Electoral system analysis | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: Nov 2
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 75–90 minutes
Electoral systems do more than decide who wins an election. They can affect which parties gain representation, how much choice voters have and whether a majority, minority or coalition government emerges. This Electoral system analysis A-Level Politics revision page brings together your earlier study of First-past-the-post and alternative voting systems to examine these wider political consequences. Edexcel specifically requires you to understand why different systems are used in the UK and analyse their effects on government, party representation and voter choice.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain how electoral systems can affect the type of government formed.
Compare majority, minority and coalition outcomes associated with different electoral systems.
Analyse how FPTP, AMS and STV can affect party representation.
Explain how different electoral systems affect voter choice.
Evaluate whether electoral systems themselves determine political outcomes.
Assess the wider political consequences of using different electoral systems in the UK.
Revision Notes 📚
What does electoral system analysis involve?
Section 3.3 of the Edexcel specification requires students to examine three connected areas:
debates about why different electoral systems are used in the UK;
the impact of an electoral system on the government or type of government appointed;
the impact of different systems on party representation and voter choice.
This lesson therefore moves beyond simply knowing how voting systems operate.
You should now ask:
What kind of government can this electoral system help produce?
Which parties are likely to gain representation?
How accurately might seats reflect voter support?
How much choice does each voter have?
How much does the electoral system itself matter compared with how people actually vote?
These questions bring together the arguments developed in electoral reform debates.
Electoral systems do not determine outcomes on their own
A crucial principle for this topic is that an electoral system can influence a political result without completely determining it.
For example:
FPTP can favour majority government, but it has also produced circumstances in which coalition or minority government occurs.
AMS can widen party representation, but it does not guarantee that one party cannot become dominant.
STV can allow a wider spread of party and candidate preferences to be represented, but voting behaviour still determines which candidates ultimately succeed.
Edexcel's 2020 mark scheme explicitly allows both sides of this debate. It recognises arguments that FPTP, AMS and STV make important differences to representation, but also arguments that party dominance and similar political patterns can persist despite different systems.
⚠️ Exam point: Avoid deterministic claims such as "FPTP always creates majority government" or "proportional systems always create coalitions".
Use phrases such as:
can encourage
can make more likely
tends to
may contribute to
Electoral systems and the type of government formed
The specification identifies minority government and coalition government as key terminology because the electoral system can affect how easily one party gains enough seats to govern alone.
Three broad outcomes are particularly important:
single-party majority government;
minority government;
coalition government.
Single-party majority government
A majority government occurs when one party controls more than half of the seats in the legislature.
The specification does not list "majority government" as a separate glossary term, but understanding it is necessary in order to distinguish it from the specified concepts of minority and coalition government.
FPTP and majority government
FPTP can translate a party's electoral support into a larger share of parliamentary seats.
The 2022 Edexcel examination source noted that FPTP had produced governments with working majorities in 18 of the 20 elections since 1945 at the time of that examination.
This can have several political consequences:
one party may govern without needing another party's formal support;
the government may find it easier to pass legislation;
manifesto commitments may be easier to implement;
responsibility for government decisions can be clearer.
The 2021 Edexcel mark scheme presents this as an important argument in favour of FPTP, linking effective single-party government to accountability.
Evaluation
The electoral system is only part of the explanation.
FPTP does not guarantee a majority. If support is divided across several parties in particular ways, no party may secure enough seats to govern alone.
Therefore:
FPTP increases the possibility of single-party majority government, but the outcome still depends on the distribution of votes between parties and constituencies.
Minority government
A minority government is defined by Edexcel as a government that enters office without a majority of seats in the legislature. The specification notes that this can make passing legislation very difficult.
A minority government therefore needs support from politicians outside the governing party to pass at least some legislation.
Why can minority government occur?
Even under FPTP, no single party is guaranteed a majority of parliamentary seats.
Where support is fragmented and no party gains enough constituency victories, one party may govern without controlling more than half the seats.
The 2020 mark scheme recognises that declining support for the two main parties can produce coalition, minority and small-majority governments even under FPTP.
