. Therefore, compulsory voting would make voters more informed, but only on a narrow aspect while ignoring the other issues that should be taken into consideration when choosing the party they will vote for. All in all, mandatory voting would hurt democracy despite the higher participation
In Document D, it tells us that although Italy has a compulsory voting system in place, it “ranks low” in political satisfaction among western countries. In addition, many voters have “unfavorable attitudes towards their electoral system”. When citizens are required to vote, their attitudes towards voting can become negative. In addition, in places like the US, where voting is optional, voters have the “highest voter satisfaction rates with their political institutions”. So, citizens are much happier with their government when they are given the choice to vote, not when they are forced to do it. The government doesn’t want their citizens to be unhappy; in the past, unhappy citizens has lead to revolts against the government. Citizens being unhappy about compulsory voting is shown in Document E. In Peru, citizens are required to vote and will receive a penalty of US$35 if they do not vote. Because of this penalty, 13% of ballots cast are blank or null. These citizens either “spoiled” their ballots or refused to vote for any of the candidates. It is clear that these citizens were unhappy about being forced to vote and they were unhappy about the penalty for not voting, so they voted, but they voted by casting ballots that were blank or null. Is it really better to have citizens that vote when they are submitting blank or null ballots? No. If citizens are so against voting that they will submit blank or null ballots, they should just be allowed to not
This Digital Divide is a major concern in the development of an online voting system, and authors of this new technology must take care not to let these existing inequalities compromise democracy. This paper takes an in-depth look at these challenging issues, and concludes with some suggestions to solve them. Today, it is possible to manage bank accounts, purchase goods, and attend classes - all simultaneously and from the comfort of your own living room! The technology that supports these Internet services is being applied to improve services in practically every sector of society.
"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?"
This paper is going to explore the topic of e-democracy. As our society becomes more enthralled with technology and communication via the Web, it is important to consider what kind of methods and tools we use to communicate about issues that vastly affect everyone. Although some believe that there are positives and negatives regarding e-democracy, every subject is going to have pros and cons. Throughout this paper, I am going to explore what the “mainstream” media has written about e-democracy and both the positives and negatives of it as well. By using previous research, I would like to express why I think e-democracy’s positives outweigh the negatives and how society can benefit from such a technological breakthrough.
knowledge; it still gives the citizens the opportunity to vote actually even William E. Hudson pointed this out in the book which I would like to reference “to the pluralist, elections provide an opportunity for even apathetic and passive citizens to choose their political leaders” (14). But now if we are going to speak on why many citizens are apathetic we must look at this from another form of democracy, which is the participatory democracy model. The next model of democracy I would like to speak about is much different from the rest, although many of these forms of democracy are similar and share similar ideas, this one may be very different, but also the same depending on how you look at this form of democracy.
More specific arguments originate from the participatory theory of democracy and the critique of a lack of responsiveness and legitimacy of representative (party) democracy. The two sets of democratic institutions are distinguished by basic features of direct participation: (1) direct democracy focuses on specific issues, in contrast to voting on candidates and general programs for long terms of office, and (2) citizens themselves act as decision makers rather than delegating these powers. Like electoral systems, a variety of procedural forms, designs, and regulations are likely to influence processes and outcome. One must also keep in mind that direct-democratic processes cannot operate in isolation but are always linked to the structures of an overall political system that includes major representative institutions. Thus, interactions between the two types of institutions will be an important challenge for analysis. For instance, as George Tsebelis notes, referendum voters can be seen as an additional veto player. Some authors contend that direct democracy may undermine representative democracy, while others focus on the deliberative functions for a democratic public sphere and the capacity for integrating citizens in the democratic process. One can also assume that basic
As the times change, so does the latest technology. In the mid-1900's it was the television, before that the radio, and now in the late-20th and 21st century we have the internet. With the coming of every new media outlet audiences and media moguls migrate. Along with the migrations are the politicians who try to use the new form of media to more easily reach the public. It's come to the point where the internet increasingly work with democracy directly; some elections in the United States even going so far as to hold online polling in a general election. "Online voting is increasingly making its way int our political process," writes Vote.com President Dick Morris, "the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary tallied 39,942 online votes," (Morris 1034). However, should the internet really be used to such degrees in the case of democracy? There is an ongoing debate among scholars on the topic. One thing to consider is whether or not the many accusations stating that the internet is an aid to terrorism outweigh the positive effects of how the internet has strengthened democracy and has had a crucial part in turning oppressed nations into less oppressed, democratic states. On the subject of terrorism being aided by the internet, making it easier for terrorist factions leaders to inform their people, could it not be argued that these factions leaders could use other means of communication, maybe only a little less effectively and therefore nullifying the accusation that the internet is the culprit? After extensive research, it's clear that the internet does not harm democracy; on the contrary, the internet strengthens it in a way that no other form of media has done before.
As the new digital era has risen so has a new way of voting; online voting. Even though online voting is more convenient, lower cost, and quicker it could also lead to hackers stealing an entire election or an entire part of the voting public left out. The vote and voice of those without access to computers, persons living in poverty or those without technology knowledge will be missed.