Alternative electoral systems | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: Nov 2
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 75–90 minutes
Alternative electoral systems are a key part of Edexcel A-Level Politics because different methods of turning votes into election results can affect representation and voter choice. This Alternative electoral systems A-Level Politics revision page examines the Additional Member System (AMS), Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Supplementary Vote (SV), including exactly how each operates and its main strengths and weaknesses. Understanding these systems builds directly on First-past-the-post and prepares you to evaluate electoral reform in Comparing electoral systems.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define Additional Member System, Single Transferable Vote and Supplementary Vote.
Explain how votes are converted into electoral outcomes under AMS, STV and SV.
Compare the main characteristics of the three electoral systems.
Analyse how each system can affect voter choice and party representation.
Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of AMS, STV and SV.
Apply knowledge of alternative electoral systems when assessing the case for electoral reform.
Revision Notes 📚
What alternative electoral systems do you need to know?
Edexcel requires knowledge and understanding of four electoral systems:
First-past-the-post (FPTP)
Additional Member System (AMS)
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Supplementary Vote (SV)
You must understand their operation and their advantages and disadvantages. The specification then requires comparison of FPTP with an electoral system used in a devolved parliament or assembly and analysis of how electoral systems affect government, party representation and voter choice.
This means you should not revise AMS, STV and SV simply as three voting procedures. You also need to ask:
How much choice does the voter have?
How accurately are different political parties represented?
Is there a clear link between voters and representatives?
How simple is the system?
What kinds of political outcomes can the system encourage?
These wider consequences are developed further in electoral system consequences.
Additional Member System (AMS)
The Additional Member System (AMS) is a hybrid electoral system. It combines two different elements within the same election.
Pearson's specification states that voters make two choices:
The voter selects a representative using a simple plurality, First-past-the-post system.
The voter makes a second choice which is apportioned to a party list for an additional representative.
AMS therefore combines aspects of constituency representation with an additional mechanism designed to improve party representation.
How AMS operates
The essential process is:
First vote: voters choose a constituency candidate.
The constituency election operates using FPTP.
Second vote: voters choose a political party.
Additional representatives are allocated through the party-list element.
The list seats can compensate parties that receive significant overall support but have not performed as strongly in the constituency contests.
The 2020 Edexcel mark scheme explicitly identifies this compensatory effect, explaining that AMS combines an FPTP vote with a list vote that can compensate parties which have a significant overall vote but do less well at constituency level.
This is why AMS is described as a hybrid system. It contains both:
a constituency element based on plurality voting;
a party-list element.
Advantages of AMS
It can produce more representative party outcomes
The party-list element can compensate parties that have substantial electoral support but win fewer constituency seats.
This can mean that a wider range of political parties gains representation.
Edexcel's 2020 mark scheme identifies this as a significant effect of AMS on party representation.
Evaluation: The compensatory element makes AMS more capable than pure FPTP of reflecting different levels of party support. However, AMS does not guarantee that no party will dominate an elected body.
It retains constituency representation
Part of the election still operates through FPTP.
This means voters continue to elect identifiable constituency representatives while also participating in the party-list element.
AMS therefore attempts to combine two goals:
local representation
broader party representation
This can be seen as a compromise between the strong constituency link associated with FPTP and the more representative outcomes associated with proportional systems.
Evaluation: The hybrid nature of AMS is one of its greatest strengths, but it can also create additional complexity because representation comes through two different routes.
Voters make two choices
AMS allows voters to make separate decisions about a constituency representative and a political party.
A voter is therefore not restricted to making a single electoral choice.
This can expand voter choice because the voter's candidate preference and party preference do not have to be treated as the same decision.
Evaluation: Greater choice can increase the voter's ability to express political preferences, although having two different votes also makes AMS less immediately straightforward than FPTP.
It can widen political representation
Alternative electoral systems can make it easier for parties beyond the largest parties to gain representation.
The 2022 examination source argued that proportional systems allow the voices of additional parties to enter political debate and government.
This connects electoral systems with the growing significance of smaller political parties.
Evaluation: Electoral systems matter, but they do not determine party success completely. The 2020 mark scheme notes that political dominance can continue even when AMS is used.
Disadvantages of AMS
It is more complicated than FPTP
Instead of casting one vote in one constituency contest, voters make two different choices that contribute to representation in different ways.
