Both houses of Parliament suffer from serious democratic deficiencies which require urgent attention and resolution. Discuss the problems you think are being referred to in this statement. To what extent do you agree with the statement?

In his journal, Donald Shell describes the House of Lords as an institution which has been ‘unscathed by democracy’ and sees its continued existence as a ‘sort of tribute to English genius, or the triumph of English pragmatism’ so although an elected House of Lords would be more democratic it would be defeating one of the main strengths that the current system has where decisions are likely to be unanimous and it is unlikely that there will be any conflict within the House since most of the Lords have similar ideals. So in conclusion, although it can be argued that there is a problem with the lack of democracy in the House of Lords and the problem requires urgent attention and resolution, the current proposals for reform, as well as being difficult to fully apply, would bring greater problems with them and so are not practical to have for the time being.

The House of Commons on the other hand is elected but also has democracy issues. Currently, there are 650 constituencies each of which are represented by one MP who is elected using the first past the post system. There are many problems with this voting system, one being that because of how it works the larger parties end up with a disproportionately large share of the seats while the smaller parties will gain less and will be underrepresented in Parliament in relation to how many votes they have altogether.  Also, through gerrymandering, areas which have an equal number of votes for two parties could potentially end up with one party having more seats in Parliament than the other through the way the constituencies are geographically split. Another problem is that this system also only gives value to a minority of the votes and all the votes cast for a losing candidate are wasted so it could be said to be undemocratic since it is not the ‘rule of majority’ but more the rule of those whose votes counted.  However, once all the votes are added up, whoever has the most wins so by definition it is partially democratic even though it may not necessarily follow the ‘rule of majority’ dictionary definition.

To overcome some of the democratic deficiencies presented by the first past the post system various alternative voting systems have been suggested. One of those is the supplementary vote system, which is used to elect the Mayor of London, where voters choose a first and a second choice and, after the first round of voting, if one candidate does not get 50% of the votes, then the top two candidates are retained and the rest are eliminated, with the 2nd choices of the people who voted for the eliminated candidates being used. The advantages are that it would create a stronger, as well as a more democratic government, because of the majoritarian nature of the system, and less votes would be wasted, however, since there’s no way of knowing for sure which two candidates will make the second round it means a large number of votes could potentially still be wasted.

Another alternative would be to use one of various multiple member systems where the country would be split up into a smaller number of larger constituencies and each one would elect between three and five MPs, depending on its size. One of those is the single transferable vote system where voters would rank their candidates in order of preference and then, if their first choice candidate does not need their vote because they already have enough votes or too few to be elected, their vote gets transferred to their second choice. This is a much more democratic system and it gives the voters a lot more power in the sense of choosing who is elected, however, there are drawbacks with this system since the MPs will have a larger constituency to deal with and will therefore have to spend a lot more time dealing with problems within the constituency, therefore meaning that broader, nationwide issues could potentially be neglected.

To conclude, in my opinion the best system for election in the House of Commons is the single transferable vote. Although it does have downfalls it also has the most advantages in terms of democracy since it gives voters more choice between candidates whilst also keeping a geographical link so that local issues are not ignored. On top of this it would mean there is a lot more proportionality in the people that sit in the House of Commons consequently making it more democratic.

Another serious democratic problem in the House of Commons, and one which could potentially apply to the House of Lords if it did become elected, is the effect of party whips. One MP said:
“The whips' office seeks to control the mind, actions and votes of individual Members of Parliament. That is fundamentally wrong.”
It is wrong and undemocratic that MPs are made to vote by their party in a way which they may not feel is right. Essentially since they are supposed to be the voice of the public so when they can’t say what is on their mind because of fear of being disciplined by or expelled from their party then it essentially defeats the purpose of them being there. However, there is the argument that if an MP is a member of a political party then it does make sense that they have done so because they agree with the party’s philosophy and should therefore follow the party’s views.

In conclusion, I agree with the statement that both houses of Parliament suffer from serious democratic deficiencies, particularly in the House of Commons. However, there is no guaranteed way to solve these problems. In my opinion the best option would be to use the single transferable vote system to elect candidates as, democratically, that is the best option. However, it doesn’t come without bringing other problems and it is unlikely that it would be brought in since many politicians do not like it as MPs could potentially lose a lot of ‘safe’ seats with this system. As far as the House of Lords is concerned, in an ideal world it too would be elected but the disadvantages would greatly outweigh the advantages and in my opinion it would be best if it stays the way it currently is since, whilst not being democratic, it has worked for many years. Furthermore, although the coalition government want to reform the House of Lords to an 80% elected body it is unlikely that any Bill will pass through since the House of Lords since at the last vote in March 2007 all the options apart from a 100% elected house had a majority of votes against them in the House of Lords so, as undemocratic as it may be, as long as the majority of the House of Lords want it to be 100% elected it will remain that way. As for the party whips, I believe that they should stay but should only enforce voting on things that were in the MP’s manifestos since, democratically at least, that is the reason they were voted in. MPs should be able to vote on all other matters completely free from their party whips.

Bibliography

Journals

Bingham LJ. (2010). “The House of Lords: its future?”, Public Law at 267

Shell, D. (1994). “The House of Lords: Time for a Change?” Parliam Aff (1994) 47 (4): 721-737

Legislation

House of Lords Reform Draft Bill (2011)

Websites

Cabinet Office Website http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk
Electoral Reform Society http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk
Official Documents- A reference facility for House of Commons Papers http://www.official-documents.gov.uk