Does Britain suffer from a democratic deficit?

Britain suffers from a democratic deficit resulting in a fall in political participation, undemocratic institutions and the insufficient increased centralization of power. 

Britain suffers from a democratic deficit, through the House of Lords because they are unelected. The Lords are either hereditary, where they inherit their position, or are life peers where they are chosen in regards to their expertise in certain areas. This makes the country a democratic deficit, because these Lords are not elected by the British public, which is what they can do with MPs. This is unfair to the people, as the Lords are able to scrutinise new Bills, and as they are 'not toed to a party', the Lords can express their own opinion. This shows that the Lords only represent themselves or their expertise, not a constituency; British citizens do not have a say. The democratic renewal, is to get rid of the hereditary peers completely, because, although the 1958 and 1999 Acts saw some laws that stopped Lords inherit their position in the House, there are still  92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Also to improve this democratic deficit, the life peers needs to be elected by the people which will be more fair and representative. 

The current voting system, the First Past the Post system (FPTP), also suffers from a democratic deficit because it has caused a decrease in political participation. This voting system is not very democratic because it produces a disproportional result; not only do MPs get elected on small support, but the party that gets the most percentage of votes, wins the election. For example, in the 2015 General Election, the Conservatives won a majority vote of 36.9%, but 63.1% voted for other parties. This means that more electorates did not want the Conservatives to run Britain, but because of the FPTP system, they are running the country; how is this fair? The FPTP voting system also causes partisan dealignment and political apathy which leads to a decline in voter turnout and in party membership, but an increase in pressure groups and membership of smaller political parties. The democratic renewal would be to change the voting system to the Alternative Vote to produce a more fair and proportional result in general elections. To also improve the voter turnout, Britain could make voting compulsory, or even lower the voting age to also lead to an increase in political participation. 

Even though Parliament is a form of true democracy, it is ineffective because the second chamber (House of Lords) is unelected and the scrutiny, of Bills that takes place in Government, by their selected standing committee, weakens the representative role of Parliament, as the people do not get a direct say in what happens to a Bill. Also the government pf the day usually has a majority control over the House of Commons, so a Bill introduced by them, will get a majority vote and will win. This is not fair to other parties who will represent different people in society because their opinions are not being heard in  Parliament. 

Would a change in the voting system improve democracy in the UK?

Currently, the UK uses the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system to elect the representative parties in the general elections, however people have questioned whether it is democratic or not.

This question has been practised in 2011, when a referendum was held to change the voting system to the Alternative Vote. The Alternative Vote is a preferential system, where the voter ranks the candidates in order of preference. For example, they put a number 1 next to their first choice etc, rather than putting an X next to one political party. British citizens showed that they did not want the voting system to be changed to the Alternative Vote because 67.9% voted No and, less than half voted Yes at 32.1%.

A change in the voting system would improve the UK's democracy, because it produces a fairer result and electors can vote for their first choice and last choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.  Also candidates are elected outright if they gain more than half the votes as first preferences. If not, the candidate that loses is eliminated. As a result, the political party that is not the most popular by the people, it will be eliminated.

However, the Alternative Vote may not improve the UK's democracy because the vote is not changed as the electorate votes for their preferred choice, which is almost exactly the same as the FPTP system. Also, the Alternative Vote does not give the electorate a more direct say in politics, as they are voting for the representative parties to represent their constituencies; their preferred and least choice is recognised, not their personal view which is shown through direct democracy and referendums. Also, this voting system can produce a more disproportionate result than FPTP and the least favoured party may be unpopular because of the influence of the media and different opinions.

The Alternative Vote is currently used in Britain to elect the leaders of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats which has proved a success. However, if the Alternative Vote is a better voting system than FPTP, why aren't we using it for the general elections?