Students therefore need to distinguish carefully between:
the constituency vote;
the party-list vote.
Evaluation: Greater complexity does not automatically make an electoral system inferior. The question is whether the additional complexity is justified by improved voter choice or representation.
It can create different types of representative
AMS produces representatives elected through constituency contests and additional representatives arising from the party-list element.
Critics can argue that this makes political accountability less straightforward than a system in which every representative reaches office through the same process.
Evaluation: Supporters can respond that the two types of representation serve different purposes. Constituency members preserve local representation, while additional members improve party representation.
It does not guarantee the end of party dominance
A proportional or partly proportional electoral system does not automatically create a perfectly balanced multi-party system.
The 2020 Edexcel mark scheme notes that AMS has still been associated with periods in which one party has been politically dominant.
Evaluation: This is important because it shows that electoral systems influence political outcomes but do not completely determine them. Party popularity and voting behaviour still matter.
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than making only one choice.
Voters can indicate:
first preference;
second preference;
third preference;
further preferences if desired.
To be elected, a candidate must obtain a quota.
The Pearson specification explains that:
candidates reaching the required quota can be elected;
votes above the quota can be transferred;
candidates with the fewest votes can be eliminated;
their votes can also be transferred according to voters' further preferences.
The process continues until the available seats are filled.
How STV operates
The key stages are:
Voters rank candidates numerically according to preference.
A quota for election is established.
Candidates who achieve the required quota are elected.
Votes above the required quota can be transferred according to further preferences.
Candidates with the fewest votes can be eliminated.
Their votes are transferred according to the next available preferences.
The process continues until the required representatives have been elected.
For Edexcel, the important point is the process of ranking and transferring preferences. The specification does not require a mathematical formula for calculating the quota.
STV in Northern Ireland
STV is used for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Edexcel's 2020 mark scheme explains that STV was specifically selected in Northern Ireland to capture a wide spread of party support.
The 2022 examination source similarly described STV in Northern Ireland as a system that gives voters greater choice and allows a wider political voice to be represented.
This example becomes particularly important when you move to direct comparison with FPTP.
Advantages of STV
Voters have considerable choice
STV does not force voters to make only one choice.
Instead, voters can rank candidates according to preference.
This can provide a much fuller expression of voter opinion than a single-choice system.
For example, a voter may strongly prefer one candidate but still express which other candidates they would rather see elected if their first preference cannot succeed.
Evaluation: Greater voter choice is one of STV's clearest strengths, although it also means the voting and counting process is more complex.
Voters can choose between candidates, not just parties
STV can capture differences both between parties and within parties.
The 2020 mark scheme states that STV can represent different political parties and "shades of opinion" within them. It can therefore increase the importance of individual candidates and personalities.
This gives voters greater influence over which candidates are elected rather than leaving the selection of representatives entirely to political parties.
Evaluation: Greater candidate choice may strengthen voter influence, although it may also make contests between candidates from the same party more significant.
Transfers reduce the importance of a single first choice
If a voter's preferred candidate cannot be elected, their later preferences may still influence the result.
Similarly, votes above an elected candidate's quota can be transferred.
This means that electoral influence is not restricted solely to the first preference.
Evaluation: This can make STV more responsive to the range of voter preferences, although the transfer process makes the final result more difficult to calculate than under FPTP.
It can encourage wider party representation
STV can enable a wider range of political support to gain representation.
The 2020 mark scheme specifically links STV with capturing a spread of party support in Northern Ireland.
This is particularly relevant to a multi-party political system.
Evaluation: Wider party representation does not mean that every political group will necessarily receive representation, nor does the electoral system alone determine which parties succeed.
Disadvantages of STV
It is more complicated to operate
STV involves:
ranked preferences;
a quota;
transfers of votes;
elimination of candidates;
redistribution of preferences.
This makes the count less immediately straightforward than the simple plurality rule used by FPTP.
Evaluation: Complexity must be weighed against the additional information STV obtains about voters' preferences. A simple electoral system is not necessarily more representative.
The constituency link is different from FPTP
STV can result in several representatives being returned from the same electoral area rather than one MP being solely responsible for one constituency.
This can weaken the clarity of the single representative-constituency relationship associated with FPTP.
Evaluation: Multiple representatives can also increase voter choice because voters may have several elected politicians through whom they are represented. The same characteristic can therefore be interpreted as either an advantage or a disadvantage.
