wider franchise and debates over suffrage 1.2

for prisoner voting

• Democracy is a representation of the people, hence, denying prisoners the right to vote undermines democratic principles

• Primary goal of the justice system is rehabilitation- offenders who have a stake in society tend to respond better to rehabilitation.

• This right helps maintain prisoners sense of civic identity

• Prisons are affected by governmental policy

• Hirst vs UK posed it as unlawful for a blanket ban

• loads of minorities in prison - loads of these people’s views will be disregarded

• 27% of people in UK prisons identified as being from a minority ethnic group,

against prisoner voting

• UK reoffending rates are extremely high

• Prisoners sacrifice/forfeit their right to vote as a punishment- this right is only deserved by law-abiding citizens

• Denying the right to vote may act as a deterrent- discouraging criminal behaviour

• 26% reoffended uk in 2022/3

for compulsory voting

• Increased turnout – more of the population, wider views – since 1918 it has not risen above 82.6% (1951), decreased 2019 – 67.3%, 59.8% 2024

• No discrimination – equality, minority groups

• Politicians- increased accountability- much wider range of citizens with different views that vote - ignoring votes - prove very unpopular – increases democracy

• People who would originally be less motivated, may focus on trying to become more politically educated

• Reduces fraud – introducing form of ID needed

• 2019 - 18-34 years: Approximately 53.6% turnout, significantly lower than older groups.

• 50-64 years: Turnout increased further to 67.8%. - more of the youth need to have a say –will affect them in long run

• 1924 made compulsory in Australia – 1925 – turnout was 91.3%, since then always been over 90%

against compulsory voting

• Possibility for corruption – people could be manipulated/ forced into voting for what they do not believe in

• only 38% people read the news every day

• would have to be significant change in voting system – arguably be expensive + time consuming

  • more important things that gov should be focussing on

• People who are forced to vote may vote whimsically – may have little education on political policies

• May lead to decrease in motivation – idea of free choice taken away – people may care less

• Potential rebelling

• If closed vote, people may be forced for vote for things they do not agree with

for lowering voting age to 16 (Scotland did 2014)

• under 18s have ability to win the Nobel prize, teach graduate level course in nuclear physics, run own schools, work for NASA- should have right to vote

• Young people - adult responsibilities but denied the same rights – millions employed + some are primary caregiver for an ailing family member - 120k 5-17 young carers 2021 census

• make good voters- e.g. voters under 35 had a higher turnout in Scotland’s 2014 referendum election and 2011 elections *

• expected to follow law but have no say in making it- transferred out of juvenile court into adult criminal court – approximately 250,000 people under 18 - tried, sentenced or incarcerated every year in the US

• make voting a long term habit

• 75% indirect 2014 16-18

against lowering voting age to 16

• inconsistent with legal limitations e.g, signing contracts

• Many 16-year-olds lack comprehensive political education, potentially leading to uninformed voting

• Parental influence - 94% 17 year olds lived at home 2024

• Young people may be vulnerable to misinformation and fake news on social media.

• Lowering the voting age may not significantly increase young voter turnout.

for prisoner votes

• EU court of human rights ruled (2005) that this was a breach of human rights Hirst vs UK 2005

  • court ruled that a blanket ban on British prisoners exercising the right to vote is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.

• the right to vote fundamental to democracy- not privilege/ favour 

• reinforces the idea - democratic rights - important responsibility. If criminals see themselves above law, sends strong message - felons are citizens, all in this together, whether like it or not

• each person has committed a different crime- every prisoner is different 

• prisoners are citizens - inclusion in society 

• currently excluded from society -won’t have a place once released, - more likely to reoffend 

against prisoner votes

• if life sentence- won't ever affect you 

• role of prison - strip humans of rights

• swayed by parties’ attitudes towards prisons 

• prisoners - breached others’ human rights so why should they be given the privilege of vote

• decide not to live by society’s rules- forfeit right to have a say in how society is run

• if can only vote out of prison, - incentive to stay out of prison and reform

• Each prisoner - different offense, so unreasonable for all be defined by same voting law

• Political parties look towards particular groups in society – prisoners may not be seen as valuable

• 25% reoffend 2022

for votes for homeless

• Inclusivity and Equality -1 in 182 people in England are homeless today

• Granting homeless individuals the right to vote promotes inclusivity and ensures that all citizens have equal access to their fundamental democratic rights.

• Representation - affected by gov policies + decisions, so should have say in electing representatives -address their concerns

• Human Dignity - Denying vote - undermines human dignity- fundamental right - not be denied based on housing status.

• Political Engagement - encourages become politically engaged + informed

• Legal Precedents - Some countries set legal precedents for recognising their rights as citizens

against homeless voting

• voting should be reserved for residents with stable address- ensures accountability and prevents voter fraud

• Practical Challenges -logistically challenging to register and verify the identities of homeless voters - administrative difficulties

• Legal Complexity - Determining eligibility and addressing legal issues related to voting rights legally complex and require significant resources.

The Great Reform Act (1832)

• was unequal distribution of seats + corruption -demand for parliamentary reform after the French Revolution

• ‘Rotten boroughs’ + limited voting rights - discontent in the pop

• PM Arthur Wellesley opposed reform, but support within party bc potential exploitation of middle-class wealth and influence

• 1830- new PM (Charles Grey) promised reform +1832 Reform Act passed (2 attempts)

• Act disenfranchised 56 boroughs in Eng and Wales, reduced 31 others to 1 MP, created 67 new constituencies

• Property qualifications - broadened to include small landowners, tenant farmers, shopkeepers

• All householders paying rental >£10 + some lodgers gained vote, but women excluded

• Act demonstrated possibility of change, fuelled calls for further reform

Representation of the People Act 1928

• Repealed by: Representation of the People Act 1948

• expanded on the Representation of the People Act 1918.

• Sometimes referred to as the Fifth Reform Act

• Widened suffrage by granting women electoral equality with men.

• Granted the vote to all women over 21 years old, regardless of property ownership.

• Prior to this act, only women over 30 who met minimum property could vote

Representation of the People Act (1969)

• response to radical change of culture, aim - stem rising social and political tension of sixties

• Sometimes known as Sixth Reform Act

• extended the right to vote to those 18 and above

• requiring ballot papers to show name of party + name of the candidate

• abolished plural voting in local gov elections, except in the City of London

• right for undergraduate students to vote in constituency of their uni

• relatively uncontroversial

Work of the Suffragists

- Millicent Fawcett - leader of National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS)

- Middle class women who believed in non-violent means of protest
- peaceful demonstrations, lobbying MPs and petitions
- Aimed for slow reform

Work of the Suffragettes

- Both working and middle class women
- Attacked well known institutions
- Disrupted political meetings
- Emily Davison threw herself under the King's horse in 1913
- Imprisoned suffragettes went on hunger strike
- It is unclear how much of an effect they actually had, potentially alienated some supporters

- Emmeline Pankhurst's Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU)

- It might have been women's willingness to contribute to the economy in WW2 that persuaded politicians that they should be enfranchised