Edexcel A-Level Politics | Paper 3a USA | 2026 Predicted Paper | Mark Scheme Question 3(b)

Evaluate the view that partisanship is the main reason why Congress is ineffective in carrying out its functions.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

(30 marks)

“Evaluate” requires students to test the stated view against alternative explanations and reach substantiated judgements based on the evidence. This is a 30-mark essay with 10 marks each for AO1, AO2 and AO3, and Pearson recommends around 45 minutes. An introduction is desirable, a conclusion is essential, and students should develop judgements throughout rather than simply adding an opinion at the end.

The question fits directly within the specification. Students must understand Congress's representative, legislative and oversight functions, the influence of parties and caucuses, constituencies, pressure groups and lobbyists, relations with the presidency, and debates about the changing significance of parties in Congress and the effectiveness of congressional powers.

Levels-based marking

Level	Marks	Indicative characteristics
Level 5	25–30	Thorough and effectively selected knowledge. Sustained chains of reasoning directly focused on the question. Perceptive evaluation that repeatedly weighs partisanship against alternative explanations, leading to substantiated judgements and a focused conclusion.
Level 4	19–24	Accurate and relevant knowledge with consistent analysis. Both sides are addressed and evaluation is generally well supported, although weighing of the competing explanations may not be fully sustained.
Level 3	13–18	Mostly accurate knowledge with some developed analysis. Evaluation is present but may become factor-by-factor rather than directly comparing explanations.
Level 2	7–12	Some relevant knowledge, but the response is substantially descriptive or one-sided. Evaluation is limited or weakly substantiated.
Level 1	1–6	Superficial knowledge with limited analysis and little meaningful evaluation.
0	0	No rewardable material.

Pearson confirms these five mark bands for Paper 3A Section C and states that candidates who do not consider the stated view and its alternative in a balanced way cannot progress beyond Level 2.

Indicative content

The indicative material below is not exhaustive. Other accurate examples and well-developed arguments should be rewarded.

Arguments supporting the view

1. Partisanship can produce legislative gridlock

One of Congress's central functions is legislation, but strong party division can make compromise difficult. This is especially important in the Senate because ordinary legislation may face a filibuster and cloture normally requires three-fifths of the Senate, 60 senators, meaning a narrow majority often cannot act alone.

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act illustrates strong partisan division. In August 2021 it passed the House by 219 to 212, with all voting Democrats supporting it and every Republican voting against it.

AO2: where the parties are highly divided, securing the cross-party votes necessary to navigate all stages of Congress can become much harder. Partisanship may therefore reduce Congress's capacity to turn proposals into legislation.

AO3: however, the difficulty is partly created by Senate rules and the constitutional structure. Partisanship becomes particularly obstructive because institutional rules provide minorities with opportunities to block legislation. This makes it difficult to isolate party conflict from the structure within which it operates.

2. Partisanship can weaken effective congressional oversight

Congress is also required to scrutinise the executive. Strong party loyalties may affect how willing members are to investigate or sanction a president from their own party.

The first Trump impeachment illustrates the strongly partisan nature such oversight can assume. On Article II in December 2019, 228 Democrats and one Independent voted for impeachment while no Republicans did. In the Senate trial on Article I in February 2020, the vote was 48 guilty to 52 not guilty, with Mitt Romney the only Republican voting to convict on that article.

Party alignment was also striking in the December 2023 House vote formally continuing the Biden impeachment inquiry: 221 Republicans voted in favour and 212 Democrats against.

AO2: these examples suggest that the effectiveness of congressional scrutiny may be affected by partisan calculations. Members may evaluate executive conduct differently depending on whether the president belongs to their party.

AO3: nevertheless, partisan voting does not itself prove that oversight was ineffective. Investigations, hearings and impeachment proceedings can still scrutinise executive action even when members disagree sharply about their conclusions. A strong answer should therefore avoid assuming that “partisan” automatically means “ineffective”.

3. Party competition can encourage opposition for electoral reasons

Congressional parties have incentives to distinguish themselves from one another. Opposition legislators may benefit electorally from denying a president or the opposing party a legislative success, while majority-party legislators may support their party's programme even when compromise could produce broader agreement.

This can affect all three functions of Congress. It may make legislation harder, turn oversight into a more partisan process and encourage representatives to prioritise national party conflict over consensual representation.

AO2: this supports the argument because partisanship influences the behaviour of individual members as well as the overall relationship between the two parties.

AO3: but constituency interests, ideological convictions and pressure-group influence also affect congressional voting. The specification itself requires students to understand parties and caucuses alongside constituency, pressure groups and lobbyists, so party affiliation should not automatically be treated as the sole explanation for members' behaviour.

Arguments challenging the view

1. The constitutional structure itself makes Congress difficult to operate effectively

An important alternative explanation is institutional fragmentation. A bill normally has to survive committees, pass both the House and Senate in compatible form, and then obtain presidential approval or overcome a veto. In the Senate, the filibuster provides an additional barrier to many forms of legislation, with 60 votes normally needed for cloture.

These obstacles exist because the US system deliberately disperses power. Bicameralism, separation of powers and checks and balances are designed partly to make rapid governmental action difficult.

