Comparing 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
Comparing electoral systems is about much more than remembering how votes are counted. Edexcel requires you to compare First-past-the-post (FPTP) with an electoral system used in a devolved parliament or assembly, explain why different systems operate within the UK and assess arguments for electoral reform. This Comparing electoral systems A-Level Politics revision page focuses particularly on comparing FPTP at Westminster with the Additional Member System (AMS) used for the Scottish Parliament. It builds on how FPTP operates and your knowledge of AMS, STV and SV.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Compare FPTP with AMS as used for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
Explain why different electoral systems are used for different elections within the UK.
Analyse differences in party representation, voter choice and constituency representation.
Explain how electoral systems can influence the type of government formed.
Evaluate arguments for retaining FPTP at Westminster.
Evaluate arguments for replacing FPTP with a more proportional electoral system.
Revision Notes 📚
What does Edexcel require you to compare?
The Electoral Systems section of the specification requires knowledge of:
First-past-the-post (FPTP)
Additional Member System (AMS)
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Supplementary Vote (SV)
the advantages and disadvantages of these systems;
comparison of FPTP with a different electoral system used in a devolved parliament or assembly;
debates about why different electoral systems are used within the UK;
their effects on governments, party representation and voter choice.
This lesson therefore brings together your previous knowledge rather than introducing an entirely new electoral system.
The key exam skill is comparison.
You should not write one paragraph describing FPTP followed by an unrelated paragraph describing AMS. Instead, compare both systems against the same criterion, such as:
proportionality;
voter choice;
constituency representation;
government formation;
accountability;
simplicity;
representation of smaller parties.
This comparative approach will also prepare you for electoral system consequences.
FPTP and AMS: the basic difference
For a clear devolved comparison, the Scottish Parliament provides an important example within the Edexcel materials.
Westminster elections use FPTP, while elections to the Scottish Parliament use the Additional Member System (AMS).
These systems differ fundamentally in how votes become representation.
FPTP | AMS |
A plurality electoral system | A hybrid electoral system |
Voter chooses a constituency candidate | Voter makes two choices |
Candidate with most votes in the constituency wins | One choice elects a constituency representative using FPTP |
One constituency contest determines each seat | A second choice contributes to the party-list element |
No mechanism directly compensates parties for national or regional under-representation | Additional seats can compensate parties receiving significant support but fewer constituency seats |
The specification defines AMS as a hybrid system containing two elements: an FPTP constituency vote and a second choice apportioned to a party list for an additional representative.
This makes AMS particularly useful for comparison because it retains part of FPTP while adding a more proportional element.
Comparison 1: proportionality and party representation
One of the strongest arguments for electoral reform concerns how accurately votes are translated into seats.
FPTP
Under FPTP, each constituency is treated as an independent contest.
The party receiving the most votes nationally is not awarded seats according to its national percentage. Instead, parties must finish first in individual constituencies.
This can produce substantial differences between:
percentage of votes received;
percentage of parliamentary seats won.
Edexcel's examination materials identify FPTP as tending to favour the two major parties and potentially producing distorted party representation.
The 2022 source also identified two notable elections, 1951 and February 1974, in which the party receiving the most votes did not ultimately emerge with the most seats.
AMS
AMS contains a party-list component which can compensate parties that have significant support but perform less successfully in constituency contests.
Edexcel mark-scheme guidance explains that the additional element can provide representation to parties that gain substantial support but fail to achieve equivalent success at constituency level.
This can result in a wider range of parties being represented.
Comparative judgement
AMS is stronger if proportional party representation is the main criterion.
FPTP determines every seat through individual constituency victories, whereas AMS contains a mechanism specifically capable of compensating for disproportional constituency results.
However, AMS does not guarantee that no political party will dominate. Edexcel mark schemes note that Scottish politics has experienced periods of significant SNP dominance despite using AMS.
So the stronger conclusion is:
AMS can make party representation more proportional than FPTP, but electoral systems influence rather than completely determine party success.