Candidate competition may increase
Because voters can distinguish between candidates from the same party, individual candidate reputation and personality can become more significant.
The Edexcel 2020 mark scheme identifies this as a feature of STV.
Evaluation: This may reduce the control of party organisations and strengthen voter choice, but it can also increase competition between candidates who nominally represent the same political party.
Supplementary Vote (SV)
The Supplementary Vote (SV) is different from AMS and STV because Pearson classifies it as a majoritarian electoral system, not a proportional system.
This distinction is extremely important.
The voter makes two choices:
a first choice;
a supplementary choice.
If one candidate receives more than 50% on the first vote, that candidate wins immediately.
If nobody receives more than 50%:
all candidates except the top two are eliminated;
supplementary choices are redistributed where they support one of the remaining two candidates;
the candidate with the most votes after redistribution wins.
The specification also states that the use of SV for mayors and police and crime commissioners was ended by the Elections Act 2022.
How Supplementary Vote works: worked example
Consider this fictional first-preference result:
Candidate | First-preference votes |
Candidate A | 42,000 |
Candidate B | 36,000 |
Candidate C | 14,000 |
Candidate D | 8,000 |
There are 100,000 votes.
No candidate has received more than 50%, so the election continues.
Candidates C and D are eliminated because only the top two candidates, A and B, remain.
Suppose the relevant supplementary preferences from voters who supported C or D are:
Supplementary preference | Votes transferred |
Candidate A | 4,000 |
Candidate B | 12,000 |
No transferable preference to A or B | 6,000 |
The final totals are therefore:
Candidate A: (42,000 + 4,000 = 46,000)
Candidate B: (36,000 + 12,000 = 48,000)
Candidate B wins despite placing second on first preferences because Candidate B receives the larger total after supplementary choices are redistributed.
This demonstrates why understanding the second-choice stage is essential.
Advantages of Supplementary Vote
Voters have more than one choice
Unlike FPTP, SV allows voters to indicate an additional preference.
A voter's influence may therefore continue even if their first-choice candidate is eliminated.
Evaluation: This provides greater choice than a one-vote plurality system, but it offers less extensive preference ranking than STV.
It encourages candidates to seek broader support
If no candidate initially receives more than 50%, supplementary votes can determine which of the top two candidates wins.
Candidates therefore benefit from being acceptable as an alternative choice to voters whose preferred candidate is eliminated.
Evaluation: This can broaden the basis of support for a successful candidate, but SV still remains a winner-takes-all majoritarian system rather than a proportional one.
It retains a single winning candidate
SV still produces one successful candidate for the elected position.
This keeps accountability relatively straightforward because voters can clearly identify the winner.
Evaluation: This clarity comes at the cost of proportional representation because all other candidates remain unelected.
Disadvantages of Supplementary Vote
SV is not proportional
Supplementary Vote is a majoritarian system.
It should not be grouped with AMS and STV simply because all three provide voters with more choice than FPTP.
The 2022 examiner report identified a specific misconception in which students incorrectly described SV as proportional.
Evaluation: SV may broaden voter choice, but it is not designed to distribute representation proportionally between political parties.
Not every supplementary choice necessarily affects the final contest
Once the field is reduced to two candidates, the decisive contest is between those two.
A supplementary choice only helps determine the winner if it can be transferred to one of the remaining candidates.
Evaluation: This means SV provides more voter choice than FPTP, but less complete preference transfer than STV.
Smaller candidates are eliminated
If nobody wins outright in the first round, every candidate except the two leading contenders is removed from the contest.
This means alternative political preferences can still disappear from the final stage.
Evaluation: This may help produce a decisive result, but it does not provide the wider party representation associated with proportional systems.
Comparing AMS, STV and SV
The three systems are sometimes grouped together simply because they differ from FPTP. This is not enough at A-Level.
You need to understand their important differences.
