1/11
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai | Chat |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
franchise overview
D: the right and ability to engage in politics and vote in an election
Extending the franchise means increasing the number of people who can vote in elections
problems with the uk franchise
By the early 1800s, only 400,000 people could vote - constituencies were boroughs or countries
Rules meant that some wealthy individuals could vote multiple times, but others could not vote at all
Different boroughs had different rules on who could vote
Small “rotten” boroughs with few people living there had an MP, but growing industrial cities didn’t have enough representation
Constituency reform was needed
Women were excluded, as were many working class men
1832 great reform act
Many rotten boroughs were abolished, and representation was given to urban areas like Manchester
In the counties, more people were given the franchise, like tenant farmers
The Act gave the vote to middle class people in the boroughs, such as small landowners and shopkeepers
Most working men could not vote still because the Act still required property
1918 representation of the people act
The Act let women vote in general elections
These women had to be married, own property or graduates and had to be 30+
All men 21+ were given the vote
The wartime coalition government passed the 1918 Act
The Act passed partly because of pressure to give the vote to working class men without property who had served their country in the army
1928 representation of the people act
The 1928 Act was extended suffrage to all women
The Act was passed under a Conservative government
1969 representation of the people act
The Act lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 following changing attitudes towards adulthood in the UK
The Act was passed under a Labour government
suffragettes overview
Suffragettes such as the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) used direct action and militant methods to show the urgency of women’s suffrage
Militant methods included setting fire to buildings, attacking post boxes, and attempting to hurt politicians
Campaigners were imprisoned for their actions
Suffragettes in prison went on hunger strike and were force-fed
These actions made their struggle public, and many people criticised the Liberal government
suffragists overview
Suffragists tried to achieve the vote using peaceful methods, trying to get a bill passed in the House of Parliament
Suffragists tried to organise cross-party support and convince and lobby politicians of the importance of female suffrage
Suffragists used peaceful demonstrations and gathered support with petitions
Suffragists were successful in getting bills to parliament, but none were made into law
debates over women’s suffrage
Some historians have argued that the Suffragettes were too militant in their actions and actually hindered their cause by alienating the government
However, others argue militancy brought publicity and urgency, helping speed up change
Some historians argue that Suffragists were more effective because they used peaceful methods
However, critics say their methods were slow and less effective in forcing immediate political reform
extending the franchise to 16 year olds
The votes at 16 Coalition is a group run by several different campaign groups, such as the National Union of Students (NUS) and the British Youth Council
The Labour government’s Representation of the People Bill (2024) proposed votes at 16 for UK Parliament elections; it reached second reading in March 2026, with Conservative opposition
arguments for votes at 16
Supporters argue that 16-18 year olds can pay income tax and join the army, but are not represented in Parliament
Young people are taught about citizenship and politics in school, so they may be politically informed
16 and 17 year olds have been able to vote in Scottish and Welsh elections, demonstrating that extending the franchise is practical
arguments against votes at 16
Opponents argue that under 18s are not mature enough to make political decisions
Youth turnout is usually low in elections, so under 18 turnout isn’t expected to be different