Comparison 2: constituency representation
FPTP has a major advantage when the criterion is a clear local relationship between voters and their representative.
FPTP
Every constituency elects one MP.
This creates:
a clearly identifiable representative;
geographical accountability;
a direct link between an MP and a particular constituency.
Edexcel's 2022 mark scheme emphasises the argument that Westminster MPs can act as champions for the needs of their local constituencies and can be clearly identified and held accountable.
AMS
AMS does not eliminate constituency representation.
Part of the Scottish Parliament continues to be elected through constituency contests using FPTP. However, the system also contains additional representatives elected through the party-list element.
This means AMS combines:
constituency representation;
broader party representation.
Comparative judgement
FPTP provides the clearest single-member constituency link, but AMS challenges the argument that proportionality necessarily requires abandoning local representation altogether.
AMS can therefore be viewed as a compromise:
FPTP prioritises a single constituency representative, while AMS attempts to preserve constituency representation while improving wider party representation.
This is one of the strongest reasons AMS provides a useful alternative model in debates over reform.
Comparison 3: voter choice
Electoral systems can influence not only which parties win seats but also the choices available to voters.
FPTP
Under FPTP, the voter makes one choice between constituency candidates.
This is straightforward and creates an obvious relationship between the vote cast and the constituency contest.
However, voters may face limitations in practice.
In a safe seat, a voter supporting another party may have little realistic prospect of contributing to a change of representative.
The specification defines a safe seat as one with a substantial incumbent majority that is largely resistant to changes in voting behaviour. It also states that a majority of Westminster constituencies are safe seats.
AMS
AMS gives the voter two choices:
a constituency choice;
a party-list choice.
This allows voters to distinguish between their preference for an individual constituency representative and their wider party preference.
The list element also provides an additional route through which political preferences can influence representation.
Comparative judgement
AMS provides greater breadth of voter choice because voters can make two separate electoral decisions.
FPTP is simpler, but simplicity and voter choice are not necessarily the same thing.
A strong evaluation might conclude that FPTP provides a clearer choice, while AMS provides a wider choice.
Comparison 4: smaller parties
The effect on smaller political parties is central to the reform debate.
FPTP
A smaller party can receive significant support but gain few seats if that support is spread across many constituencies without allowing it to finish first.
Edexcel's 2021 mark scheme links the rise of multiple parties to arguments for electoral reform, stating that alternative electoral systems in devolved regions can produce more accurate representation of the wider spectrum of political parties.
FPTP can therefore reinforce the representation of larger parties where smaller-party votes are geographically dispersed.
AMS
The party-list element can give smaller parties a better opportunity to secure representation even when they struggle to win constituency contests.
This can widen the range of political voices represented.
This links closely to Britain's developing multi-party system.
Comparative judgement
AMS generally provides a stronger mechanism for translating smaller-party support into seats.
However, students should avoid the opposite oversimplification that AMS automatically produces an evenly balanced multi-party system. The Edexcel mark scheme explicitly recognises continuing party dominance under AMS.
Comparison 5: government formation
A major defence of FPTP is that it can help produce decisive governments.
FPTP
The 2022 Edexcel examination source stated that FPTP had produced governments with working majorities in 18 of the 20 elections since 1945 at that point.
This can provide:
a working parliamentary majority;
clearer responsibility for government;
greater ability to implement a manifesto;
clearer accountability at the next election.
This argument supports the idea that an electoral system should not only represent voters but also produce an effective government.
AMS
Because AMS can broaden party representation, it can contribute to situations where several parties hold significant numbers of seats.
This can make:
minority government;
coalition government;
inter-party cooperation
more likely possibilities.
However, it is important not to make this an absolute rule.
Edexcel's 2022 mark scheme notes that AMS in Scotland has produced both coalition governments and a majority government.
Comparative judgement
FPTP has historically been associated more strongly with working parliamentary majorities, while AMS makes broader party representation possible.
But the trade-off is contestable:
FPTP: potentially greater decisiveness.
AMS: potentially greater representativeness and political compromise.
