Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nel97)
    X
    well that was a shock, LOOL
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IRoranth)
    Can someone tell me if my arguments for a direct democracy are good enough?:

    For:
    Purest form of democracy, and the power is in the hands of the people, thus, curing voter apathy and helping with political engagement.
    Better educated and well informed society, e.g. more people taking part in political debates during the EU referendum, with some attending the Sky News Debate with David Cameron on the EU referendum
    Rule is more legitimate, as the people are making decisions- if the people make policy decisions, they are thus, more likely to accept them, which also adds to government stability- e.g. Scottish Independence referendum, turnout was 84.6%, which increases democratic legitimacy considerably.

    Against:
    1. It doesn't really cure voter apathy, e.g. in the AV referendum, there was a turnout of merely 42%, thus, illustrating referendums, a form of direct democracy, do not necessarily encourage political participation. Also, side point, direct democracy in an electorate of ours would be difficult anyway, since we have an electorate of 46.2 million since 2015 general election, thus, creating a long and tedious process of policy formation.
    2. Electorate could make ill informed decisions based on misinformation, political spin and lack of knowledge, e.g. the EU referendum campaigns have both been thought of as "scaremongering" and providing a lack of impartial info. In addition, some did not understand the pros/cons of AV referendum, which could have possibly lead to the 'no' vote regarding the proportional electoral system, compared to FPTP. Note; these ill informed decisions could be a disadvantage as they would affect the constitution considerably.
    3. Finally, only majority views are taken into account in direct democracies, as minority views are harder to advocate, unlike in a representative democracy, where there are representatives for different sections of society, e.g. ethnic minorities, women, etc.

    I feel like my for views are too vague???????????
    You have to mention the Swiss "votation" system, where referendums are triggered by petitions, but the problem of this system is that it encourages populism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What was a shock?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nel97)
    What was a shock?
    Lol, just that I refreshed and a huge essay lay before me, thank youuu
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IRoranth)
    Lol, just that I refreshed and a huge essay lay before me, thank youuu
    The copy and paste didn't work, made it look like a bloated paragraph xD
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Cheers Nel, good stuff
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pokémontrainer)
    Hmm last woman standing.
    We were made for each other.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you for the essay !!! The examples that you've used are really helpful
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nel97)
    Assess the arguments in favour of the greater use of direct democracy in the UK (25)

    Direct democracy is the purest form of democracy.
    I would argue that the purest form of democracy is the Athenian system (in Ancient Greece), where all the citizens were gathered at the same place and voted bills on the spot. You are here dealing with a system that does not use politicians. I think you should focus more on why representative democracy is not adapted and how direct democracy can help solving its flaws.

    This is by completed giving power to the people directly to make decisions which affects them. This could be completed by e-petitions or digital democracy. Ranging from tighter controls on immigration to the use of wild animals in circuses to banning Donald Trump from the UK. E-petitions allow the people to participate in politics. An example is dropping the NHS Reform Bill being legislated in 2012 obtaining 150,000 signatures by February 2012. This allows people to get involved in issues that they care passionately about and if there isn’t a petition,then people can make their own. When a petition gets 100,000 signatures, it must be debated within the House of Commons. However, this isn’t necessarily accessible to everyone. Not everybody has a computer or an internet connection.In addition to that, just like giving people the vote via internet. It could be fabricated. People can hack into another individuals computer and sign up for things that they do not want. Therefore, the greater use of direct democracy through e-petitions should be used sparingly and not to a greater extent due to the possible repercussions of further implementation.

    Direct democracy will result in a better educated and politically informed society. When the people need to make a decision whether it was on the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum to the 2016 European Union referendum, the people will be better informed then they were before. This could be through televised debates involving politicians like David Cameron and Nigel Farage on ITV on 7th of June 2016. It could be through politically campaigning on the streets by informing bystanders. Having said that, there is a lot of ill-informed information that can be disposed. For example, there were instances of ‘scare-mongering’ in the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014, in particular, about the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) leaving Scotland or that Scotland would not be able to participate in the 2016 Olympics in Rio. In addition, there are many issues that are too complex for people to understand such as the 1975 EEC referendum. Britain had only just joined the EEC and the consequences of leaving or staying were unknown, even to the extent of prime-minister Harold Wilson having an indecisive and ill-informed view [detail why]. Therefore direct democracy will result in citizens being more informed in issues however there are the risks of potential scare-mongering and complexity that could change the outcome of the decision.

    Direct democracy will make decisions more legitimate and people will accept them better. The UK has an excellent track record of accepting the decision when it is given to us to decide on. In some other countries there is anarchy and continued protests but in the UK it tends to end when the votes takes place. An example of this would be the Scottish Independence referendum of 2014 which got an outstanding 85% turnout and had the consent of the population to remain in the UK. On the other hand, not every referendum will have this turnout and voter fatigue would take place. Such as a decision would be illegitimate if the turnout was low such as the 1998 London Mayor referendum which only received 34% turnout. By increasing the use of referendums you could also change the entire issue of the referendum to the government of that day. Such as the 2004 North-East referendum was arguably voted ‘no’because of how unpopular the Tony Blair government had become at that point known as ‘the wobble’.