AO2: congressional ineffectiveness may therefore arise because the political system contains numerous institutional veto points, not simply because Democrats and Republicans disagree.

AO3: partisanship can intensify these structural barriers. A filibuster is much less obstructive if large numbers of senators are willing to cooperate across party lines. The strongest analysis therefore treats structure and partisanship as interacting explanations rather than completely separate causes.

2. Intra-party divisions can be as disruptive as conflict between Democrats and Republicans

Congress can also struggle when members of the same party disagree.

Kevin McCarthy's election as Speaker in January 2023 required 15 ballots, the first Speaker election since 1923 to require multiple ballots.  In October 2023, eight Republicans joined Democrats in a 216 to 210 vote declaring the Speaker's office vacant. The House then had a Speaker vacancy lasting 22 days before Mike Johnson was elected.

AO2: this suggests that congressional dysfunction can result from factionalism within parties rather than straightforward Democratic versus Republican partisanship. A party may control a chamber but still be unable to coordinate its own members effectively.

AO3: however, intra-party factionalism is not wholly separate from partisanship. Strong ideological divisions may exist both between and within parties. The example therefore challenges a simplistic two-party explanation more clearly than it disproves the wider importance of ideological polarisation.

3. Partisanship does not always prevent Congress from legislating

There are significant examples of Congress passing legislation with cross-party support.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed the Senate in August 2021 by 69 to 30 and subsequently passed the House by 228 to 206, including 13 Republican representatives voting in favour.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed the Senate in June 2022 by 65 to 33 following negotiations involving senators from both parties.  The Respect for Marriage Act also passed the House in its final form by 258 to 169, with 39 Republicans joining Democrats.

AO2: Congress can therefore still carry out its legislative function when members judge cooperation to be politically or substantively worthwhile.

AO3: these examples do not demonstrate that partisanship is unimportant. Instead, they show that it is not an automatic barrier to effective legislation. Students can distinguish issues that generate cross-party coalitions from issues where party positions are much more sharply divided.

4. Strong party unity can sometimes make Congress more effective

Partisanship can actually help organise congressional action when one party controls sufficient institutions.

The American Rescue Plan Act 2021 passed the Senate 50 to 49 and the House 220 to 211, with congressional voting overwhelmingly following party lines.

Similarly, the Inflation Reduction Act progressed through a Senate divided 50 to 50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote on the motion to proceed and later on passage.

AO2: strong party cohesion can enable congressional leaders to coordinate legislators and deliver a policy programme. Partisanship can therefore facilitate effectiveness as well as obstruct it.

AO3: this is particularly persuasive against any argument that partisanship is inherently synonymous with congressional failure. Its effects depend upon party control, majority size, chamber rules and the particular issue.

5. Representation can conflict with legislative efficiency

Congress is not judged solely by the number of laws it passes. Members also have a representative function, and senators and representatives are expected to respond to constituents, states and organised interests.

A legislator who refuses a compromise because it conflicts with constituent preferences might make legislation harder to pass while simultaneously carrying out the representative function effectively.

AO2: apparent "ineffectiveness" in the legislative process may therefore result from Congress performing another constitutional function.

AO3: this exposes an important problem with the question itself. Effectiveness is multidimensional. A Congress that passes legislation quickly is not automatically more effective at representation or oversight. High-level answers should make clear which congressional function they are evaluating.

Example student answer

Partisanship is an important explanation for why Congress can appear ineffective because the increasing tendency of Democrats and Republicans to vote against one another can obstruct legislation and affect congressional oversight. However, Congress is also deliberately designed to make policy making difficult through bicameralism, separation of powers and Senate procedures such as the filibuster. In addition, intra-party divisions, constituency pressures and interest groups can influence congressional effectiveness. The significance of partisanship therefore depends heavily on the function of Congress being considered and on the institutional circumstances in which party conflict occurs.

One argument supporting the view is that partisanship creates legislative gridlock. Congress cannot carry out its legislative function effectively if the parties refuse to cooperate, particularly because passing legislation normally requires agreement between the House and Senate. The problem is especially significant in the Senate, where cloture on most legislation requires 60 votes. A narrow Senate majority therefore often needs some support from the opposition party. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act demonstrates strong party division. It passed the House in 2021 by 219 votes to 212, with all voting Democrats supporting it and every Republican voting against it.  This shows how party affiliation can become a major determinant of congressional behaviour.

However, this argument partly confuses partisanship with institutional design. Party disagreement becomes capable of producing gridlock because the Senate permits filibusters and because legislation must pass two independently elected chambers. If legislation could pass through a single chamber by a simple majority, the effects of partisan division would be much smaller. The 60-vote cloture requirement means the institutional structure magnifies partisan conflict.  Therefore, partisanship may be an important immediate cause of gridlock, but constitutional and procedural arrangements help explain why that disagreement can prevent Congress acting.