Political consequences
Possible consequences include:
greater need for negotiation;
greater influence for parties outside government;
increased difficulty passing legislation;
weaker ability to claim complete control over the political agenda.
Evaluation
Minority government demonstrates why it is incorrect to describe FPTP as automatically producing strong single-party government.
It also demonstrates that voting behaviour can sometimes overcome the normal tendencies of an electoral system.
Coalition government
A coalition government is formed by more than one political party. Edexcel notes that it is normally accompanied by agreement over policies and government offices, giving the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition of 2010–15 as an example.
Coalitions are often associated with electoral systems that distribute seats between a wider range of parties.
However, the relationship is not automatic.
The 2010 coalition itself followed a Westminster election conducted under FPTP.
This is a useful reminder that:
FPTP may make single-party government more likely, but it does not make coalition government impossible.
Are coalitions necessarily a disadvantage?
No.
This was specifically highlighted by Edexcel examiners.
The 2022 examiner report found that many students simply assumed coalition government should be avoided. Stronger evaluation considered whether coalition could produce useful compromise and whether powerful single-party government under FPTP might itself have disadvantages.
Possible disadvantages of coalition include:
responsibility may be less clear;
parties may compromise manifesto commitments;
disagreements between coalition partners can arise.
Possible advantages include:
several political viewpoints influence government;
policies may reflect a wider range of voters;
compromise may prevent one party from exercising excessive power.
⚠️ Exam point: "Coalition = weak government" is not sufficient evaluation.
You must explain why it may be weaker and balance that against potential benefits.
FPTP and government formation
FPTP's constituency-based structure can reward the strongest parties with a greater proportion of seats than votes.
This can contribute to:
single-party majority government;
clear mandates;
identifiable political responsibility.
The 2022 mark scheme argues that stable government capable of passing legislation and acting decisively can be seen as an important requirement of an electoral system.
However, this comes with a possible democratic trade-off.
A party may control a majority of seats without receiving a majority of votes.
The question therefore becomes:
Is decisive government more important than proportional representation?
That is one of the central evaluative tensions in this topic.
AMS and government formation
The Additional Member System (AMS) combines constituency elections with an additional party-list element.
Because additional seats can widen party representation, it can become more difficult for one party to dominate simply through constituency victories.
This can contribute to:
coalition government;
minority government;
negotiation between political parties.
However, AMS does not guarantee these outcomes.
The 2022 Edexcel mark scheme notes that AMS in Scotland and Wales has been associated with different government outcomes, including coalition government and a majority government.
Evaluation
This demonstrates that proportionality and government formation are related but not identical.
A stronger answer says:
AMS can make representation more dispersed and therefore make coalition or minority government more likely, but the level and geographical distribution of party support still determine the final result.
STV and government formation
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is designed to capture a wider range of party and candidate preferences through ranking and vote transfers.
Edexcel mark-scheme material states that STV was specifically selected in Northern Ireland to capture the spread of party support.
This means a broader range of parties can gain representation than might occur under a winner-takes-all constituency system.
Important warning
Do not argue that STV itself created Northern Ireland's power-sharing arrangements.
The 2022 examiner report identified this as a common error. Students sometimes attributed political arrangements and disruptions in Northern Ireland to coalitions created by STV, when the power-sharing requirements arise separately from the Good Friday Agreement.
How to use STV correctly:
STV helps capture a broad spread of party support.
This affects representation.
Do not claim that the electoral system alone explains the structure of the Northern Ireland Executive.
Comparing electoral systems and government formation
Electoral system | Possible effect on government | Important qualification |
FPTP | Can help produce single-party majority government | Can also produce minority or coalition outcomes |
AMS | Wider representation can make coalition or minority government more likely | Can also produce majority government |
STV | Can produce representation for a broader spread of parties | Political institutions and voting behaviour also shape government outcomes |
SV | Elects one successful candidate rather than distributing legislative seats proportionally | Its main consequences concern choice and the election of an individual rather than parliamentary government formation |
This final distinction is important.