Characteristic | AMS | STV | SV |
Type of system | Hybrid | Preferential system involving transferable votes | Majoritarian |
Voter choice | Two choices | Candidates ranked numerically | Two choices |
Constituency element | Includes an FPTP constituency vote | Representatives elected through ranked preferences | One winning candidate |
Party-list element | Yes | No | No |
Transfer of preferences | No STV-style transfer | Yes | Supplementary choice can be redistributed |
Quota required | No quota specified | Yes | No |
Designed to widen party representation | Yes, through additional members | Can represent a wider spread of preferences | Not a proportional system |
Single winning candidate | Not across the whole system | No, representatives can be elected through the quota process | Yes |
Key strength | Combines constituency and broader party representation | Extensive voter choice | Combines a decisive winner with a second voter choice |
Key weakness | More complex and creates two routes to representation | More complex count and less clear single-member link | Limited choice compared with STV and not proportional |
Which system gives voters the greatest choice?
This depends on what is meant by choice.
AMS
The voter has two separate choices:
constituency representative;
political party.
This allows the voter to express different preferences in different parts of the election.
STV
The voter can rank several candidates.
This provides the greatest opportunity of the three systems to express a sequence of candidate preferences.
STV also allows voters to distinguish between candidates from the same party.
SV
The voter has a first and supplementary choice.
This gives more choice than a one-vote system, but fewer preference options than STV.
A strong comparison might therefore conclude:
STV provides the greatest depth of candidate choice, while AMS provides a distinctive form of choice by separating the constituency and party dimensions of the vote. SV gives voters an additional preference but remains much more limited.
Which system is most proportional?
Be careful with this question.
AMS and STV are associated with attempts to achieve broader representation than FPTP.
However:
AMS combines constituency and list elements.
STV transfers voter preferences between candidates.
SV is majoritarian, not proportional.
Edexcel's 2022 paper explicitly contrasted FPTP with proportional systems used in devolved institutions and identified AMS and STV as examples relevant to this debate.
The key point is not simply to describe all alternative systems as "PR".
⚠️ SV must not be described as proportional representation.
Alternative systems and party representation
The electoral system can affect which political parties gain representation.
Under AMS
The additional-member element can compensate parties that receive substantial party support without winning enough constituency contests.
Under STV
The transfer of preferences can allow a broader spread of political support and different opinions within parties to be reflected.
Under SV
The contest eventually narrows to two candidates, meaning SV is not designed to provide proportional party representation.
This is why electoral systems connect directly to your study of party representation and government outcomes.
However, electoral systems do not completely determine outcomes.
The Edexcel 2020 mark scheme explicitly allows the argument that AMS has not always prevented one party from dominating and that patterns of representation can sometimes remain similar despite different systems.
A high-level answer therefore avoids statements such as:
"PR always produces lots of equally powerful parties."
Instead, argue that electoral systems influence the way votes translate into representation, while voting behaviour and the distribution of party support also matter.
Alternative electoral systems and government
Different electoral systems can influence the type of government that emerges.
Systems that broaden party representation may make it more likely that several parties hold significant numbers of seats.
This can contribute to political circumstances in which:
no single party has a majority;
parties cooperate;
coalition government becomes possible.
However, these outcomes are not automatic.
The 2022 examiner report warned against simply assuming that coalition government is necessarily undesirable. Strong evaluation should consider the possibility that coalition government involves compromise rather than treating it automatically as political weakness.
This prepares you for the fuller analysis required in government types and electoral systems.
Advantages and disadvantages at a glance
System | Main advantages | Main disadvantages |
AMS | Combines constituency and additional representation; can compensate parties under-represented in constituency contests; voters make two choices; can widen party representation | More complex than FPTP; creates different routes to election; does not guarantee an end to party dominance |
STV | Voters rank preferences; preferences can transfer; considerable candidate choice; can represent a wider spread of political opinion | More complex counting process; less clear single-member constituency relationship; can increase competition between candidates within parties |
SV | Two voter choices; can allow supplementary preferences to affect the result; retains a clear single winner | Not proportional; only top two remain after the first stage; some supplementary choices may have no effect; less extensive choice than STV |
Overall assessment of alternative electoral systems
There is no single "best" electoral system in the specification.
Each system gives priority to different goals.
If your priority is... | System with a particularly relevant feature |
Combining local and party representation | AMS |
Allowing voters to rank several candidates | STV |
Providing extensive voter preference | STV |
Giving voters separate candidate and party choices | AMS |
Producing one identifiable winner while giving a second choice | SV |
Broadening party representation | AMS and STV |
Keeping the voting procedure relatively limited in the number of preferences | SV |
A strong evaluation should therefore identify the criterion being used.
