Revision Library

revisionlibrary.co.uk

A-Level · UK Politics

POL.UKP6 Proportional Systems and Electoral Reform Debates in the UK

EDEXCEL 9PL0 · Calculators not allowed · about 70 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

Answer ALL questions. Short answer questions may be brief but must be accurate. For levels-marked questions write a structured, developed response using named systems, accurate facts, and clear argument. The final 30-mark essay requires a judgement and evaluation.

Name the voting system used for elections to the Scottish Parliament, noting its general type.

(Total for Question 1 is 1 mark)

State the alternative vote method formerly used for electing the Mayor of London and give its common abbreviation.

(Total for Question 2 is 1 mark)

Give two jurisdictions in the UK that use the Single Transferable Vote for some elections, naming the elections and the jurisdiction.

(Total for Question 3 is 2 marks)

State two features of the Additional Member System as used in the Welsh Senedd elections.

(Total for Question 4 is 2 marks)

Explain briefly how the Single Transferable Vote counting process helps to achieve proportional outcomes in multi member districts such as Northern Ireland Assembly constituencies.

(Total for Question 5 is 3 marks)

State the nationwide result of the 2011 UK referendum on the Alternative Vote in terms of 'Yes' or 'No' and give the approximate percentage for the winning side.

(Total for Question 6 is 4 marks)

Explain two arguments commonly made in favour of introducing a more proportional system for UK general elections, as used in devolved legislatures.

(Total for Question 7 is 5 marks)

Explain two arguments commonly advanced against adopting a more proportional system for UK general elections, focusing on governance and local representation concerns.

(Total for Question 8 is 6 marks)

Source for use with the next question. Source A is an extract from a 2010 pamphlet by a reform group arguing for proportional representation for UK general elections: "Under the current system a substantial minority of votes have no effect on seat allocation. A proportional system would ensure parties gain seats in line with their national support, giving fairer outcomes and encouraging turnout among supporters of smaller parties." Source B is an extract from a 2011 campaign leaflet arguing against wholesale change: "Stable government requires clear majorities. Introducing national proportional representation risks producing fragmented parliaments where small parties hold the balance of power, leading to weak coalitions and policy drift. The UK values a strong local MP link that national lists would undermine."

Using the source, evaluate the strengths of the arguments for and against introducing a proportional system for UK general elections.

(Total for Question 9 is 12 marks)

State two ways in which the Additional Member System differs from a pure party list proportional representation system, using the example of the London Assembly or Scottish Parliament.

(Total for Question 10 is 5 marks)

Explain briefly how the Supplementary Vote (SV) operates in a single winner contest and give one critique of the system in terms of proportionality.

(Total for Question 11 is 4 marks)

Evaluate the view that the UK should adopt a more proportional electoral system for general elections.

(Total for Question 12 is 30 marks)

Mark scheme · POL.UKP6 Proportional Systems and Electoral Reform Debates in the UK

Question 1

B1 identifies the Additional Member System, AMS cao
Answer: Additional Member System (AMS).

Question 2

B1 identifies the Supplementary Vote, SV cao
Answer: Supplementary Vote, SV.

Question 3

B1 one correct jurisdiction and election, e.g. Northern Ireland Assembly elections cao
B1 a second correct jurisdiction and election, e.g. Scottish local government elections or Northern Ireland local elections cao
Answer: Examples: Northern Ireland Assembly elections use STV; local government elections in Scotland use STV.

Question 4

B1 one accurate feature, e.g. mixed ballot with constituency and regional list members
B1 a second accurate feature, e.g. regional seats allocated to improve proportionality using a formula such as dHondt
Answer: Any two: a mixed ballot with first-past-the-post constituency seats and additional regional list seats; regional seats allocated using the dHondt method to produce a more proportional overall result.

Question 5

B1 identifies that voters rank candidates in order of preference
B1 identifies the use of a quota (e.g. Droop) and transfers of surplus votes to lower preferences
B1 explains that transfers and elimination of lowest candidates allow representation across parties and reduce wasted votes, increasing proportionality
Answer: Voters rank candidates by preference; a quota is set (commonly the Droop quota) and candidates reaching the quota are elected; surplus votes from elected candidates are transferred to remaining preferences, and the lowest candidates are eliminated with their votes transferred, so that multiple candidates from different parties can be elected and fewer votes are wasted, producing a more proportional outcome in multi member districts.