Supplementary Vote (SV) is a majoritarian system used to elect a single office-holder rather than a system designed to allocate seats proportionally across a legislature. Pearson notes that its use for mayors and police and crime commissioners was ended by the Elections Act 2022.
Electoral systems and party representation
Party representation refers to the extent to which different political parties gain elected representation.
An electoral system can influence:
which parties win seats;
how many seats they win;
whether vote share and seat share are closely related;
the relative strength of major and minor parties.
This connects directly to your study of minor political parties.
FPTP and party representation
FPTP awards a seat to the candidate who comes first in each constituency.
A party's national vote share therefore does not directly determine its share of seats.
Effect on major parties
The 2020 Edexcel mark scheme identifies a tendency for FPTP to work in favour of the two major parties.
This occurs because a party gains representation by winning constituencies, not by accumulating votes nationally.
A party that repeatedly wins constituencies can therefore gain substantial representation.
Effect on smaller parties
A smaller party may receive significant support but gain relatively few seats if its support is spread across many constituencies without allowing it to finish first.
The 2021 examiner report found that stronger students could explain the specific fate of a range of smaller parties under FPTP, while weaker responses simply described the system as unfair without showing how representation was affected.
Evaluation
FPTP does not automatically exclude small parties.
The geographical concentration of support matters.
The stronger argument is:
FPTP disadvantages parties whose support is substantial but widely dispersed because only first-place constituency finishes produce seats.
AMS and party representation
AMS adds a party-list element to constituency representation.
The Edexcel mark scheme explains that this provides compensation to parties that gain substantial overall support but perform less successfully in constituency contests.
This can produce:
representation for more parties;
a closer relationship between party support and seats;
greater influence for parties that would struggle under pure FPTP.
But does AMS always create a balanced multi-party system?
No.
Edexcel's 2020 mark scheme specifically provides the counterargument that AMS has not necessarily prevented party dominance. It identifies SNP dominance in Scotland and Labour dominance in Wales as evidence that electoral systems are not the only factor shaping representation.
The correct evaluation is therefore:
AMS can improve opportunities for broader party representation, but party popularity can still produce dominance.
STV and party representation
STV operates through ranked preferences and transferable votes.
The 2020 mark scheme identifies two important effects:
it can capture support for different political parties;
it can also capture different shades of opinion within parties.
This makes STV distinctive because representation is not purely about party labels.
Individual candidates can matter as well.
Voters may rank:
candidates from different parties;
different candidates associated with the same party.
Political consequence
STV can therefore weaken some of the control parties have over voter choice because voters have greater ability to distinguish between individual candidates.
Evaluation
The electoral system creates the opportunity for wider representation, but it does not dictate what preferences voters actually express.
Does the electoral system make a significant difference to party representation?
This exact issue has been examined by Edexcel.
The 2020 paper asked students to evaluate whether the various electoral systems used in the UK make significant differences to party representation.
Case that electoral systems make a major difference
FPTP tends to favour the largest parties.
AMS compensates parties that gain support without enough constituency victories.
STV is designed to capture a wider spread of party and candidate preferences.
More proportional systems can allow a wider range of parties to secure representation.
Case that their impact can be exaggerated
Smaller parties can gain political importance under FPTP when major-party support declines.
AMS has not prevented one-party dominance in parts of devolved politics.
Similar parties can succeed under different systems because voters' underlying preferences remain important.
Overall assessment
The strongest position is that:
Electoral systems significantly affect how votes are translated into seats, but they do not create party support.
If voters overwhelmingly support one party, a more proportional system does not automatically prevent that party from becoming dominant.
This links directly to the development of the UK multi-party system.
Electoral systems and voter choice
The specification separately requires students to examine the effect of electoral systems on voter choice.
Voter choice can mean several different things:
how many choices a voter can express;
whether they can rank candidates;
whether they can distinguish between party and candidate;
whether their preferred vote is likely to influence representation;
whether they feel forced to vote tactically.
Voter choice under FPTP
Under FPTP, voters make one clear choice between constituency candidates.