Neither majority government nor coalition government should automatically be labelled "better".
Comparison 6: accountability
FPTP
When one party forms a majority government, responsibility can be relatively clear.
Voters can identify:
which party formed the government;
which manifesto it was elected on;
who should be rewarded or punished at the next election.
Edexcel mark-scheme guidance identifies this as an important argument for retaining FPTP.
AMS
Where coalition or minority government occurs, political responsibility may become more shared.
Supporters may argue that this encourages:
compromise;
cooperation;
consideration of a wider range of political preferences.
Critics may argue that it makes responsibility harder to identify, particularly where parties negotiate agreements after the election.
Comparative judgement
This is another clash between decisiveness and representativeness.
FPTP may make responsibility clearer, but AMS may ensure that more voters' preferences influence the eventual government.
Comparison 7: simplicity
FPTP
The rule is extremely simple:
the candidate with the most votes wins.
Results can be determined quickly and are easy for voters to understand.
The 2022 Edexcel materials identify simplicity and speed as significant arguments in favour of FPTP.
AMS
AMS asks voters to make two choices and combines constituency results with a party-list process.
It is therefore more complex.
Comparative judgement
FPTP clearly wins on simplicity.
However, the evaluative question is whether simplicity should outweigh representativeness and voter choice.
A system should not necessarily be retained merely because its counting method is easier.
FPTP and AMS compared at a glance
Criterion | FPTP at Westminster | AMS in Scottish Parliament elections |
Type | Plurality | Hybrid |
Votes available to voter | One | Two |
Constituency representation | Very strong single-member link | Retained through constituency element |
Party-list element | No | Yes |
Proportionality | Can produce significant vote-seat disproportionality | Additional element can improve proportionality |
Smaller-party representation | Can disadvantage dispersed support | Additional seats can widen representation |
Voter choice | One constituency choice | Separate constituency and party choices |
Government | Often associated with working majorities | Can produce coalition, minority or majority outcomes |
Accountability | Can be particularly clear under single-party government | Can be shared between parties where cooperation occurs |
Simplicity | Very simple | More complex |
Main strength | Decisiveness and constituency link | Combination of local and broader party representation |
Main criticism | Disproportionality | Greater complexity and different routes to representation |
Why are different electoral systems used within the UK?
The UK does not use one electoral system for every elected institution.
This is connected to the programme of constitutional reform and devolution that took place from 1997 onwards. Electoral reform and devolution are explicitly included within the Edexcel specification's study of constitutional change under Labour between 1997 and 2010.
You will examine that wider constitutional development in post-1997 reform and the structure of devolved government.
For this lesson, the central issue is that different institutions have been associated with different electoral aims.
Westminster: FPTP and decisive government
One argument for continuing to use FPTP at Westminster is that the House of Commons determines who governs the whole UK.
Supporters therefore place particular value on:
working parliamentary majorities;
decisive government;
clear manifesto mandates;
constituency representation;
clear accountability.
The 2022 examination source described FPTP as capable of providing strong government, a close constituency link, simplicity and an ability to remove unsuccessful governments.
This creates a defence of different systems based on the different functions of institutions.
Scotland: AMS and combining forms of representation
AMS provides both:
constituency representatives;
additional party representation.
This creates a balance between the local representation familiar from Westminster elections and an additional mechanism for reflecting wider party support.
Edexcel's 2022 mark scheme presents AMS in Scotland as evidence that an alternative system can operate successfully while combining constituency and list representation.
The system therefore demonstrates that a devolved legislature can prioritise greater proportionality without entirely removing the constituency element.
Northern Ireland: STV and broad representation
The Edexcel materials also identify Northern Ireland as an important example of why a particular electoral system may suit a particular political context.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) allows voters to rank preferences and can represent a wider spread of party opinion.
The 2020 Edexcel mark scheme states that STV was specifically chosen for Northern Ireland to capture the spread of party support.
The 2022 examiner report also praised students who understood that STV was selected for Northern Ireland because it provides wider representation across different political parties.
