Would a change of the voting system improve democracy with in the UK?

 It could be argued that Britain is over due a electoral reform; however could also be argued that our current electoral system is fine and democratic. With in this blog you shall see evidence on both sides. 

 

On one side it could be argued that our current electoral system is fine; known as FPTP (First Past The Post). It is properly titled as 'simple majorities in single member constituencies'. In 2011 there was a referendum which was held regarding the change of the electoral system, the Government purposed to change it to the AV system which is know as the alternative vote, however the out come was a no. It is argued that there are many reasons why it didn't succeed. For example the referendum campaign alerted many people of the negatives of the alternative system. Also the main supporters of the reform who were the Liberal Democrats had became rather unpopular by 2011.

 

However it could be argued that the current system places too much power into the hands of a single party that does not enjoy majority support. This is seen as undemocratic at the best and dangerous at the worst. Electoral reform would almost result in no party winning an overall majority in Parliament on its own. Therefore it could force the big parties to compromise and also have a possibility of having to go into coalitions with other parties, this would ensure that one party couldn't have too much power. Furthermore, if the winning party was no longer guaranteed the majority in the Commons, MPs themselves would gain influence and would make the government more accountable.

 

In addition to the point that was just made, it could be argued that the UK is naturally a two-party system. The conflict between the government and opposition, between the two traditional parties, is part of the political culture. The people are used to it and it gives them a sense of security and stability. The FPTP  system underpins the two-party system and so maintains the political traditions of the country. According to the Conservatives they believe it is worth preserving. By contrast, the reform threatens the firmly established tradition. When the coalition occurred it first proved popular, however it has been shaken as the Liberal Democrats were accused of being too weak, therefore this strengthened the argument against change of the voting system.

 

However there a plenty of problems of FPTP, for example governments are being elected on a minority of the votes cast in the general elections. In the past two years excluding 2015, this problem worsened; to the extent that the Labour victory of 2005 was secured with a mere 32.5 per cent of the total vote, this shows that the current electoral system isn't truly democratic as it could be argued that how can 35.5 percent be a majority? Therefore how does it make the government accountable for the people? This can then lead to declining voter turnouts, which could be to disillusionment with the electoral system that is widely perceived to be unfair may be one of the causes of political disengagement. Another problem is that many votes are wasted, especially for the smaller parties such as UKIP and Greens, also the voters are given a narrow choice, they only have one vote and no say in which candidates shall be put forward from in each party.

 

In addition to this I personally believe that an electoral reform would be beneficial with improving democracy with in the UK; due to the UK being just a two-party system and once the people of the state don't trust the two main parties it means a majority aren't represented.   

Should the UK use more referendums?

The use of referendums is a form of direct democracy which was originated in the Ancient Athens, direct democracy is where the people themselves make key political decisions;however back then it was a lot easier for direct democracy to occur as the population wasn't as large as it is today. It can be argued that direct democracy is on the rise again through many ways and referendums are one way.

Referendums is where citizens (either all of them or only those in a certain region) are asked to determine a question of public importance. In some countries the result of a referendum is binding on the government, however in the UK that isn't that case as parliament remains sovereign. In addition to this it virtually unthinkable that the UK Parliament would defy the expressed result of a referendum. All referendums always have an answer of 'yes' or 'no' otherwise the result would be indecisive.

It could be argued that referendums is the most direct of democracy. The people's views on a particular question are clearly indicated; there is not no confusion that could be cause by politicians that simply claim to represent the public view when it is for their own benefit. In other words, a referendum helps to make decisions legitimate and confirms the printable of government by consent. However many issues are too complex for the majority of the people to understand and make a judgement on, even though we are educated as ever but come political issues still remain rather complex and technical. For example, issues arising from proposed European Union treaties may be to complex for popular consideration. The danger of the situation is that the debate may be presented simple and emotional arguments and the true nature of the issues will be neglected. Therefore it could be argued it is best for a representive democracy as they are educated and able to make expert decisions.

Also it could be beneficial for referendums to be used more as it could prevent governments from making an unpopular decision when a 'no' vote is delivered; this occurred in 2004 when regional government was rejected by the North-East England. It could also be argued that in 2011 negative vote on the electoral system to be changed to AV, prevented a change that would have been unpopular. On the other hand referendum campaigns are expensive, therefore there is a danger that one side will prevail simply because it has more resources.

