Lesson video

Hi, you all right? How are you doing today? My name's Mrs. Tomassi and I'm gonna be working through with you on your citizenship lesson.

So hopefully you're all comfortable, you're all ready to go.

Let's go cracking.

So the title of today's lesson is, Does the UK's democracy need reform? Now, this forms part of the finals lesson in the unit on what the strengths and weaknesses of the UK democratic system.

Today's outcome is that hopefully you can evaluate the pros and cons of democracy in the UK.

We'll make a start with some of our key words.

Now you'll see these throughout the session in bold and you can always refer back to them here.

So we'll make a start.

We've got representative democracy, a type of democracy where citizens choose others to represent them, making important decisions on their behalf.

First-past-the-post.

This is the voting system used in the UK to elect members of some local councils and Members of Parliament, whereby the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins.

We also have media freedom.

The ability of the press to give information and express opinion.

So moving on to our first outline, which is what are the key features of democracy in the UK? So we'll make a start with this.

Can you think of any key features? So we'll go through them now.

The UK is a representative democracy.

We will talk in more detail about these in a minute.

So the key features is it's the first-past-the-post system, media freedom, and the voting age.

So we'll go through them individually.

So we've got representative democracy.

Now do you know what a representative democracy is? It is that idea where citizens choose others to represent them.

In the UK, who is the representative? It is the MP, the Member of Parliament, and the general election happens at least every five years.

Again, now we've got a picture.

That's the House of Commons.

And once elected, they meet in the House of Commons to make decisions and debates.

Our next key feature is the first-past-the-post.

So this is the system in terms of when electing somebody and it's used for Member of Parliament and it's used for local councils.

Sometimes it's described as plurality or the winner takes all.

That's because it's the idea that you are, if you've got your finish line, it is the first past the post who gets past the line.

So it is that winner, they'll take it all and they become the person that is elected.

So we have in the UK 650 constituencies and they each elect one candidate to become an MP.

True or false? In the UK, citizens directly vote on all laws and policies.

That is false.

That would be an example.

Do you know it? Of a direct democracy and the UK is a representative democracy because they elect Members of Parliament to act on their behalf.

Next one we've got is media freedom.

So media freedom, sometimes also known as press freedom, the ability of the press to give information and express opinions.

Now media freedom promotes equality, varied choice, citizens who ask questions, and the prevention of censorship.

So what this is saying that actually by having media freedom in a democracy, and this is what the idea that we have in the UK, is that it allows all different voices to be heard.

It gives people a choice of where they get their information from and they can then ask questions and they can then make an informed decision about that information themselves, and then it helps to prevent censorship.

So the idea of controlling information.

By having media freedom, we are preventing that control.

The next key feature of democracy in the UK is the voting age.

What is the current voting age in the UK general elections? It is 18.

And there's a picture of the Scottish flag there.

Any ideas why that might be there? So in Scotland from 2014, they've expanded the right to vote to 16- and 17-year-olds for all non-Westminster elections.

So any Scottish-specific elections or local elections, 16- and 17-year-olds can vote.

Now as an example, 89% of them registered to vote in the Scottish independence referendum.

So it's a high turnout that they had.

Another example is actually in Wales.

They're the second nation to expand for the Welsh parliamentary elections, the 16- and 17-year-olds can vote there as well.

Which key feature of democracy in the UK is missing from the list? We've got representative democracy, the first-past-the-post system, and voting age.

Just take a think and then we will check the answer.

Media freedom is missing from the list.

So they are our four key features of democracy here in the UK.

So bringing us onto the task, you've gone through the four key features.

So can you rate the key features of democracy in the UK on a scale from one to five, one meaning it needs major improvement and five mean it works, there's no changes needed.

Then just give a brief reason for your answers.

You can style this in any way you want.

If you wanna create a table 'cause that's easier, a list, or whatever you prefer and then we'll come back and we will check the answers.

How did you find that? Did you remember the four key features to start with? So those key features were: representative democracy, first-past-the-post, media freedom, and voting age.

Now if you gave higher ratings, so maybe your threes, fours, fives, you could have said for representative democracy it works well because electorates choose MPs who represent them in parliament and elections happen regularly so they're held accountable.

For first-past-the-posts you could have said it's easy to follow and understand for electorates.