This demonstrates an important principle:
different electoral systems can be used because different political institutions have different representational requirements.
The argument for using different systems
Using different electoral systems can therefore be defended because no single system perfectly achieves every political objective.
Different systems prioritise different values:
Political objective | System feature that may support it |
Clear local representative | FPTP |
Decisive government | FPTP |
Simple election process | FPTP |
Combining constituency and wider party representation | AMS |
Broader party representation | AMS or STV |
Extensive candidate preference | STV |
Representing a wide spread of political support | STV |
This diversity also provides practical evidence that alternatives to FPTP can operate within the UK's political system.
That evidence becomes central to the debate over electoral reform at Westminster.
The case for electoral reform
Electoral reform in this context means replacing or changing the electoral system used for Westminster elections.
The debate is not simply:
Is FPTP perfect?
No electoral system is perfect.
Instead, you need to ask:
Are the disadvantages of FPTP serious enough to justify replacing it with an alternative?
Argument for reform 1: more proportional representation
The strongest argument for reform is that Westminster representation can differ significantly from the distribution of votes.
Under FPTP:
winning a constituency matters more than the total number of votes received nationally;
votes for losing candidates do not generate representation;
large majorities in safe seats produce no additional seats;
parties can be over-represented or under-represented.
The 2022 examination source described FPTP as capable of producing distorted political representation and contrasted this with proportional systems in devolved institutions.
Counterargument
Westminster does not operate as one nationwide constituency.
Supporters of FPTP argue that Parliament should consist of representatives directly elected for geographical constituencies.
Assessment
The force of the reform argument therefore depends on which type of representation is considered more important:
proportional party representation or single-member geographical representation.
Argument for reform 2: a multi-party system needs a different electoral system
FPTP is often criticised for favouring the largest political parties.
This becomes more important where voters support a wider range of parties.
Edexcel's 2021 mark scheme explicitly connects the emergence of multiple parties with the argument that Westminster's electoral system should change. It notes that proportional systems in devolved areas can more accurately reflect support across a wider spectrum of parties.
If Britain has developed a broader multi-party system, critics argue that an electoral system associated with two-party competition becomes increasingly difficult to justify.
Counterargument
Smaller parties can still influence politics under FPTP.
Furthermore, electoral systems do not by themselves determine the number or strength of parties. Edexcel mark schemes recognise that dominant parties can also emerge under AMS.
Assessment
The emergence of multiple parties strengthens the case for reform if electoral fairness is judged according to the conversion of party support into seats, but it does not prove that changing the electoral system would remove party dominance.
Argument for reform 3: reduce tactical voting
FPTP can encourage tactical voting where voters believe their preferred party cannot win locally.
Instead of voting for their first preference, they may support another candidate in order to influence which of the leading contenders wins.
Edexcel's 2021 mark scheme identifies tactical voting as part of the argument for electoral reform, contrasting it with alternative systems that can allow voters to express preferences more fully.
Counterargument
Tactical behaviour does not mean the electoral system prevents voters from choosing whichever candidate they prefer.
FPTP still provides every voter with one equal ballot in their constituency.
Assessment
The strongest criticism is not that FPTP removes choice altogether, but that its constituency structure can sometimes encourage voters to choose strategically rather than sincerely.
Argument for reform 4: safe seats can weaken voter influence
A majority of Westminster constituencies are identified in the specification as safe seats.
In these seats:
the same party may win repeatedly;
voters supporting other parties may have little realistic prospect of changing the outcome;
campaign attention can become concentrated more heavily on marginal constituencies.
An alternative system with a proportional component could allow party support to contribute to representation even where the preferred candidate does not win the constituency.
Counterargument
Safe seats do not eliminate democratic choice.
Every voter can still vote, parties can still compete and seats can become more competitive if political circumstances change.
Assessment
Safe seats strengthen the reform case where the priority is making as many votes as possible contribute to representation. They are less decisive as an argument if the priority is maintaining individual constituency contests.