Advantages
This is:
straightforward;
easy to understand;
clearly linked to one constituency result.
The voter can identify exactly which representative they are helping to elect.
Limitations
The specification identifies safe seats and marginal seats as key concepts.
A safe seat is one where the incumbent has a considerable majority and is relatively resistant to changes in voter choice. Pearson states that a majority of Westminster constituencies are safe seats.
This means the practical influence of a vote can vary considerably.
In a marginal seat, a small change may affect the result.
In a safe seat, supporters of losing parties may believe that their preferred candidate has very little chance of election.
FPTP and tactical voting
Tactical voting occurs where voters support a candidate who is not their first preference because they believe doing so gives them a greater opportunity to influence the result.
The 2021 Edexcel mark scheme presents tactical voting as an important consequence of FPTP. It argues that an alternative system can allow voters to express their first-choice preference more freely.
Why can FPTP encourage tactical voting?
Imagine a constituency where:
Party A is likely to win;
Party B is the only realistic challenger;
Party C is a voter's preferred party but is unlikely to win.
A Party C supporter may vote for Party B to try to prevent Party A from winning.
Evaluation
The voter still has a legal and genuine choice under FPTP.
The criticism is more precise:
FPTP can create incentives for voters to make a strategic choice rather than vote sincerely for their preferred candidate.
Voter choice under AMS
AMS gives voters two choices:
a constituency representative;
a party-list preference.
This allows a voter to distinguish between:
the candidate they want to represent the constituency;
the political party they want represented more broadly.
This increases the breadth of voter choice compared with FPTP.
Political consequence
A voter may be able to support one candidate locally while expressing a different party preference through the list vote.
The two parts of the system therefore allow different political preferences to be communicated.
Voter choice under STV
STV gives voters even greater control over individual candidate preference.
Voters rank candidates numerically and preferences can transfer during the count.
The 2020 Edexcel mark scheme notes that this allows STV to capture not only different parties but different opinions and personalities within them.
This can increase voter influence because people can:
rank several candidates;
choose between candidates within the same party;
indicate further preferences if their first choice cannot succeed.
Evaluation
Greater choice comes with greater complexity.
This creates another political trade-off:
simplicity versus voter expression.
Voter choice under Supplementary Vote
Under SV, voters make two choices.
If nobody achieves over 50% from first choices:
all except the top two candidates are eliminated;
relevant supplementary choices are redistributed;
the candidate with the greatest final total wins.
This gives voters more opportunity to express preferences than FPTP, but less extensive ranking than STV.
⚠️ Remember: SV is majoritarian, not proportional.
The 2022 examiner report identified students incorrectly describing SV as a proportional system.
Comparing voter choice
System | What can the voter express? | Possible consequence |
FPTP | One constituency candidate | Simple, but can encourage tactical voting |
AMS | Constituency choice plus party-list choice | Separates local candidate and wider party preference |
STV | Ranked candidate preferences | Extensive voter control over candidates |
SV | First and supplementary choice | Greater choice than FPTP but less extensive than STV |
There is therefore no single definition of "more choice".
AMS provides two different types of vote.
STV provides the greatest depth of ranked candidate preference.
SV provides a limited additional preference.
FPTP provides the simplest and clearest single choice.
Electoral systems and safe seats
Safe seats are particularly relevant when assessing voter choice.
Under FPTP, the winning party may repeatedly retain a constituency by a substantial margin.
This can mean that:
some voters perceive little prospect of changing the local result;
parties may concentrate attention elsewhere;
marginal seats can become disproportionately important to the national result.
The 2019 Edexcel source explicitly raised concerns that it can be difficult to persuade voters to participate when they live in safe seats.
Alternative systems can reduce some of this effect because:
list votes under AMS can contribute to broader representation;
ranked preferences under STV can continue to influence election outcomes.
Evaluation
Safe seats do not mean votes are formally unequal.
Every voter still has a ballot.
The criticism concerns the practical effect different votes may have on representation.
Electoral systems and political accountability
Electoral systems can also affect how easily voters can hold politicians accountable.