For media freedom you could have said the press has a good degree of freedom, which means people can make decisions with a variety of information.

And for the voting age you could have said it's 18, which means all adults can vote, which is fair.

Obviously you might have had higher ratings, you might have had higher ratings just for some of them and you could have had lower ratings for them as well.

Remember 'cause this is your opinion and you're just justifying why you believe that.

So if you did go for lower ratings, maybe your ones and twos, then you could have maybe said something like, representative democracy generally works but MPs don't always reflect their constituents views, especially on local issues.

For first-past-the-post you could have said this can lead to parties winning seats without majority support, leaving some voters unrepresented.

Media freedom, you might have said for the lower rankings that there is some freedom but media ownership concentration can limit diverse viewpoints.

So that idea that there's only a few people in charge of the media.

And then voting age, by lowering the voting age it can encourage younger people to engage with politics earlier and for longer.

Hopefully you found that task all right and you've got an idea now of our four key features.

We're gonna continue to refer to these through the rest of the session as we move on to what are the pros and cons of democracy in the UK.

So we'll go back to our first key feature which was representative democracy.

So remembering we've got our MPs who represent us.

The strengths to this, there could be more experience and knowledge as MPs are elected so they're gonna take time because that becomes their full-time job, so they're gonna take time to make sure they can find out the information and their knowledge.

So that's the strength because you've got people that are willing to work and put the effort in to find out more.

Another strength is decisions can be made quicker than direct democracy because if you remember, direct democracy is where you get to vote in every situation.

Now to hold a general election takes time, it takes money.

So actually if we are having to do that for every decision in the country, it could be a long time before anything actually starts happening and changing.

Whereas at the moment the MPs can debate in the House of Commons with the House of Lords.

It can go back and forth there and it can be a quicker form of getting things done.

Again, that links in the idea of it being cheaper.

So going back to the direct democracy where you've got, if you've got lots of referendums, lots of opportunities to vote, that can be expensive and time consuming.

And then also the MPs are held accountable by electorate.

So actually if they come in and they're not experienced and they're not knowledgeable and they're not finding things out, then the electorates and the citizens can go back to 'em and say, "Whoa, this isn't good enough." And they might not vote them back in if something doesn't get sorted.

So it's strength there because you people are holding them accountable.

Flip side, we've got the weaknesses.

So at the same as we've got MPs can be knowledgeable, actually maybe they might also not be knowledgeable 'cause it can be hard if one person's to have knowledge about a wide range of subjects and expertise can put a lot of pressure on them.

So there might be areas that there are their weaknesses.

However, you know, if they're willing to learn and find out, then it could always then be a strength again.

Decisions could be influenced by party pressure.

Now what party pressure means is that if they are affiliated to a political party and they take a stance on a certain issue saying that you need to agree or disagree, they might use a whip to put pressure on the MP to say no, you need to stand with the party and you need to vote what they say even if your constituents or, you know, your views say otherwise.

So sometimes that can make it difficult for an MP to truly represent their constituents and their own ideas.

There can be political disagreements which can block decisions.

So an example obviously being with Brexit, which then resulted in direct democracy and a referendum being used anyway.

So sometimes it can take longer.

Now with that as well in terms of weaknesses, actually the EU referendum had an 84% turnout, which is a lot of people.

So is that suggesting that the people do want to take part in decisions and they don't want people representing them instead? That one, you can see what you think for that.

So moving on to first-past-the-post.

Now first-past-the-post, remembering this is the type of voting system.

The strengths we've got of this.

It's clear and simple to follow.

At the end, race to the end, whoever's over the line first they win, which allows quick results and then a quick transfer of government because we know they've got the most votes they're coming in.

It allows for close bonds with constituents, it allows for, you know, you've got one person, they most likely are gonna be around the local area or know the local area and they can then bond with their constituents and it helps to provide a stable government.

So for example, Labour won 411 seats out of the 650 in the 2024 general election, which is then a majority.

So then it's stable in the sense that the majority of them should have similar ideas that they want to get in place.

The weaknesses that you've got here, there's sometimes something called wasted votes or people might think, "Oh well there's no point in voting because so-and-so's gonna get in so my vote's just gonna be wasted." Whereas in a direct democracy, every vote helps to make up that percentage of who gets in.

Now this can mean that there's a lack of small party representation.

So the smaller parties might not get many seats in parliament and in the House of Commons.