Question 6

B1 identifies that the 'No' side won cao
B1 gives an approximate percentage for 'No' around 67% cao
B1 gives an approximate percentage for 'Yes' around 33% cao
B1 may note the turnout was around 42% as further development
Answer: 'No' won; approximately 67% voted No and 33% voted Yes. Turnout was about 42%.

Question 7

B1 identifies one pro argument, e.g. fairer translation of votes into seats
B1 development of that point, e.g. smaller parties gain representation reflecting voter preferences
B1 identifies a second pro argument, e.g. increased voter choice and reduced wasted votes
B1 development of that point, e.g. higher turnout incentive and greater legitimacy
B1 additional development or example, e.g. evidence from AMS in Scotland producing more balanced party representation
Answer: Arguments include that proportional systems produce a fairer translation of votes into seats, allowing smaller parties to win seats and better reflect voter preferences, and that they reduce wasted votes and increase voter choice, which can boost legitimacy and turnout; for example, AMS in Scotland has produced more balanced representation than single member systems alone.

Question 8

B1 identifies one con argument, e.g. proportional systems may produce coalition or minority governments, reducing decisiveness
B1 development of that point, e.g. potential for instability and frequent negotiations
B1 identifies a second con argument, e.g. weaker constituency link if larger multi member districts or regional lists are used
B1 development of that point, e.g. voters may be less able to hold a single MP accountable for local issues
B1 further development or example, e.g. SV and AMS debates highlight trade offs between proportionality and clear local accountability
B1 additional nuance, e.g. some proportional systems can be designed to preserve strong local links but often at cost to proportionality
Answer: Common arguments against more proportional systems include that they can produce coalition or minority governments that require constant negotiation and may be seen as less decisive, and that multi member districts or regional list systems can weaken the direct constituency link, making it harder for voters to hold a single representative accountable; while some systems try to preserve local links, this often involves trade offs with the degree of proportionality achieved.

Question 9

Level 1 (1-3): Basic identification of points in the source with limited explanation. Little or no evaluation and minimal use of own knowledge.
Level 2 (4-6): Clear explanation of the source arguments with some development, and some use of relevant own knowledge. Evaluation may be one sided or underdeveloped.
Level 3 (7-9): Developed analysis of both sides of the source with well-chosen own knowledge and argument. Evaluation is balanced and starts to weigh evidence for plausibility and impact.
Level 4 (10-12): Thorough evaluation driven by the source and supported by wide, accurate own knowledge. The response weighs the comparative strength of the claims and reaches a substantiated judgement about their overall persuasive force.
Indicative content:
- From Source A, the strength of the pro argument is that proportional systems reduce wasted votes and produce seat shares closer to national vote shares, which can be shown by comparing vote-seat disproportionalities under single member systems with devolution examples where AMS or STV produce more proportional results.
- Source A also asserts proportional systems encourage turnout among smaller party supporters; evidence could be evaluated, noting turnout effects are contested and that the 2011 AV referendum had low turnout, suggesting electoral system change alone does not guarantee higher turnout.
- From Source B, the argument that proportional systems can produce fragmented parliaments is supported by examples from some European countries where multi party systems lead to coalition governments, though counter examples exist where coalitions are stable and deliver coherent policy agendas.
- Source B's concern about weakening the local MP link is credible where national list systems are used, but mixed systems such as AMS can retain constituency MPs while adding regional list members, mitigating that risk.
- Evaluation might weigh the magnitude of the problems: wasted votes under the current system are significant in some seats and regions, but the practical effects of proportionality on governance depend on system design, for example whether a mixed member or regional list model is adopted rather than pure national lists.
- Evidence and nuance: devolved examples such as AMS in Scotland and STV in Northern Ireland show more proportional representation can coexist with effective government and maintained local links, though politics and party systems shape outcomes.
- A strong judgement could conclude that both sources raise valid points: proportional systems do improve fairness of representation and reduce wasted votes, but the risk of more fragmented parliaments and potential weakening of constituency links is real and depends on the chosen model; therefore reform merits serious consideration, ideally via a mixed or compensatory system that balances proportionality with local accountability.