Argument for reform 5: devolved systems demonstrate that alternatives can work
One of the most important arguments for reform is practical rather than theoretical.
Alternative electoral systems are not simply hypothetical proposals. The Edexcel materials require students to study electoral systems operating in devolved political institutions.
AMS in Scotland provides an example of a system combining:
constituency representation;
additional party representation.
STV in Northern Ireland provides an example designed to reflect a wider spread of political support.
This makes it possible to argue that alternatives to FPTP can operate successfully inside the UK's constitutional framework.
Counterargument
Success in a devolved legislature does not automatically prove that the same system would be preferable for Westminster.
The political role, size and context of Westminster differ from those of devolved institutions.
Assessment
Evidence from devolved institutions demonstrates that reform is possible, but it does not by itself establish that reform is desirable for Westminster.
This distinction is crucial.
The case for retaining FPTP
Electoral reform is contested because FPTP also has significant strengths.
Argument against reform 1: FPTP can produce working majorities
Supporters argue that elections are not only about representing different opinions. They must also produce governments capable of governing.
The 2022 Edexcel source noted that FPTP had produced working majorities in 18 of the 20 elections since 1945 at that time.
Working majorities can allow governments to:
pass legislation;
implement manifesto commitments;
govern without continuously negotiating with another party.
Reform response
A government can receive a large parliamentary majority despite receiving far less than a majority of votes.
Critics therefore question whether decisiveness should be achieved at the expense of proportionality.
Assessment
This is perhaps the fundamental trade-off in the reform debate:
effective government versus representative government.
A strong essay should assess whether these goals really are incompatible.
Argument against reform 2: clear accountability
Single-party government can make responsibility clear.
Voters know which party:
governed;
made decisions;
implemented policies.
They can then judge that party at the next general election.
Edexcel mark schemes identify this as a major defence of FPTP.
Reform response
Coalition government does not necessarily eliminate accountability, nor should compromise automatically be treated as a political weakness.
The 2022 examiner report specifically criticised responses that assumed coalition government was inherently undesirable without analysing whether compromise might itself have advantages.
Assessment
Clear accountability is an important strength of FPTP, but students should avoid treating every form of inter-party cooperation as automatically inferior.
Argument against reform 3: the constituency link
FPTP provides each Westminster constituency with one identifiable MP.
That representative can:
speak for local interests;
represent constituents;
be held personally accountable.
Edexcel's 2022 mark scheme presents this as a major argument for FPTP.
Reform response
AMS demonstrates that electoral reform does not necessarily require abandoning constituencies.
Its hybrid structure combines constituency members with additional representatives.
Assessment
This weakens any argument claiming that all alternatives to FPTP destroy constituency representation.
The stronger defence is narrower: FPTP provides a clearer single-member constituency link than systems involving additional or multiple representatives.
Argument against reform 4: simplicity
FPTP is straightforward:
vote for one candidate;
count the votes;
candidate with the most wins.
Alternative systems can involve:
two votes;
party lists;
ranking;
quotas;
transfers.
Reform response
Complexity does not automatically make a system undemocratic or ineffective.
A more complicated electoral procedure may be justified if it allows voter preferences to be represented more accurately.
Assessment
FPTP unquestionably has an advantage in simplicity, but simplicity alone is unlikely to settle the reform debate.
Argument against reform 5: FPTP allows decisive political change
The 2022 Edexcel materials identify 1979 and 1997 as examples of elections in which FPTP enabled decisive political change and the removal of governments that had lost electoral support.
Supporters argue that this means voters can clearly replace one political direction with another.
Reform response
Critics can argue that a dramatic parliamentary change may exaggerate the actual movement in public support because small changes in votes across marginal constituencies can result in much larger changes in seats.
Assessment
Again, the issue is one of priorities:
FPTP can make political change decisive.
More proportional systems may make political change more accurately reflect shifts in voter support.
Why has Westminster electoral reform proved difficult?
Edexcel examination materials raise another important consideration: the major parties can benefit from FPTP.
The 2022 source presented the argument that FPTP remains at Westminster partly because it benefits Labour and the Conservatives.