And also another weakness is actually the, since 1997 the turnout for general elections has been declining.

An example is that only 59.

7% of those people registered to vote turned up to vote, which was the lowest we've seen since 2001.

So with that in mind it's like, actually, do people really agree with the system? Why aren't people turning out to vote? So that's a weakness there.

Quick check for understanding, 'cause that was a lot there.

So first-past-the-post produces quick results.

Is that true or false? It is true.

Why is it true? It produces quick results 'cause it only counts the number of votes for each candidate in a constituency.

The one with the most votes wins.

There's no need for complicated calculations.

So we've got two key features left.

Do you remember the next one? It's media freedom.

So strengths of media freedom, open sharing of ideas, collective knowledge and understanding, communication with government representatives.

So it's all this idea that if we've got a free media, the media is, you know, conversations can go back and forth, people can find out different information from different areas and, as well, you know, people can speak to the government and ask them questions as well as scrutinising what they are doing.

The weaknesses of media freedom is that some media outlets might be biassed and favour political parties.

Some people might not always realise that as well, so they might not be sure and not aware that they're getting biassed information.

There could be an influence of wealthy owners 'cause obviously the media is owned privately and they could pay an influence in that bias.

A spread of misinformation, again, more so especially with social media now, which is this idea of people unaware they are just sharing false or inaccurate information.

So it is that, you know, people just press the share button, the message is out there but actually that message that was given in the first place was incorrect.

The final key feature is lowering the voting age.

So it's that idea of the voting age.

Now these strengths for lowering, it continues to improve democracy and give better representation, especially for young people and ensure their ideas and views are given and shown in parliament.

Obviously the example there being 89% of 16- and 17-year-olds registered to vote.

So when we look at actually, for example, you know, only having an average of 59% turnout, whereas you've got even higher percentage of younger people registering to vote in Scotland.

So that suggests that that could increase participation.

And then you've got the three weaknesses here.

So actually full citizenship rights are obtained at 18, so you're not legally an adult until 18 so the voting age should be the same and that those under 18 could easily be influenced, especially if they're still living at home, they're still in education.

So it's wait until they're 18 until they can make an informed decision themselves.

And there's been an idea of low support for lowering the voting age.

What percentage of 16- and 17-year-olds registered to vote in the Scottish referendum? Was it, A, 69%, B, 79%, or C, 89%? It was C, 89% which, again, is very high and so it supports that argument of lowering the voting age.

Second task.

So what are the pros and cons of democracy in the UK? Can you give at least one pro and one con in the UK of democracy in the UK for the following topics: representative democracy, first-past-the-post, media freedom, and lowering the voting age.

So if you take some time and then we'll come back and we can go through them.

Obviously feel free to lay this out in whatever format suits you.

How did you get on with that? Like I said, I mean you could present it in any way.

Here's an example if you have put it in like a table format.

So we've got a pro of represented democracy which is; allows elected officials to make informed decisions on behalf of the public.

A con is MPs may not always reflect the view of their constituents.

Pro of first-past-the-post; is it's simple, quick to understand, produce fast results.

Con is smaller parties can be underrepresented.

Media freedom; a pro it allows for a range of opinions to be shared.

Obviously the con being a risk of spreading misinformation or fake news.

And then pro of lowering the voting age obviously shows the high engagement in the Scottish referendum of 16- and 17-year-olds.

A con, 16- and 17-year-olds might be easily influenced.

How did you get on with that? Hopefully now you can use the information from this as we go into our final lesson outline, which is does the UK democratic system need to change? We'll start with what is electoral reform? Have you heard of that before? So a reform makes changes in order to make improvements, and electoral reform specifically looks at changing the electoral system.

Do you remember what electoral system is used in the UK at the moment? That is first-past-the-post.

So in terms of an electoral reform, that would be changing it from first-past-the-post to proportional representation.

Now proportional representation is where a percentage of each vote makes up the winner.

So then it's seen as a bit more of a fairer system.

We've also got increasing the use of referendums and we've got lowering the voting age.

Yeah, we will look at these in more detail.

So true or false? Electoral reform in the UK could involve moving from first-past-the-post to proportional representation.

That is true.

Why? It's about making change and improvement to the current system.

And the UK is currently a first-past-the-post system.

So reasons why the democratic system should stay the same.

