A big change created by the 1832 Reform Act was the introduction of a uniform franchise in parliamentary boroughs; the £10 householder. This gave the vote to all male householders or occupiers of property with £10 or more rentable value per annum as long as they had not been in receipt of poor relief in the previous year. In addition, people who had the vote previously but no longer qualified kept their rights during their lifetime if they lived within 7 miles of the borough, if it still was a constituency. This was a big change as pre-1832 there had been about 6 different qualifications all with regional anomalies. However, in the counties the 40shilling freeholder still existed which was no change to the existing system except for the introduction of the Chandos Clause which allowed those leasing or renting land worth £50 or more per year a second vote. Instead of developing parliamentary democracy this hindered its development because a high property qualification still existed for the right to vote and so excluded many working-class people. In addition, the Chandos Clause continued the corrupt practices of plural voting, but legalised them.
After 1832, the electorate was doubled to about 20% of the adult male population, which equated to about 8% of the whole adult population. Although this was a dramatic increase it still meant that 92% of the adult population were not enfranchised. However, a uniform borough franchise qualification did increase the number of people who used their vote as knowledge of who was eligible was more widespread. Before 1832 the electorate was dominated by the aristocrats and wealthy landowners although a few working and middle class people qualified through qualification anomalies. After 1832 the upper-class still dominated but a big change was that many middle-class people were now enfranchised. However, the right to vote was still only afforded to men and universal suffrage did not occur until 1928. This did help the growth of parliamentary democracy as it increased the franchise although this increase was quite superficial. In addition, over time some working-class were disenfranchised either through the Freeman status no longer being hereditary or moving away from an area to find work. However, after 1832 the numbers of contested seats at any one election doubled from 1/3 to 2/3 which was a move towards parliamentary democracy but not a complete one as over 30% of seats were still not contested.
The 1832 Reform Act created a Whig hegemony in Parliament which lasted from 1832-1867 this was mainly because the Tories were damaged by the actions of Wellington and the removal of rotten boroughs which were historically Tory. However, political power still remained with the landed, upper-class elites as out of the 658 MPs 500 were landowners and in the period 1832-1867 there was only 1 non-aristocratic Prime Minister this was because the property qualification still existed for MPs. In addition, the House of Lords still had the power of veto although their importance was declining increasing legitimacy and the growth of parliamentary democracy.
Another major change introduced by the 1832 was the electoral register, this helped to decrease corruption as people could no longer vote illegally, for example by impersonating the dead but corruption did not stop fully until 1883, in fact the election of 1841 was described as the most corrupt the UK had ever seen. The electoral register the only real change that occurred in relation to the conduct of elections as there was still no secret ballot and only wealthy people were able to stand as candidates.
The 1832 Reform Act had a large impact on political parties and their reactions to this impact did increase parliamentary democracy. The uniform franchise qualifications and the electoral register meant that parties now knew who was eligible to vote in each constituency. This caused them to become more efficient and professional as they now needed to appeal to a larger electorate and both parties increased their organisation following the Reform Act.
In itself the Great Reform Act, as it became known, did not increase parliamentary democracy in a significant way as its extension of the franchise and redistribution of seats was quite superficial. When it was introduced it was designed to satisfy the people’s want for reform as opposed to bring about dramatic change. However, it was only the first step towards parliamentary democracy as it is today and did not signify the end of the process as the Whigs had envisaged. Although it was a stepping stone to0 further reform and, resultantly, most of the systems and practices that were in use by 1885 are still used today.