An earlier Edexcel mark scheme similarly identified the argument that FPTP tends to over-represent the largest parties, reducing their incentive to agree to reform.
This creates a potential problem:
the political parties with the greatest power to change the electoral system may also have reasons to retain it.
However, this should be treated as an argument within the reform debate rather than proof that FPTP is illegitimate.
Electoral reform: weighing the criteria
A sophisticated judgement should not simply count advantages.
Instead, decide which criteria matter most.
Criterion | Case for keeping FPTP | Case for reform |
Party representation | Constituency victories determine representation | A more proportional system could reflect party support more closely |
Voter choice | One clear vote for a constituency candidate | Alternatives may allow more preferences or separate votes |
Constituency representation | One clearly accountable MP | AMS shows local representation can survive reform |
Government formation | Often supports working majorities | Broader representation and compromise may be preferable |
Accountability | Responsibility can be clearer | Cooperation does not necessarily prevent accountability |
Smaller parties | Parties must build concentrated electoral support | PR elements can represent dispersed support more effectively |
Simplicity | Very straightforward | More complexity may be justified by greater representation |
Political change | Governments can be decisively removed | Seat changes can exaggerate shifts in public support |
Has the case for electoral reform been established?
There is no prescribed Edexcel answer.
A convincing case for reform could argue that:
Britain's party system is broader than a simple two-party contest.
FPTP can translate votes into seats disproportionately.
Safe seats and tactical voting can weaken meaningful voter choice.
AMS and STV demonstrate that alternative systems can operate within the UK.
AMS shows that greater proportionality can coexist with constituency representation.
A convincing case against reform could argue that:
FPTP is simple and easy to understand.
It provides a very clear constituency link.
It has frequently produced working parliamentary majorities.
Single-party government can provide clear accountability.
Devolved systems operate in different political contexts and are not necessarily appropriate models for Westminster.
Overall judgement
The strongest assessment is likely to distinguish between different definitions of democratic effectiveness.
If the main purpose of an electoral system is to produce a decisive government with clearly accountable constituency representatives, FPTP retains significant advantages.
If the priority is to translate the full range of voter preferences into fairer party representation, the experience of alternative systems in devolved institutions provides a substantial argument for reform.
The case for reform is therefore strongest when based on representation and voter choice, while the strongest defence of FPTP rests on constituency accountability, simplicity and effective government.
The next lesson, the use of referendums in UK politics, moves from electoral systems to another way in which political choices can be made directly by voters.
These terms reflect the definitions contained in the Edexcel specification glossary.
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: If a question tells you to refer to a devolved region, you must do so substantially. In 2022, many candidates knew the standard FPTP debate well but did not fully address the requirement to use at least one devolved region. This limited otherwise knowledgeable answers.
Examiner hint: Do not write a generic essay entitled "Should FPTP be replaced?" The 2022 report found that many candidates did exactly this and consequently failed to explain how a specific alternative system had actually operated in a devolved institution.
Examiner hint: Make comparisons directly. Examiners identified weaker answers that wrote one paragraph on FPTP and then another on an alternative without explaining the relationship between them. Strong analysis compares the systems using the same criterion.
Examiner hint: Explain why the alternative might perform better. Simply saying "AMS is more proportional" is not enough. Explain that its additional element can compensate parties that gain substantial support but fewer constituency victories.
Examiner hint: Do not assume that coalition government is automatically bad. The 2022 examiner report specifically criticised candidates who treated coalitions as inherently undesirable without analysing compromise or the experience of coalition government.
Examiner hint: Be accurate about Scotland. Examiners identified a misconception that AMS had helped the SNP achieve its 2011 majority. The report noted that the SNP would have benefited more from the FPTP element, so do not use the 2011 majority as proof that proportional representation necessarily strengthens the largest party.
Examiner hint: Be accurate about Northern Ireland. Do not attribute political disruption or the requirement for power-sharing government simply to STV. Examiners specifically identified this confusion in 2022.