A referendum effectively entrenches constitutional changes, it protects them from attacks by future governments whose policies may only be short term. In order to reverse a referendum decision, it is widely accepted that another referendum would have to be held. This principle prevents the possibility that a future government would be able to simply dismantle constitutional reforms already made. How ever it can be described as the danger of the tryanny of the majority. Referendums are effectively the government by majority. Therefore the minority that loses are not even taken into account of any way. Also there is a danger of people using a referendum as an opportunity to express their disafaction with the government and ignore the issue in the question at all. Therefore it could be argued that elected representatives are able to weigh up the interests of everybody with out leaving the minority defenceless as we expect modern democracy to protect the minorities.

Is the UK truly democratic ?

Democracy is a general description of various political systems that are organised on the basis that the government should serve the interests of people. In liberal democracies it is also expected that citizens should influence decisions or make decisions themselves. The government are also expected to be accountable, in various ways to the people. It could be argued that the UK is truly democratic as well as not being democratic. 

The UK electoral system is claimed to be democratic for many reasons, the reason why it is seemed to be democratic is due to the citizens in the UK being able to elect the party they feel represents them best to govern the state.  As this year the Conservaitve party managed to win 331 seats within the House of Commons. According to estimates calculated by Ipsos Mori the people who supported the Conservative party 5 years ago still supported them in the 2015 election, which were mainly 65 and above, which was the highest turn out group with (78%). This suggests that the state is truly democratic as the people voted for the political party. How ever, it could still be argued that it isn't truly democratic due to not everyone is involved with politics, this is known as partisan dealignment, this is where people feel that no party actually represents them for many reasons; for example due to MPs backgrounds it could be argued they don't represent the average citizens. 

Another reason why the UK could be argued to be undemocratic is due to the electoral system they use which is first past the post. This problem is due to being under or over representive whereby the proportion of the seats gained is not equivalent to the proportion of votes. The system is also blamed for the apparent 'two party state'  which means that the smaller parties don't have much of a chance no matter how many votes they get. Also another reason why the UK could be seen as undemocratic is because there isn't no written constitution, which means government are able to pass any legislation they please if they have the majority of votes, which is pretty simply for the party who has the most seats in the House of Commons; this shows that it isn't democratic and also could be argued that the government has to much power which could cause individuals to become corrupt; however democracy was supposed to prevent the government to have to much power and disperse it. However the Prime Minister is able to declare war with out the consent of parliament, an example of this is in 2005 with the Iraq war which was heavily resented by majority of the public however wasn't able to have a say. 

Overall, Britain is seen to be democratic but also have many points which causes people to argue against Britain being democratic. 

What happened in the most recent UK election?

In the most recent UK election the Conservative party won again but however this year winning majority of the seats meaning not needing to join another party which is known as coalition government. The Conservative party was founded in 1834 and over the years gained a lot of popularity and also criticism by other parties such as Labour who have also been around for many years. The Conservative and Labour Parties have been the main two groups who have run for Prime Minister;  however in the most recent election it could be argued that there was a possibility that a new face could have had the chance to govern the UK.

With the turn out many leaders of parties decided to resign after the shocking out come; the polls gave off a complete different expectation of the outcome than what actually occurred. For example with the opinion polls there wasn't an huge difference between the Milliband and Cameron, but when the outcome was announced there was a fair difference with Conservative winning 331 seats in parliament and Labour only winning 232; bbc say that it gave the Conservative a slender majority.

In more detail many parties lost seats with the House of Commons, one party who got slaughtered horrendously by having the seats reduced from 57 just to only 8 was the Lib Dem. With the outcome it caused Nick Clegg the leader of Lib Dem to resign from the party. But he wasn't the only one who decided to resign after losing to the Conservative party , also Ed Miliband the leader of Labour decided to resign due to being defeated he claimed all responsibility for the defeat and members of his party losing their seats. Another one who resigned was Nigel Farage decided to quit after he failed to be elected and losing 50% of his seats only leaving him with 1.

How ever it wasn't all doom and gloom for all of the parties, because one party did extremely well. Scottish National Party won 56 out of 59 seats in the House of Commons taking away seats from Labour as people argued that the Labour didn't represent them. This could be deemed as ironic as last year there was a referendum to decide whether Scotland wanted to be independent and leave the UK how ever the voting turn out was a no, but the party has grew massively with the recent election.