    Direct democracy will reduce the likelihood of corruption.While the UK again, has a very low corruption rate in comparison to others like North Korea [a more suitable example would be Italy; you must better detail the link between the two (it reduces political manœuvre)]. It will remain that way if a greater use of direct democracy was implemented. This is because the people have the power have to go against every decision that the government proposes into law. An example of this could be that if greater use of direct democracy was in place, the students could have got the decision to increase tuition fees in the 2010 coalition government removed. Having said that, [this phrase is awkward in an essay] the people can do that anyway [idem]. The First-Past-The-Post electoral system allows the people to remove the government from power. For example, an unpopular Harold Macmillan resigned in 1963 and the Conservatives were removed from power in 1964 due to the Profumo affair. Another example would be the removal of Labour’s Harold Wilson due to the failure of the National Plan 1964 [FPTP played no part in the failure of these governments. Remove this argument.]. A more recent example would be Margaret Thatcher arguably being forced to resign because of the resentment of the poll-tax in which 20,000 protesters had stormed London in 1990. Therefore, increasing the use of direct democracy wouldn’t necessarily change anything in this aspect as people have the ability to do this anyway [anyway is an adverb that prevents you developing your argument, don't use it].

    I deliberately left out the conclusion because I don't want to influence your judgement
    Make shorter paragraphs with only one or two relevant examples. You give way too much information and only explain your thought superficially as a result.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sarpedon)
    We were made for each other.
    Haha yeah, maybe we were...
    :getmecoat:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Make shorter paragraphs with only one or two relevant examples. You give way too much information and only explain your thought superficially as a result.
    Replying to your comments:

    Harold Wilson having an indecisive and ill-informed view was explained before, "Britain had only just joined the EEC and the consequences of staying and leaving were unknown".

    I never said FPTP was the reason for Harold Wilson's government having failed to get re-elected, I just mentioned an example in which the people can get rid of an unpopular government through the electoral system

    Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Make shorter paragraphs with only one or two relevant examples. You give way too much information and only explain your thought superficially as a result.
    Be careful. Ancient Athens did have politicians, an example being the demagogue Cleon (or Kleon). The direct radical democracy (as mocked in Aristophanes' comedies) encouraged populism in politicians such as generals of Athens like Pericles (Perikles). You do not need to know this detail, I am just showing off my classical knowledge, but do not make the mistake in saying that the first democracy did not have politicians; it had populist politicians, but they were more accountable as citizens at the Assembly had the option to ostracise leaders who failed in their duties (equivalent to recalling an MP if we could nowadays).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    How would you answe. How democratic is the uk?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I hope the exam is the easiest sh*t ever.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sarpedon)
    Be careful. Ancient Athens did have politicians, an example being the demagogue Cleon (or Kleon). The direct radical democracy (as mocked in Aristophanes' comedies) encouraged populism in politicians such as generals of Athens like Pericles (Perikles).
    I know that. I should have said "representative" politicians.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaziye)
    How would you answe. How democratic is the uk?
    Well, our country is a Liberal democracy, so emphasises the importance of civil liberties and human rights, freedom of opinion, freedom of information and multi-party state. Tolerance of minorities, also (pluralism)

    BUT Minorities are ignored in FPTP votes – "tyranny of the majority" – and the UK is undemocratic in having an unelected monarch (who remains for traditional and economic reasons) and the House of Lords, which is being reformed to become more accountable (getting rid of bishops and hereditary peers). We have an uncodified constitution and parliamentary sovereignty, meaning our liberties are technically not fully protected, but uncodified means more flexibility, e.g. quick introduction of the Terrorist Act after 9/11.
    Also, there is a transfer of sovereign power to the BLOODY EU BUREAUCRATS, WHO ARE UNELECTED AND UNACCOUNTABLE; THEREFORE ILLEGITIMATE!


    Vote Leave.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaziye)
    How would you answe. How democratic is the uk?
    You rate UK on a scale of democratic it is.

    FOR:
    -Free and fair elections
    -Government is accountable to the people and parliament
    -Political parties and pressure groups are tolerated
    -MPs represent their constituencies
    -Government elected with mandate to govern
    -Healthy party competitions
    -More proportional electoral systems
    -More referendum use

    AGAINST:
    -HOC is not socially representative
    -Low turnout at elections
    -Disproportionate influence from FPTP
    -HOL and HOS is not elected
    -European Convention of Human Rights can be overturned because Parliament is sovereign.
    -Party membership is falling - 1%
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Starting to think I should have done more revision :/
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Morning all! And best of luck
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dylannben12)
    Starting to think I should have done more revision :/
    Just do past-papers They mostly re-use the same ones anyway. Never give up.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: June 1, 2017
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.