In what sense is the UK s Parliamentary System said to be undemocratic?
Over the years some people have argued that Britains Parliamentary system in places is undemocratic. The arguments lie in the Elective system and Parliament.
The most argued issue has been our "First Past the post" voting system. The FPTP questions the whole issue of democratic elections in that the majority will of the people within one constituency may be reflected in the electoral outcome. Of the Candidates standing in a given constituency, the one who receives the highest number of votes is elected. The system works fine when there are only two parties, but it becomes undemocratic as soon as you introduce a third candidate but in practice in the vast majority of constituencies there will be more than two parties standing as candidates. The FPTP has discriminated against the parliamentary power of the third party, which today are the Liberal democrats. The Tories and Labour have benefited from this system time and again, Margaret Thatcher was repeatedly elected in this way. At the 1983 election labour one 148 seats with 26.94% of the vote a where a group if parties that all together gained 26.36% they received 13 seats between them. This again happened in the 1997 election, the Liberal Democrats (the third Party) gained 16.8% of the vote but only got 46 seats. The Tories gained 4 % more (30.7%) of the vote but gained 165 seats. Labour won 43.4% of the votes and gained 419 sears. At a proportionate level, the liberal Democrats should have got around 106 seats in Westminster if their representation was based on similar support for the labour party. This undemocratic problem could be solved by proportional representation, but this also has many down sides.. The electoral system is also considered undemocratic that in one sense a vote in one constituency can mean more than a vote in another. Critic's point out that what decides general elections happens in a small number of marginal constituencies. Usually, around 500 seats are "safe" seats in these seats, the result is almost a foregone conclusion. The winning party gains more votes than it needs to win. Votes for other parties count for little. In marginal seats every vote is important. The results in marginal s determine the complexion of the government.
Over the years some people have argued that Britains Parliamentary system in places is undemocratic. The arguments lie in the Elective system and Parliament.
The most argued issue has been our "First Past the post" voting system. The FPTP questions the whole issue of democratic elections in that the majority will of the people within one constituency may be reflected in the electoral outcome. Of the Candidates standing in a given constituency, the one who receives the highest number of votes is elected. The system works fine when there are only two parties, but it becomes undemocratic as soon as you introduce a third candidate but in practice in the vast majority of constituencies there will be more than two parties standing as candidates. The FPTP has discriminated against the parliamentary power of the third party, which today are the Liberal democrats. The Tories and Labour have benefited from this system time and again, Margaret Thatcher was repeatedly elected in this way. At the 1983 election labour one 148 seats with 26.94% of the vote a where a group if parties that all together gained 26.36% they received 13 seats between them. This again happened in the 1997 election, the Liberal Democrats (the third Party) gained 16.8% of the vote but only got 46 seats. The Tories gained 4 % more (30.7%) of the vote but gained 165 seats. Labour won 43.4% of the votes and gained 419 sears. At a proportionate level, the liberal Democrats should have got around 106 seats in Westminster if their representation was based on similar support for the labour party. This undemocratic problem could be solved by proportional representation, but this also has many down sides.. The electoral system is also considered undemocratic that in one sense a vote in one constituency can mean more than a vote in another. Critic's point out that what decides general elections happens in a small number of marginal constituencies. Usually, around 500 seats are "safe" seats in these seats, the result is almost a foregone conclusion. The winning party gains more votes than it needs to win. Votes for other parties count for little. In marginal seats every vote is important. The results in marginal s determine the complexion of the government.