Evaluate the extent to which representative democracy is a better option is a better option for the UK than direct democracy

Cost of EU referendum

£142 million

(Is direct or representative democracy better for the U.K.) para 2 - If people had more control over politics they would get involved in it more

- If people had more control over politics they would get involved in it more - currently there is a participation crisis - turnout in elections was over 75% from 1945-1997 and dropped to 59% in 2001and now is still only 67.3% in 2019 - these levels of low turnout suggest a change is needed - HOWEVER direct democracy is not the answer - direct democracy leads to minority voices being sidelined and not represented - for them disillusionment in a direct democracy would be inevitable - the slow speed and cost of direct democracy- EU ref cost £142 million - would lead to others becoming disillusioned — turnout would decrease - currently turnout in referendums which are direct democracy is low - AV ref 2011 was only 42% - people do not have the time or interest to make important political decisions regularly

(Is direct or representative democracy better for the U.K.) para 3 - Direct democracy removes the need for representatives

- direct democracy removes the need for representatives - selection of MPs within parliament is socially unrepresentative - majority white male - direct democracy has equal weight to all votes HOWEVER - minorities would be less hear not more - representatives could be corrupt or not act in the best interests of the constituency - RARE -HOWEVER - Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry voting against party and with constituency in the vote as to whether parliament should have a final say on any Brexit deal made by gov. - people like having representatives who are experts and they can trust

(Is direct or representative democracy better for the U.K.) para 1 - our current representative system is flawed

- our current representative system is flawed - FPTP doesn't give true representative of the seats won - conservatives currently hold a large majority of the seats whilst only having 43% of the vote share - direct democracy would create a system where the voices of the system could be properly heard - HOWEVER - FPTP produces strong majority gov.s and the people have a say in who represents them - In order for minority voices to be heard and practical legislation making to take place we need a representative system specifically FPTP which is not direct democracy

(Is direct or representative democracy better for the U.K.) Intro - representative is better

- state of UK democracy is unhealthy— disproportionate electoral system - a participation crisis - large infouence by wealthy and unaccountable businessmen - democracy could be imoroved via a switch from representative democracy to direct democracy - allow people to have a say on issues which effect them - HOWEVER in reality the practical option will always be representative democracy - decisions that are better for our country will be made - people dont have the time or interest for direct

AV referendum turnout

42%

Conservatives disproportionate vote share example

Conservatives currently have large majority of seats with only 43% of vote share

Representatives supporting constituency beliefs

Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry voting against party and with constituency in the vote as to whether parliament should have a final say on any Brexit deal made by gov.

Turnout throughout the years (1945-1997,2001,2019)

Over 75% 1945-1997, hit 59% in 2001, still is only 67.3% in 2019