FPTP
Advantages include:
one clearly identifiable constituency representative;
potentially clearer responsibility where one party governs alone;
voters can directly remove a constituency MP.
The 2021 mark scheme presents the local link between an MP and constituency as an important defence of FPTP.
Alternative systems
A wider range of representation can give more voters a political voice.
However:
multiple representatives can make responsibility less individually clear;
coalition government can spread responsibility between parties.
Evaluation
The question is therefore not simply whether a system creates "accountability".
Different systems create different kinds of accountability:
FPTP emphasises individual constituency and governing-party responsibility.
More proportional systems can emphasise responsiveness to a wider range of political preferences.
Electoral systems and mandates
FPTP supporters argue that a single-party majority can provide a clear mandate to govern.
A government can claim that voters elected it on a manifesto and therefore gave it authority to implement that programme.
Edexcel's 2021 mark scheme links FPTP to governments being able to implement manifesto promises and claim a mandate.
Problem
The government may hold a parliamentary majority even though it did not receive a majority of votes.
This raises an important evaluative question:
Does winning enough parliamentary seats create a strong mandate if most voters did not support the governing party?
A more proportional system may create a legislature that better reflects voter preferences, but negotiations between parties may then influence the eventual programme of government.
Again, there is a trade-off:
clear manifesto mandate versus broader political compromise.
Electoral systems and smaller parties
Different electoral systems can significantly affect the role of parties outside Labour and the Conservatives.
Under FPTP:
concentrated support can win seats;
widely dispersed support can translate poorly into representation.
Under AMS:
list seats can compensate parties with broader support.
Under STV:
ranked preferences can allow several political viewpoints to gain representation.
This is why electoral-system analysis cannot be separated completely from minor-party influence.
The 2021 examiner report specifically praised students who used detailed evidence to explain the fate of different smaller parties rather than simply claiming that FPTP was "unfair".
Does proportionality necessarily produce better politics?
Not necessarily.
A more proportional system may:
translate votes into representation more accurately;
widen the range of represented parties;
give voters greater choice;
encourage cooperation.
However, it may also:
make majority government less likely;
increase the possibility of coalition or minority government;
make governing responsibility less clear;
require compromise after elections.
FPTP may:
provide clearer constituency representation;
support decisive government;
create identifiable accountability.
However, it may also:
distort party representation;
encourage tactical voting;
disadvantage parties with dispersed support;
give voters in safe seats less practical influence.
The correct analysis therefore depends on what an electoral system is expected to achieve.
The key political trade-offs
Political priority | FPTP may perform strongly because... | Alternative systems may perform strongly because... |
Decisive government | Can favour single-party majorities | Broader agreement may produce compromise |
Party representation | Constituency winners gain clear representation | AMS and STV can represent a wider spread of support |
Voter choice | One simple, direct choice | More preferences can be expressed |
Local representation | One clearly identifiable constituency MP | AMS retains constituency representatives while adding wider representation |
Accountability | One governing party can be clearly judged | More political viewpoints may influence decision-making |
Minor-party representation | Concentrated support can succeed | Dispersed support can be represented more effectively |
Simplicity | Very straightforward | Additional complexity can allow more voter preferences to count |
Why different systems produce different political consequences
The differences arise from the basic mechanics of each system.
FPTP
Mechanism: first-place constituency victories.
Likely consequences:
rewards parties capable of winning constituencies;
can amplify representation of leading parties;
can encourage single-party government;
creates a strong local representative link;
may encourage tactical voting.
AMS
Mechanism: constituency vote plus additional party-list representation.
Likely consequences:
retains constituency representation;
compensates some parties under-represented through constituency results;
widens party representation;
provides voters with two distinct choices;
can contribute to coalition or minority government.
STV
Mechanism: ranking candidates and transferring preferences.
Likely consequences:
gives voters extensive candidate choice;
can represent a wider spread of parties;
allows voters to choose between candidates within parties;
can reduce the winner-takes-all effect associated with FPTP.
SV
Mechanism: first and supplementary preferences, with the contest reduced to the top two if no candidate initially exceeds 50%.