Examiner hint: Maintain judgement throughout your essay. Across examiner reports, stronger answers compare competing arguments directly and use those comparisons to build a sustained position rather than adding all evaluation in the conclusion.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Comparing FPTP with "PR" in general
Why this is incorrect: The specification requires comparison with a different electoral system in a devolved parliament or assembly. "PR" is a broad category rather than a sufficiently precise comparison.
How to improve: Choose a specific system and institution, for example:
FPTP at Westminster compared with AMS in Scottish Parliament elections.
Then sustain this comparison throughout the answer.
Mistake: Writing separate mini-essays on FPTP and AMS
Why this is incorrect: Description does not automatically produce comparative analysis.
How to improve:
Organise paragraphs by criteria:
proportionality;
voter choice;
constituency representation;
government;
accountability.
Discuss both systems within each paragraph.
Mistake: Assuming AMS eliminates the constituency link
Why this is incorrect: AMS is a hybrid system. Part of it still uses FPTP to elect constituency representatives.
How to improve: Explain that AMS retains constituency representatives while also adding a party-list element.
Mistake: Claiming proportional systems always produce coalitions
Why this is incorrect: Electoral systems influence government formation but do not determine it absolutely. Edexcel's materials recognise that AMS in Scotland has produced different forms of government, including a majority government.
How to improve: Use language such as:
"AMS can make coalition or minority government more likely by widening party representation, but this outcome is not guaranteed."
Mistake: Assuming coalition government is automatically weak
Why this is incorrect: This is an assertion rather than an evaluation. Coalitions may require compromise, which can itself be defended as more representative.
How to improve:
Compare:
decisiveness and clear responsibility under single-party government;
compromise and broader representation under coalition arrangements.
Mistake: Saying STV caused Northern Ireland's power-sharing arrangements
Why this is incorrect: The 2022 examiner report specifically identified this as a misconception.
How to improve: Keep the electoral-system argument precise: STV was chosen to help represent a broad spread of party support. Do not confuse this with separate political arrangements governing the Northern Ireland Executive.
Mistake: Treating all votes as nationally aggregated under FPTP
Why this is incorrect: FPTP operates through individual constituency contests. National vote share does not directly determine a party's number of seats.
How to improve: Always explain the mechanism:
win constituencies → gain seats.
Mistake: Reaching a judgement without stating the criterion
Why this is incorrect: Saying "AMS is better" or "FPTP is fairer" has little analytical value unless you explain what "better" or "fairer" means.
How to improve: State the criterion clearly:
"AMS is stronger in terms of proportional party representation, but FPTP is stronger in providing a simple single-member constituency relationship."
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Identify one electoral system used for elections to a devolved parliament or assembly studied in this topic. (1 mark)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer: One acceptable answer is Additional Member System (AMS) for Scottish Parliament elections.
Question 2
Explain one difference between FPTP and AMS. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Credit a developed comparison such as:
Under FPTP, voters make one choice in a constituency contest.
The candidate with the greatest number of votes wins.
Under AMS, voters make two choices.
AMS combines an FPTP constituency element with an additional party-list element, allowing broader party representation.
Question 3
Explain why AMS may provide more proportional party representation than FPTP. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
FPTP awards seats according to individual constituency victories.
A party can therefore receive substantial support without winning equivalent numbers of constituencies.
AMS includes an additional party-list element.
This can compensate parties that receive significant support but fewer constituency seats, making representation more proportional.
Question 4
Study the fictional election information below.
Party | Vote share | Seats under System A |
Party A | 39% | 58% |
Party B | 34% | 35% |
Party C | 18% | 5% |
Other parties | 9% | 2% |
System A awards every seat through separate constituency plurality contests.
Analyse what the data suggest about one argument for replacing System A with a system containing an additional proportional element. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong answer could explain that:
System A resembles FPTP because seats depend entirely on plurality constituency victories.
Party A is over-represented, receiving 39% of votes but 58% of seats.
Party C is significantly under-represented, with 18% of votes but only 5% of seats.
