This is why some argue that the current Westminster electoral system is in desperate need of reform. There are many arguments in favour of reforming the current First Past the Post electoral system to a more proportional system, such as the Single Transferable Vote, the Closed Party List System, and the Additional Member System. This is also known as electoral fairness. Supporters of Proportional Representation argue that a party’s strength should reflect the support it has in the country- which is essential to a democracy. The current First Past the Post system leads to an unfair system of representation.
There are many arguments as to why we should or shouldn’t have more referenda in the UK. Both arguments are fair and it is simply a matter of opinion. There are also many reasons as to why we should have more referenda in the UK. Referenda are a device of direct democracy, giving the public some decision-making of the country. This makes sure that the public’s views and interested are truly presented, rather than being distorted by politicians who want more people to support their party.
The election of the leader is very important part of political parties as people now vote more for a prime minster than governing party, for example conservative’s won over Labour because David Cameron was seen as more enthusiastic and inspirational then Gordon brown, where he was seen as dull and boring. This means individual members in Labour have a significant role and power in the party. However in the conservative the individual members don’t have as much power as the Labour members. The election of the party leader is different to the Labour party, the MP's select the two final candidates for leader through numerous votes, and the members only get to vote at the end of the process for party leader. This means that individual members don’t have the same amount of power than the MP's.
How effective are back bench MP’s Backbench MP’s are critical for UK democracy. They are effective because they allow for high standard scrutiny of the government which holds them accountable for their actions to the people. They help in representing the electorate. However there are some circumstances in which MPs are less effective and have little control, for example the UK party system which is enforced by whips. Firstly, back bench MPs are effective because they are a good way of increasing legitimacy and representation in terms of their constituency as they have been voted in by their electorate and therefore should represent the views of those in their constituency.
Another reason that meant Britain in turn developed into a democracy was how easy it was to become an MP. This essay will argue that Britain made considerable progress in becoming a democracy. To start, many improvements were made to ensure elections were run freely and fairly. In 1872, voters were made to cast their vote publically. This made it very easy to intimidate voters into voting for a certain party/candidate.
Another advantage of the FPTP system is that it manages to marginalise extremist and revolutionary parties such as UKHIP and BNP as they are unlikely to win overall constituencies. This was demonstrated well in the 2010 election as BNP and UKHIP did not even come close to winning any seats in the House of Commons. One of the general advantages the FPTP system has been known for is its ability to produce single party governments that aren’t a minority vote or a coalition. This is due to its ability to
The fact that the process is open to unlikely candidates and the public have the right to choose such candidates means that democracy is advanced because the decision lies with the public. Another argument providing evidence that public participation advances democracy is that the level of participation by voters has increased dramatically. In 1968, the last year of the unreformed system, only 11.7 million Americans took part in the election process. By 1988 the number of Americans who took part in this process was 35 million and in 2008, 58
The arrival of a coalition government formed between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party in 2010 has affected UK party politics in various ways. The governing of a country by a coalition of two political parties with differing political stances will involve negotiation between and some degree of compromise on behalf of the two parties. This is necessary in order to come to some form of agreement on key policies, such as those affecting the economy, crime, welfare, law and order and education. The agreements reached are also, to a certain degree, in a balance of compliance with key political beliefs or philosophies of both parties. The rise to power of a coalition government has made Consensus politics a key feature of UK party politics, since the nature of a coalition involves broad agreement on most basic policies between the two major political parties forming the coalition; the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
As your freedom of speech can be heavily hampered if you do not operate within the law; or you are voicing racist or offensive opinions, or your speech is threatening to “breach the peace” this is too say, what you are saying could be grossly offensive to some groups or individuals. The United Kingdom is definitely a democracy though (referring back to the definition) as in the UK we have free and fair (and regular) elections, and there are always 2 or more (3 main) parties to vote for. This prevents the UK from moving from a democracy into a dictatorship, as there are always other options to give your vote. The democracy also calls for competitive elections in which every adult is allowed to vote. There are further features of a Liberal Democracy which need to be held by the UK for it too fall into the category; Elected representatives and the government should be held to account by the people, something which is true within the UK as members of parliament are held accountable to the people, if they don’t do what they promise the people will not re-elect them, they are also held to account by legislature.
Direct democracy is a “form of democracy that is based on the direct and unmediated and continuous participation of citizens in the tasks of government.”3. Examples of direct democracy include; joining pressure groups, taking part in referendums and contacting local MPs. This essay will be assessing the advantages of direct democracy. Increased Political Participation. Direct democracy allows the electorate to have more opportunities to take part in the political process, as forms of direct democracy such as referendums, canvassing, protesting, joining pressure groups and boycotting products; allow for the electorate to choose a form of participation rather than only being able to vote after governmental terms are served by parties, therefore direct democracy would moot Jean Jacques Rousseau's opinion that “The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of parliament”4.