Likely consequences:
provides more preference than FPTP;
seeks a broadly supported individual winner;
remains a majoritarian rather than proportional system.
Understanding these chains of cause and consequence is much more valuable in an examination than memorising lists of advantages and disadvantages.
Does voter behaviour matter more than the electoral system?
This is an important counterargument.
Edexcel's 2020 mark scheme presents the view that apparent differences between systems can sometimes be exaggerated.
For example:
AMS does not prevent one party from becoming dominant;
FPTP can give smaller parties greater political importance when support for the two main parties falls;
patterns of party support can remain similar across institutions despite different voting systems.
This suggests:
The electoral system determines how votes are translated into representation, but voters determine the votes that exist to be translated.
This distinction produces sophisticated evaluation.
For example:
Weak claim: "AMS creates a multi-party system."
Stronger claim: "AMS gives a wider range of parties a better opportunity to translate support into seats, but whether several parties actually become powerful still depends on voter support."
Electoral systems and the UK's multi-party system
The growth of support for parties beyond Labour and the Conservatives makes electoral-system analysis particularly important.
The 2021 Edexcel mark scheme presents the argument that widespread support for multiple parties creates a stronger case for proportional representation because FPTP may fail to convert that support fairly into seats.
However, FPTP may itself affect the party system by encouraging:
concentration on parties capable of winning constituencies;
tactical voting;
pressure on smaller parties to build geographically concentrated support.
This means electoral systems and party competition influence each other.
You will explore the wider development and implications of multiple parties in the UK party system.
Which consequences matter most?
There is no specification-approved hierarchy.
A student's judgement should establish criteria.
If you prioritise effective government
FPTP may appear stronger because:
it can generate working majorities;
responsibility can be clear;
legislation may be easier to pass.
If you prioritise proportional party representation
AMS or STV may appear stronger because:
a wider range of preferences can translate into representation;
parties are less dependent entirely on winning plurality constituency contests.
If you prioritise voter choice
STV may have a particularly strong case because voters can rank several candidates.
AMS also expands choice through separate constituency and party preferences.
If you prioritise constituency accountability
FPTP has a strong advantage because each constituency has one clearly identifiable representative.
The important exam skill is therefore to state the criterion before making the judgement.
Overall assessment of electoral systems
The political consequences of an electoral system are significant but not absolute.
FPTP can contribute to:
majority government;
major-party dominance;
simple voter choice;
clear constituency accountability.
AMS and STV can contribute to:
wider party representation;
greater voter choice;
coalition or minority political circumstances;
greater representation of diverse political preferences.
However, none of these outcomes is guaranteed.
Party support, geographical voting patterns and wider political circumstances remain important.
The strongest overall judgement is therefore:
Electoral systems matter most in determining how votes are converted into seats and representation. They can influence the type of government formed and the choices available to voters, but they cannot independently determine which parties voters support or guarantee a particular government outcome.
The next stage of the course applies electoral outcomes to actual elections, beginning with historic general-election evidence.
These definitions follow the terminology set out in the Edexcel specification.
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Do not simply claim that FPTP is "unfair". In the 2021 examination, stronger candidates explained how FPTP affected the representation of a range of smaller parties. Weaker responses stayed at the level of general claims about unfairness without enough evidence about actual political consequences.
Examiner hint: Do not assume that coalition government is automatically undesirable. The 2022 examiner report specifically noted that students often treated coalition as a weakness without considering whether compromise could be preferable to an overly powerful single-party government.
Examiner hint: Compare consequences directly. The 2022 report found that many students wrote one paragraph about FPTP and then a separate paragraph about AMS or STV without explaining why the systems produced different outcomes. Direct comparison is much more effective.
Examiner hint: Do not confuse correlation with causation. The 2022 report identified students incorrectly attributing Northern Ireland's power-sharing arrangements and political disruption to STV. STV affects representation, but the institutional requirement for power sharing is separate.
Examiner hint: Be careful when using Scotland. Examiners identified a misconception that AMS was responsible for helping the SNP gain its 2011 majority. They noted that the SNP would have benefited more from the FPTP element. Use this as evidence that voting systems influence outcomes without determining them.
