This disappointment is clearly shown by the growth of radical activity, which resulted in unrest during the period. For example, 100,000 attended a meeting of the London Corresponding Society in 1795, to protest at hunger and parliamentary corruption. There was also disappointment with the actions of the government during Liverpool’s ministry, 1812-22. For example, the Corn Laws were introduced in 1815. This caused disappointment as it meant that no foreign corn could be imported until the price of British corn reached 80s a quarter.
For a country to be democratic there should be universal suffrage – all adults should have the right to vote. Britain was not very democratic in this respect in 1851, since only 1 in 7 men had the right to vote and no women could vote. However, a number of pieces of legislation were passed to extend the franchise. The 1867 Second Reform Act granted the vote to some working class men for the first time and meant that 1 in 3 men could vote. The 1884 Third Reform Act gave more respectable working class men the vote and meant that 2 out of every 3 were enfranchised.
To protect the poor, parliament decided that only people who earned over 20 shillings a year should be forced to pay the increased tax; however, this was not enforced in Cornwall. As a result of Henry’s maladministration by not enforcing the same law in Cornwall, where people were especially poor as they mainly made their living tin mining and farming, Cornwall rebelled. This “harsh regime with general misgovernment”, as Colin Pendrill described, leading to poor subjects being unprotected from tax, threatened Henry’s control over his kingdom by illustrating him as an unjust and immoral king. Evidence of resentment towards his “harsh regime” was exemplified when one of Henry’s administrators, John Orby, Provost of Glasney, was murdered by the rebels due to his corrupt maladministration. Thus, this fierce complaint of maladministration and misgovernment by the medium of a rebellion could have led to the disintegration of Henry VIII’s system of government, creating fragmented security.
Furthermore, the government only removed the very worst boroughs and so as a result, about 120 rotten or pocket boroughs still continued post-1832. This alone proves that the reform act of 1832 failed to drastically transfer power to the middle classes, despite several key industrial towns gaining representation. Similar to this, connecting evidence
In 2005, the Liberal Democrats had 22% of the overall vote in the UK, sharing, but because of the FPTP system they only won 62 seats out of the 646 constituencies in the UK, this shows this system as clearly an unfair. However, there has been a change in the power of the two parties in the UK. For example, the Scottish Parliament has employed the voting system of AMS. This has meant that in Scotland, there is no longer a two-party system because the Scottish National Party was voted into parliament winning one single seat. As AMS is a partly PR system, the percentage of votes equals the percentage/number of seats, this in turn, means the big two parties no longer dominate the government.
He won with 40 percent of the popular vote and about 60 percent of electoral vote. Yet, he had no votes from the South. This was mostly because his name wasn’t even on the ballot in most of the southern states. This had actually helped show to Americans that there were no longer any national political parties. They had two presidential candidates compete for southern votes, and the other two candidates compete for northern and western votes.
Therefore, the hallmark of franchise is considered to be the most important hallmark for helping Britain become a more democratic country. For franchise to be met every adult needs to be able to vote. In 1850 only 1 in 7 men could vote, there were severe restrictions based on property and income, and all women were disenfranchised. In 1867 there was a Second Reform Act which meant 1 in 3 men could vote and in 1884 there was a Representation of People Act which improved this further, meaning that 2 in 3 men could vote. By 1900, however, the hallmark of franchise was not met because working class men and no women at all could vote.
The people in the meeting concluded that the slavery is “both impolitic and unjust.” Hochschild also added that the aftermath of the meeting marks the first time they saw that large number of people in “one country” becomes “outraged” for many years and not in one country but also from other parts of the world. The movement spread immediately, made the slavery trade became the main subject in in London discussions. Many anti-slavery posters and books flooded the country. People wanted to end this slavery. However, it took 50 years to end the slavery in Britain and took also another 25 years of its abolition in the United States.
Could all these things have come together to cause one of the greatest depression that America had felt? Many citizens revolted against their elected leaders and large discontent rose in America during this time period. New political factions rose in the era. Could this have been the birth of the progressive movement? The depression of the 1890’s ruined banks, farms, and many of the train leaders were declaring bankruptcy during this time period.
Voting early in the 19th century was considered more of luxury and only very few would get the chance to vote. Texas was known as a state to enforce laws and regulations on voting the harshest so voter turnout was still one of the lowest. Today many laws were amended or changed and it is much easier to go out and vote. Voter turnout has been increasing over the years but in Texas it is still one of the lowest. I believe Texas is still the lowest because it used to be one the most restrictive states in the US in voting laws and I feel that many people in Texas have not accustomed fully to the new regulations that allow every citizen to vote and also considering it is one of the biggest states in the US.