For example:
If proportional party representation is the priority, AMS or STV has stronger claims than SV.
If extensive voter choice is the priority, STV is particularly strong.
If retaining a clear single winner is the priority, SV has an advantage.
If the goal is to combine constituency representation with an additional mechanism to improve party representation, AMS is specifically designed to do this.
The next stage of your revision is to apply these criteria directly when comparing alternative systems with FPTP.
The system definitions reflect the Edexcel specification glossary.
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Do not simply describe AMS or STV and assume that this counts as evaluation. In 2022, many candidates explained the operation of alternative electoral systems but did not show why their characteristics made them more or less successful than FPTP. Stronger responses made direct comparisons and used those comparisons to reach a substantiated judgement.
Examiner hint: Learn the classifications accurately. The 2022 examiner report specifically identified candidates incorrectly describing Supplementary Vote as proportional. SV is a majoritarian system.
Examiner hint: Avoid generic statements about "PR". Examiners praised candidates who understood the actual operation of AMS and STV and could relate their distinctive features to representation. Weaker responses simply listed general strengths of proportional representation.
Examiner hint: When a question requires reference to a devolved parliament or assembly, deal with that instruction directly. In the 2022 examination, many students discussed whether FPTP should be replaced but failed to develop the required comparison with a system operating in a devolved region.
Examiner hint: Do not automatically assume that coalition government is a disadvantage. The 2022 report noted that students often treated coalitions as inherently undesirable without analysing whether compromise and cooperation might also be beneficial.
Examiner hint: Pair arguments rather than writing completely separate descriptions. For example, compare AMS's additional representation directly with its greater complexity, or STV's increased voter choice directly with its more complicated counting process. This makes AO2 analysis and AO3 evaluation much clearer.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Calling Supplementary Vote a proportional system
Why this is incorrect: The Edexcel specification explicitly defines SV as a majoritarian system. It eventually produces one winner from the two candidates remaining after the first stage.
How to improve: Remember:
AMS and STV can be discussed in relation to proportional representation. SV is majoritarian.
This misconception was specifically identified by examiners in 2022.
Mistake: Confusing AMS with STV
Why this is incorrect: AMS uses two different electoral components, including a constituency vote and a party-list element. STV instead asks voters to rank candidates and transfers preferences during the count.
How to improve:
Use the memory rule:
AMS = two components
STV = ranked and transferred preferences
Mistake: Saying STV gives voters only two choices
Why this is incorrect: That describes SV more closely. STV allows candidates to be ranked numerically in preference order.
How to improve: Associate STV with a sequence of preferences rather than simply a first and second choice.
Mistake: Saying every second choice counts under SV
Why this is incorrect: After the first stage, only the two leading candidates remain. Supplementary preferences affect the final contest when they can be transferred to one of those remaining candidates.
How to improve: Always explain the elimination stage before explaining redistribution.
Mistake: Assuming AMS always prevents one-party dominance
Why this is incorrect: An electoral system influences representation but does not completely determine voting behaviour or party success.
Edexcel's mark schemes recognise that significant party dominance can still occur under AMS.
How to improve: Write that AMS can broaden representation, rather than claiming it guarantees a balanced multi-party outcome.
Mistake: Treating every alternative electoral system as basically the same
Why this is incorrect: AMS, STV and SV operate differently and prioritise different electoral objectives.
How to improve:
Compare them according to specific criteria:
voter choice;
party representation;
constituency representation;
complexity;
method of selecting winners.
Mistake: Describing systems without making comparisons
Why this is incorrect: A question asking you to evaluate electoral systems requires more than three separate descriptions.
How to improve: Build paired comparisons:
STV gives voters greater opportunity to express several preferences than SV, because STV allows candidates to be ranked and preferences transferred through several stages. However, this makes STV more complicated to count, whereas SV narrows the contest to two candidates after the first stage.
That is analysis rather than description.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define the Additional Member System (AMS). (1 mark)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer: A hybrid electoral system in which voters make two choices, one for a representative through FPTP and another linked to a party list for additional representatives.
Question 2
Explain how Single Transferable Vote (STV) operates. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Credit developed points such as:
voters rank candidates numerically in order of preference;
candidates require a quota to be elected;
votes above the quota can be transferred;
candidates with the fewest votes can be eliminated;
their votes can be transferred according to further preferences;
the process continues until the required representatives are elected.