Examiner hint: Supplementary Vote is majoritarian, not proportional. This was another specific error identified in the 2022 report.
Examiner hint: Build towards a judgement rather than listing consequences. Edexcel's examiner guidance stresses that contested arguments should be considered on both sides and that the conclusion should reflect a judgement sustained throughout the essay.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying FPTP always creates majority government
Why this is incorrect: FPTP can favour single-party majority government, but minority and coalition outcomes can also occur.
How to improve: Use qualified language:
"FPTP can make single-party majority government more likely because it may amplify the representation of leading parties."
Mistake: Saying proportional systems always create coalitions
Why this is incorrect: AMS has been associated with different government outcomes, including coalition and majority government.
How to improve: Explain that broader party representation can make coalition or minority government more likely, but voting behaviour still matters.
Mistake: Treating coalition government as automatically bad
Why this is incorrect: Coalition can make responsibility less clear, but it can also require compromise between political parties representing different voters.
How to improve:
Evaluate:
decisiveness;
accountability;
compromise;
breadth of representation.
Mistake: Claiming AMS guarantees a balanced multi-party system
Why this is incorrect: Edexcel mark schemes recognise that party dominance can continue under AMS.
How to improve: Explain that AMS changes the process through which votes become seats, but it does not control voters' underlying party preferences.
Mistake: Saying STV causes Northern Ireland's power-sharing government
Why this is incorrect: STV affects how representatives are elected. The power-sharing arrangements have a separate institutional basis.
How to improve: Use STV to explain broad party representation, not the constitutional requirements of the Executive.
Mistake: Calling SV proportional representation
Why this is incorrect: Pearson defines Supplementary Vote as a majoritarian electoral system.
How to improve:
Remember:
AMS = hybrid
STV = transferable preferences
SV = majoritarian
Mistake: Assuming all votes have the same practical effect under FPTP
Why this is incorrect: A vote in a marginal seat may have a greater chance of changing the constituency result than a vote for a losing party in a very safe seat.
How to improve: Distinguish between formal equality of votes and their practical effect on representation.
Mistake: Explaining electoral systems without analysing consequences
Why this is incorrect: This lesson is specification section 3.3 Electoral system analysis, not simply another test of how the systems work.
How to improve: Use chains of reasoning:
feature → effect → political consequence → evaluation
For example:
AMS includes additional party-list representation → parties with significant support but fewer constituency victories can gain seats → representation may become more dispersed → coalition or minority government may become more likely → however, this depends on the actual distribution of party support.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define minority government. (1 mark)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer: A government that enters office without holding a majority of seats in the legislature.
Question 2
Explain one reason why FPTP may contribute to single-party majority government. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
FPTP awards seats according to individual constituency victories.
A leading party can win many constituencies without receiving a majority of votes nationally.
This can give that party a greater share of seats than its share of votes.
It may therefore gain enough seats to form a single-party majority government.
Question 3
Explain one way in which AMS can affect party representation differently from FPTP. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
FPTP awards representation only through constituency victories.
AMS includes an additional party-list element.
This can compensate parties that receive significant support but win fewer constituency contests.
A wider range of parties can therefore gain representation.
Question 4
Study the following fictional election results.
Party | Vote share | Seats won |
Party A | 40% | 56% |
Party B | 35% | 37% |
Party C | 17% | 5% |
Others | 8% | 2% |
The legislature contains 100 seats.
Analyse two possible political consequences of this result. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Possible analysis includes:
Party A has 56 seats and therefore controls a majority despite receiving only 40% of votes.
This could produce single-party government and make passing legislation easier.
However, Party A's majority may raise questions about how accurately the legislature represents voter preferences.
Party C receives 17% of votes but only 5% of seats, showing under-representation.
This could weaken the parliamentary influence of voters supporting Party C.
The system therefore appears to prioritise decisive government over proportional party representation.
Question 5
A voter lives in a constituency where their preferred party regularly finishes third and the same party wins by a large majority at each election.
