How could democracy be improved?

A system that fines people who do not vote, perhaps £20-£50 a time, would encourage more people to vote in elections and referendums.
Since compulsory voting was introduced to Australia in 1924, turnout has never dropped below 91% – would increase the legitimacy of elected representatives as declining turnout undermines the democratic process, particularly in local by-elections, where turnout in 2014 was mostly around 20 or 30%.
People might take a greater interest in political issues if voting was compulsory and might be more inclined to join a pressure group or political party, leading to improved education and participation.
HOWEVER, it does not promote real democratic engagement but just turns voting into one more thing that the state requires us to do.

In the 2015 general election, the Conservatives won a majority of MPs with 36% of the vote. UKIP gained 1 MP with nearly 4 million votes, while the SNP gained 53 seats with fewer than 1.5 million votes.
Changing the voting system to a more proportional one, such as single transferable vote (STV) or closed party list, would distribute votes more fairly, end the problem of safe seats and reduce the number of wasted votes.
However, alternative systems can be confusing and far more complicated than the FPTP system. Proportional systems can lead to extremist parties gaining seats and can weaken the link between a representative and their constituency.

The Conservative government tried to reform the system by introducing ‘English votes for English laws’ (EVEL) in 2015.
However, the whole chamber still votes on the final stages of a bill and which parts of the UK are affected by a bill is often not clear-cut.
The process also runs the risk of creating two types of MPs, which undermines the principle of a legislative chamber.
Another possible reform would be to introduce further devolution to England, either through regional assemblies or through an English assembly or parliament, to mirror the powers of those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
This would leave Westminster as a federal government overseeing national affairs, such as defence and foreign relations. But there is currently little demand for English devolution and when regional devolution was proposed for the northeast in 2004, it was rejected by 77.93%.

Individual rights can too easily be reformed and changed by the government of the day.
The introduction of a codified constitution would help to entrench citizens’ rights and may lead to greater public education, but by transferring sovereignty to a codified constitution rather than an elected parliament, much more power would be transferred to an unelected and unaccountable judiciary.
In addition, an entrenched constitution might make it harder for the government of the day to carry out desirable reforms.