Question 3
Consider the following fictional Supplementary Vote result.
Candidate | First preferences |
A | 44,000 |
B | 32,000 |
C | 15,000 |
D | 9,000 |
No candidate has received more than 50%.
Explain what happens next under Supplementary Vote. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer:
Candidates C and D are eliminated because only the two leading candidates remain. (1)
Candidate A and Candidate B proceed to the final stage. (1)
Relevant supplementary preferences from voters whose first choice has been eliminated are redistributed between the remaining candidates. (1)
The remaining candidate with the greatest final total wins. (1)
Question 4
Explain two differences between AMS and STV. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Possible comparisons include:
Difference 1:
AMS gives voters separate constituency and party-list choices.
STV instead allows voters to rank candidates numerically.
Difference 2:
AMS combines an FPTP element with additional representatives.
STV elects candidates through a quota and transfers of preferences.
Other accurate, developed comparisons should be credited.
Question 5
A fictional political party receives substantial support across an election but performs poorly in constituency contests.
Analyse how AMS might affect the party's representation compared with a system based entirely on constituency plurality results. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response could explain:
AMS contains an additional party-list element.
This can compensate parties which gain significant overall support but perform less successfully in constituency contests.
The party may therefore gain additional representation through the list element.
This can produce a wider spread of party representation than a system based only on FPTP constituency victories.
However, the precise political outcome still depends on voting patterns and AMS does not guarantee that no party will dominate.
Question 6
Explain why Supplementary Vote should not be described as a system of proportional representation. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Credit should be given for explaining that:
SV is classified by Edexcel as a majoritarian system.
It is designed to select one winning candidate.
If nobody wins more than 50% initially, all candidates except the top two are eliminated.
Relevant supplementary choices are then redistributed between the remaining candidates.
The candidate with the most votes wins.
It does not allocate seats between parties according to their overall share of electoral support.
Question 7
Read the following source.
Supporters of alternative electoral systems argue that voters should be able to express more than one preference and that elected bodies should reflect a wider range of political opinion. AMS can combine constituency representatives with additional party representation, while STV allows voters to rank candidates and transfer preferences.Critics argue that these systems are more complicated than simple plurality voting. AMS creates representatives elected through different routes, while STV involves quotas, eliminations and vote transfers. Greater proportionality or voter choice may therefore come at the cost of simplicity and clear accountability.
Using the source, evaluate the view that greater voter choice is more important than simplicity when choosing an electoral system.
In your response you must:
compare and contrast the different opinions in the source;
examine and debate these views in a balanced way;
analyse and evaluate the information presented in the source.
(30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response could develop three paired debates.
Choice versus simplicity
STV provides several ranked preferences.
However, transfers and quotas make its operation more complicated.
Judgement should assess whether fuller expression of voter preferences justifies that complexity.
Representation versus accountability
AMS can improve party representation through additional members.
However, representatives reach office through different electoral routes.
Judgement should assess whether broader representation outweighs concerns about clarity of accountability.
Different types of choice
AMS separates candidate and party choice.
STV allows multiple candidate preferences.
SV provides only a first and supplementary choice.
Judgement should recognise that "voter choice" does not mean the same thing under every electoral system.
A strong overall judgement should identify which criterion is most important rather than simply listing advantages and disadvantages.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that STV has greater advantages than AMS as an alternative electoral system. (30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments that STV has greater advantages may include:
voters can rank several candidates;
preferences can transfer rather than becoming irrelevant once a candidate is eliminated;
voters can choose between candidates from the same political party;
the system can capture a wide spread of political opinion;
it gives voters considerable control over candidate choice.
Arguments supporting AMS may include:
AMS combines a constituency representative with additional party representation;
it retains the familiar FPTP constituency element;
the additional element can compensate parties under-represented in constituency contests;
voters make separate constituency and party choices;
its hybrid nature can balance local and party representation.
Evaluation should also recognise disadvantages:
both systems are more complicated than FPTP;
STV involves quota calculations and transfers;
AMS produces representatives through different routes;
neither system guarantees a particular party system or type of government.
For a strong judgement: decide what an electoral system should prioritise. If maximum voter control over candidate preference is most important, STV has a strong advantage. If combining constituency representation with improved party representation is the priority, AMS may provide the stronger balance.
Comments