Explain how FPTP and STV might affect this voter's choices differently. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response could explain:
Under FPTP the voter has one constituency vote.
Because their preferred party has little chance of winning, the voter may consider voting tactically for another candidate.
Under STV the voter can rank candidates in preference order.
They can therefore place their genuine first preference first while still expressing later preferences.
Preferences can transfer during the count.
STV may therefore allow a fuller expression of the voter's political preferences than FPTP.
Question 6
Explain why it is inaccurate to argue that electoral systems alone determine which political parties become dominant. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Credit developed points such as:
electoral systems determine how votes are converted into representation;
they do not determine which parties voters actually support;
AMS can make representation more proportional but one party may still attract particularly strong support;
FPTP can favour larger parties but smaller parties can gain influence when major-party support declines;
similar political preferences may appear under different electoral systems;
therefore, voting behaviour and party support must be considered alongside the voting system.
Question 7
Read the following source.
Supporters of FPTP argue that the most important purpose of an electoral system is to produce an effective government. A system that helps create a clear majority can allow manifesto commitments to be implemented and makes it easier for voters to identify who is responsible for government decisions.Critics argue that an electoral system should primarily represent voters accurately. Systems that give a wider range of parties representation may result in coalition or minority government, but this can encourage compromise and ensure that more political viewpoints influence government.
Using the source, evaluate the view that producing effective government is more important than achieving proportional party representation.
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 arguments.
1. Majority government versus proportionality
FPTP can contribute to a clear parliamentary majority.
Broader systems may represent the distribution of votes more accurately.
Evaluate whether decisiveness justifies vote-seat disproportionality.
2. Accountability versus compromise
Single-party government can make responsibility clearer.
Coalition government can bring different political preferences into government.
Evaluate whether compromise weakens or strengthens democratic government.
3. Manifesto mandate versus wider representation
A majority government may be able to implement a manifesto.
However, it may have gained fewer than half of the votes.
More proportional representation may provide wider democratic support but require negotiated policies.
A strong conclusion should establish which criterion of electoral-system effectiveness is most important and sustain that judgement throughout.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that electoral systems make a significant difference to party representation and voter choice in the UK. (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 electoral systems make a significant difference may include:
FPTP can over-represent leading parties.
Parties with widely dispersed support can struggle to convert votes into seats under FPTP.
AMS can compensate parties that gain significant support but fewer constituency victories.
STV can represent a broader range of political parties and preferences.
STV enables voters to distinguish between candidates from the same party.
AMS gives voters separate constituency and party choices.
FPTP can encourage tactical voting.
Safe seats can reduce the practical influence of voter choice.
Arguments that the importance of electoral systems may be exaggerated include:
electoral systems do not determine which parties voters support;
dominant parties can emerge under AMS;
smaller parties can gain influence under FPTP when support for the two main parties declines;
similar patterns of party support can appear under different electoral systems;
wider voter choice does not guarantee voters will use preferences in ways that significantly change party representation.
For a strong judgement: distinguish between party support and party representation. Electoral systems cannot create public support for political parties, but they can have a major effect on how that support is translated into seats and how voters are able to express their preferences.
Question 9
Evaluate the view that the most important political consequence of FPTP is the type of government it produces. (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 the view may include:
FPTP can facilitate single-party majority government.
Majority government can make passing legislation easier.
Responsibility can be clearer.
A governing party can claim a mandate to implement its manifesto.
Stable and decisive government may be considered the central purpose of an electoral system.
Arguments that other consequences are equally or more important may include:
FPTP affects party representation by rewarding constituency victories rather than national vote share.
Smaller parties with dispersed support can be under-represented.
Safe seats can limit the practical impact of some voters.
Tactical voting may influence voter choice.
Governments can gain parliamentary majorities without majority electoral support.
FPTP does not always produce majority government.
For a strong judgement: decide whether electoral systems should primarily be assessed according to governability, representation or voter choice. Avoid simply listing consequences. Explain why one consequence should carry greater democratic importance than the others.
Comments