Partisanship may also reduce the effectiveness of oversight. Congress is intended to scrutinise the executive, but legislators may be reluctant to sanction a president belonging to their own party. This was demonstrated during Trump's first impeachment. In the House vote on Article II in 2019, no Republicans voted for impeachment, while almost all Democrats did. In the Senate trial on Article I, Trump was acquitted 52 to 48, with Mitt Romney the only Republican senator voting to convict on that article.  A similarly clear party split occurred when the Republican-controlled House voted in December 2023 to continue the Biden impeachment inquiry, with 221 Republicans supporting the resolution and all 212 voting Democrats opposing it.  Such voting patterns suggest that party loyalties can strongly influence how Congress exercises oversight.

Nevertheless, it would be too simple to say that partisan oversight is necessarily ineffective. Congress can still investigate government departments, hold hearings and obtain evidence even if politicians disagree about the conclusions. Impeachment is also deliberately difficult because conviction requires a supermajority in the Senate. The inability to remove a president may therefore reflect the constitutional threshold as well as party loyalty. Partisanship affects oversight, but its effect is again connected to the formal design of checks and balances.

There is also strong evidence that partisanship does not always prevent effective legislation. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed the Senate 69 to 30 in 2021 and then passed the House 228 to 206, with members of both parties supporting it.  Similarly, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed the Senate 65 to 33 in 2022 after negotiations involving Democrats and Republicans.  These examples demonstrate that cross-party cooperation remains possible. Where legislators believe compromise is necessary or politically advantageous, Congress can overcome partisan differences.

More importantly, high party unity can sometimes increase congressional effectiveness rather than reduce it. The American Rescue Plan passed the Senate 50 to 49 in March 2021 and then passed the House 220 to 211. The voting was overwhelmingly partisan, yet Congress still succeeded in passing major legislation.  This shows that partisanship and effectiveness are not straightforward opposites. If a governing party is sufficiently unified and can use procedures such as budget reconciliation, strong party cohesion may make it easier to organise votes and deliver legislation. The effect of partisanship therefore depends on whether party division creates deadlock or party unity creates coordinated action.

Another explanation for congressional ineffectiveness is intra-party factionalism. The difficulties of the Republican-controlled House in 2023 were not simply the result of Democrats opposing Republicans. Kevin McCarthy required 15 ballots to become Speaker, showing significant division among Republicans themselves.  In October, eight Republican representatives joined Democrats to remove McCarthy as Speaker, after which the office remained vacant for 22 days.  During such periods Congress's capacity to organise itself and carry out normal legislative functions was disrupted. This suggests that divisions within parties can matter as much as conventional two-party partisanship.

Finally, the effectiveness of Congress depends upon which function is being assessed. Representatives and senators are not merely supposed to maximise the amount of legislation passed. They are also expected to represent constituents and states and scrutinise the executive. The specification itself identifies parties and caucuses, constituency pressures, pressure groups and lobbyists as influences on congressional behaviour.  If a member rejects legislation because their constituents oppose it, this may make Congress appear inefficient as a legislature while demonstrating effective representation. Consequently, legislative productivity alone cannot provide a complete measure of congressional effectiveness.

Overall, the evidence shows that partisanship can substantially affect Congress, particularly where sharp party divisions interact with the Senate filibuster or with divided government. However, its effects are not uniform: bipartisan legislation remains possible, and strong party unity can sometimes enable legislation to pass. Constitutional fragmentation, chamber rules and intra-party divisions also independently shape congressional performance. A well-supported judgement should therefore distinguish the effect of partisanship itself from the institutional conditions that determine whether party conflict produces gridlock.

Examiner-style commentary

This answer has the qualities needed for a high Level 4 or Level 5 response, particularly because it keeps returning to the phrase “main reason” rather than producing a list of unrelated causes.

That is especially important given Pearson's 2024 examiner feedback on Question 3(b). Examiners found that the strongest answers continually compared the factor identified in the question with competing influences. Responses that instead wrote one paragraph on the stated factor, then separate paragraphs on unrelated alternatives, tended to lose AO3 because they had not actually established which explanation was more significant.

Pearson also warns against purely narrative answers. In the 2024 report, students who simply described how legislation passes, or narrated battles over individual bills without relating them to the question, remained in the lower levels. Higher-scoring answers used evidence to support a chain of reasoning, and then explained what that evidence demonstrated.

The example does this well with the American Rescue Plan. It does not merely state that the Act passed 50 to 49 in the Senate. It uses that evidence to challenge the assumption that high party unity necessarily makes Congress ineffective. Similarly, the McCarthy example is used to distinguish intra-party factionalism from inter-party partisanship, rather than being included simply because it is a recent example.

How it could be improved

The answer could move still further into Level 5 by making the comparisons between explanations even more explicit at the end of every paragraph. For instance, rather than ending the legislative paragraph by saying both structure and partisanship matter, a student could establish a criterion such as:

Partisanship is most damaging where congressional rules require bipartisan cooperation, so structure determines how strongly party conflict affects effectiveness.

That is stronger AO3 because it does not merely identify two explanations. It explains the relationship between them.

A student should also avoid treating "ineffective Congress" as meaning only "Congress passes too few laws". The specification separately identifies representation, legislation and oversight, so the strongest answer would keep testing the argument against all three functions throughout.