An additional proportional element could compensate parties whose overall electoral support does not translate into constituency victories.
This could make the distribution of seats more representative of the distribution of votes.
However, it may reduce the likelihood of the clear parliamentary majority shown for Party A.
Question 5
Explain two reasons why different electoral systems may be used for different political institutions within the UK. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Possible reasons include:
Different representational aims
Westminster FPTP places strong emphasis on constituency representation and can facilitate working parliamentary majorities.
AMS combines local constituency representation with broader party representation.
Different political contexts
STV in Northern Ireland was chosen to capture a wider spread of party support.
This demonstrates that an electoral system can be selected according to the representational requirements of a particular political institution.
Other accurately developed arguments supported by the specification should be credited.
Question 6
Explain why the existence of coalition government does not by itself prove that an electoral system is unsuccessful. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Credit points such as:
coalition government involves more than one political party sharing government;
it can result where representation is spread between several parties;
critics may argue that this reduces decisiveness or makes responsibility less clear;
however, coalition can require compromise between different political preferences;
this may make government more representative of a wider range of voters;
therefore, coalition government must be evaluated rather than automatically treated as a disadvantage.
Question 7
Read the following source.
Supporters of FPTP argue that Westminster elections should produce clear constituency representatives and governments able to implement their programmes. The system is simple and makes it easier for voters to identify which party should be held responsible for government decisions.Supporters of electoral reform argue that representation should reflect the way people actually vote. The experience of devolved institutions demonstrates that electoral systems can retain constituency representation while also providing a wider range of parties with representation. Voters should not have less influence simply because they live in a safe seat or support a party whose votes are widely dispersed.
Using the source, evaluate the view that the advantages of FPTP are more important than the arguments for electoral reform.
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 organise the debate around three paired comparisons.
1. Government versus proportionality
FPTP can contribute to working parliamentary majorities and decisive government.
Electoral reform could produce a closer relationship between votes and seats.
Evaluate whether effectiveness or proportional representation matters more.
2. Constituency representation versus broader representation
FPTP provides one clearly identifiable MP.
AMS demonstrates that constituency representatives can coexist with additional party representation.
Evaluate whether the FPTP constituency advantage is therefore sufficient to reject reform.
3. Simplicity versus voter choice
FPTP is simple and straightforward.
Alternative systems can provide voters with additional ways of expressing preferences and reduce some problems associated with safe seats or dispersed support.
Evaluate whether greater representation justifies additional complexity.
A high-level answer should sustain a judgement and directly compare the arguments rather than discussing them in isolated halves.
Question 8
Evaluate the view, with specific reference to at least one devolved parliament or assembly using an alternative electoral system, that FPTP should be replaced for elections to the Westminster Parliament. (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 supporting replacement could include:
FPTP can distort the relationship between votes and seats.
A wider multi-party system can make such disproportionality more significant.
Smaller parties with dispersed support may be under-represented.
Safe seats can reduce the practical impact of voter choice.
AMS in Scotland demonstrates that constituency representation can be combined with additional party representation.
STV in Northern Ireland demonstrates how an alternative system can represent a wider spread of party support.
The operation of devolved electoral systems shows that alternatives to FPTP are practically possible within the UK.
Arguments for retaining FPTP could include:
it is simple and quick to operate;
it provides one clearly identifiable constituency representative;
it has frequently produced governments with working majorities;
it can provide clear responsibility and accountability;
it allows voters to remove governments decisively;
different systems may suit devolved institutions without necessarily being appropriate for Westminster;
alternative systems do not guarantee the disappearance of dominant parties or the creation of a particular type of government.
For a strong judgement: make the devolved comparison part of the argument rather than merely mentioning it. If representation and voter choice are your principal criteria, the experience of AMS provides a strong case for reform. If decisive government, simple accountability and the single-member constituency link are considered more important, the case for retaining FPTP remains substantial.
The strongest conclusion should therefore answer not only whether reform is desirable, but which democratic objectives Westminster's electoral system should prioritise.
Comments