Some say that the first-past-the-post system creates a clear majority, so it helps to keep that stable system rather than having lots and lots of little parties and then, you know, maybe a like more coalition governments.

You tend to get more of a majority with the first-past-the-post system.

Citizens elect MPs to represent their interests, ensure decisions are made by knowledgeable individuals.

So again, it comes back to that idea that we were talking about earlier where the MPs, it is their job, so they'll take more time to find out about it.

Why shouldn't it stay the same? Looking at the press, they play a crucial role in holding the politicians accountable and informing the public.

Then general and local elections allow citizens to have a say.

On the other side, why do you think the UK democratic system might change? Some say when we, like, when we were talking about first-past-the-post underrepresents smaller parties.

So for example, Labour only had 33.

7% of the vote share yet they won 411 out of 650 seats in 2024 election.

If there was proportional representation, then that would make every votes count and give smaller parties a voice because in that case Labour would've had 33.

7% of the seats.

So it would've been roughly, you know, maybe just under 200 seats rather than 411 that they did win.

Why should it change? Some say that allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote could engage young people to get more involved in democracy.

And why should it change in terms of the media freedom? Stronger regulations of the media could ensure a fairer coverage.

And then also the MPs don't always represent their constituents views.

So again, you know, sometimes if they're influenced heavy by their party and sticking with their decisions, then they might not be representing their constituents, which could highlight the need for a direct democracy where more referendums could be used to engage constituents and then the constituents would get to vote.

Such as the example, obviously, with the high turnout for the EU referendum.

So why would lowering the voting age to 16 encourage young people to get more involved in a democracy? So A, it would make young people feel their opinions are valued in society and politics, it could make young people feel overwhelmed by the complexity of political issues, or it would make young people feel disconnected from the voting process.

It is A, so it would support them with the values in society to feel valued.

Final task for the session.

So we've looked at various of keeping the democratic system and changing it.

Now Jun and Sofia preparing to share speeches on if the UK democratic system needs to change.

Jun says, "I'm arguing that electoral reform is needed in the UK." Sofia says, "I'm arguing that the current system works well." First of all, for you to decide who you agree with more and then write their speech.

You need to include the following.

So an introduction to what democracy in the UK looks like, so that's it currently.

And then your first reason with evidence of whether you are keeping the current system or changing it, another reason with evidence, and then conclude from your point of view.

So obviously whether you are deciding to write on behalf of Jun or Sofia.

So if you take some time now, you can plan your speech first and then write it, and then we can come back and I can show you some examples of speeches.

How did that go? Did you manage to get your speech done? If you chose to agree with Sofia and you think that the system works well, then you could have said it works well because we have a representative democracy and representatives who are elected by the constituents every five years.

Having regular elections is vital in a democracy as it ensures we have accountable MPs who represent each local area.

Keeping the voting age at 18 ensures voters have the maturity to make informed decisions.

Therefore, having a representative democracy with regular elections can ensure that the wishes of the public and party's promises are fulfilled.

Did you have something similar? If you chose to agree with Jun, you could have said that in the UK, democracy allows citizens to vote for their leaders through regular elections.

However, the first-past-the-post system often distorts results with smaller parties underrepresented.

For example, Labour only had 33.

7% of the vote share but won 411 out of 650 seats in the 2024 general election.

Additionally, lowering the voting age to 16 could help younger voters engage in politics.

Media freedom is crucial in ensuring fair, unbiased reporting for all.

Electoral reform is therefore essential to create a fairer, more inclusive democracy.

Hopefully you had a chance there to decide where you agreed with more and also come to some sort of conclusion on whether you believe the UK's democracy needs reform.

That brings us to the end of this session.

So we're just gonna quickly summarise and recap some of the points that we've gone through, which is key areas of democracy in the UK include: representative democracy, the first-past-the-post system, media freedom, and the voting age.

Now some believe that the electoral system should stay the same because it helps to create a stable system and hold MPs accountable.

Some believe that the electoral system could be reformed because smaller parties are underrepresented in the House of Commons.

And by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote, it could engage young people more in democracy.

So that is the summary, and as I said before, hopefully you've made up your own mind on this stance, or maybe you might wanna look into it further and see if there's any other ideas that you could come up with for this.

I hope you found the session useful and enjoy the rest of your day.