Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
FIXING THE UK'S DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT - Coggle Diagram
FIXING THE UK'S DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT
House of Lords Reform (with an elected chamber of representatives)
pos - it would remove an unelected, unaccountable body from the UK's democratic process
neg -
what replaces it could causes greater rivalry with the House of Commons, leading to gridlock in the political process
the expertise of the Lords could potentially be replaced by career politicians, only interested in personal gain, not the greater good of the people
may create a new political class, meaning the Lords would lose their less partisan nature, with less cross bench peers
FPTP Refroms (replace this system with a more proportional one)
pos -
it would remove the negative features of FPTP, such as safe seats, minority constituencies, unfair representation and government with a minority of public support
all votes have equal weight
may increase turnout if people know their votes have more weight
even if turnout stayed the same, PR would be more representative, and get rid of safe seats - meaning that ceratin voters and constituencies would no longer have such huge weight
neg -
proportional systems make coalitions more likely and harder to hold to account
the systems are more complex and risk losing the close MP-constituency link that currently exists
may cause voter fatigue due to all extra effort the non-political class need to put in
undemocratic as it would allow weight to extremist parties
may lose direct link with constituency MP
Codify the UK Constitution
pos -
it would protect citizen's positive human rights and would be harder for the rights of people to be ignored or misrepresented
this would clarify the process of the UK political system
it would provide a higher law that would be entrenched, rather than the flexibility and instability of the current uncodified constitution
limit the power of the executive
neg -
a codified constitution might prove too rigid and the question of who would write it and how would it be implemented
it would raise questions about the location of sovereignty
it would give more power to unelected judges
the courts would have the power of the executive, reducing parliamentary sovereignty - would give power to an unelected and unaccountable body
entrenches at a certain time in society, so negative if they cannot move forward (right to bear arms - old society)
limits the ability to change the constitution if it were codified, giving it more legitimacy due to the fact that it has come from multiple sources over a longer time frame
Introduce Compulsory Voting
pos -
it would increase turnout in all elections
increased turnout means increased legitimacy of elected officials
most democratic in theory as everyone gets their voice heard
over 90% turnout in Australia
more sense for people to be politically engaged - incentive to get informed
increased government legitimacy as the people are more likely to have voted for them, representing more of the electorate
neg -
forcing to vote may not increase public involvement in politics
would quickly create voter fatigue and apathy
the right to vote also includes the right to not vote
a vote not based on your true politics and authentic views, becomes a chore
donkey voting - vote based on what appears on the ballot
Extending the Franchise (allowing 16-17 years olds to vote)
pos -
many 16-year-olds are fully integrated into society, having jobs and getting paid so their voices should make a difference
16-year-olds have other legal rights, such as marriage with parental consent, and the army as they are deemed mature enough
many young people are politically active, seen in pressure groups and community activities - boosts political literacy
most public issues voted on (especially during referendums) greatly affect the younger generation and their future (Brexit, Scottish Inde Ref)
when the franchise has been extended to 16 and 19-year-olds, the turnout was huge, with an over 80% turnout
puts people into a pattern for the future, so it reduces
youth disengagement
parties would need to represent youth in their manifesto
neg -
argument about everyone participating in society and the economy, even young children do so, and they are not seen as mature enough to vote (the sugar tax)
many 16-year-olds are not mature enough to vote, leading to irresponsible, rash and ill-informed voting
many young people are uninterested in politics and would not vote, with their slightly older counter-part (18-24) repeatedly having the lowest turnout per age group in every election
younger people do not have the experience to make a judgement
many children would vote the same way as their parents - partisanship may have more influence on a young voter
prisoners -
breaching ECHR by disenfranchising prisoners
voting as a right for all - it is inalienable - like voting is a human right, rather than a civil right
Increased use of Referendums
pos -
a form of direct democracy, where the public vote directly on an issue, so less likely to be misrepresented by an MP
would allow for the public to be directly involved, which would increase how many people understood politics
it would increase political literacy as people would be more informed on what is happening within the government if they had been the ones voting directly on the issue
neg -
if everything was voted on by the public, this would create an even more bureaucratised governmental process, and everything would take far too long to get done
this would create voter apathy and fatigue
ill-informed and uneducated decisions would be made due to a lack of an expert political class, who understand the process of government and legislation
E-Voting
pos -
accessibility would be improve as people with physical and mental disabilities would not have no leave their home to have their voices heard
convenience as voters would not have to leave work or school, deal with traffic or worry about the cost of transport
could attracted the attention of younger people, which would reduce their electoral absenteeism
could reduce the costs of elections and the time it takes to count and recount votes (lack of human error)
neg -
the secret nature of voting could be compromised, depending on the level of security of the software and hardware used by voters
it could create an over-representation of those who can use and have access to the internet, that is upper socioeconomic strata and young people
could increase voting fraud as it is difficult to verify that the person voting online are who they say they are - although passwords and other authentication factors are used, all these systems and vulnerable
alienation of the electorate - not seeing other people or feeling as a part of the community, when voting could generate apathy with the electorate