Question 10

B1 one difference, e.g. AMS retains constituency representatives elected by FPTP
B1 development of that difference, e.g. voters cast a constituency vote and a regional list vote
B1 second difference, e.g. AMS uses additional regional seats to compensate for disproportionality rather than allocating all seats from lists
B1 development of that difference, e.g. dHondt allocation aims to top up party representation to be more proportional
B1 further development or example, e.g. London Assembly has 14 constituency and 11 London-wide list members illustrating mixed nature
Answer: Differences include that AMS retains constituency MPs or members chosen by a single member vote while pure list PR fills all seats from party lists. AMS uses a mixed ballot with a constituency vote plus a regional list vote, and regional seats are allocated by a formula such as dHondt to compensate for disproportionality rather than all seats being list seats; for example the London Assembly mixes constituency and London-wide list members to achieve partial proportionality.

Question 11

B1 identifies that voters mark a first and second preference
B1 explains that if no candidate has over 50% of first preferences, all but the top two are eliminated and second preferences of eliminated candidates are redistributed to top two
B1 gives one critique, e.g. SV is not proportional because it elects a single winner and does not reflect party vote shares across multiple seats
B1 development of critique, e.g. smaller parties struggle to convert support into seats under SV
Answer: SV allows voters to name a first and second preference; if a candidate wins over 50% of first preferences they win, otherwise all but the top two are eliminated and second preferences from eliminated candidates are added to the top two. A critique is that SV is not proportional, since it elects a single winner and does not aggregate party vote shares across seats, so smaller parties find it hard to gain representation compared with proportional systems.

Question 12

Level 0 (0): No relevant content.
Level 1 (1-6): Basic, limited knowledge of electoral systems and reform arguments with little or no developed analysis or evaluation. Claims are asserted rather than supported by evidence.
Level 2 (7-12): Clear, accurate knowledge of alternative systems and relevant arguments with some developed analysis. Evaluation is present but may be one sided or rely on generalised evidence.
Level 3 (13-18): Detailed and accurate knowledge deployed in a sustained analysis of the implications of adopting proportional systems, drawing on relevant examples and evidence. Evaluation is balanced and begins to weigh trade offs and likely consequences.
Level 4 (19-24): Sophisticated, wide ranging and accurate knowledge used to construct a tightly argued evaluation comparing different proportional models and their likely effects on representation, governance and local accountability, with well-selected evidence and clear judgments.
Level 5 (25-30): Exceptional response with precise, comprehensive knowledge and incisive evaluation that directly addresses counter arguments and reaches a fully substantiated, balanced judgement on whether the UK should adopt a more proportional system for general elections.
Indicative content:
- Arguments for adopting a more proportional system: fairer conversion of votes into seats reducing wasted votes; increased representation for smaller parties and minority groups; potential to increase political pluralism and reflect regional or ideological diversity more accurately.
- Evidence from UK devolved institutions: AMS in Scotland and Wales and STV in Northern Ireland provide concrete examples where proportional mechanisms have produced more balanced party representation compared with single member systems, allowing parties like the Greens or smaller regional parties to gain seats.
- Practical design choices matter: systems range from compensatory AMS that preserve constituency links to full list PR which maximises proportionality but risks weakening local accountability; hybrid designs can balance proportionality and local representation.
- Arguments against: risk of fragmented parliaments and coalition or minority governments that may be less decisive; possibility of small parties holding disproportionate influence in coalition negotiations; public preference for clear single party government as evidenced by the 2011 AV referendum result.
- Local accountability trade off: single member constituencies create a clear link between voter and MP; more proportional systems often use larger districts or lists which can dilute that link, though designs such as mixed member models aim to retain constituency MPs while improving proportionality.
- Electoral culture and public views: the 2011 AV referendum saw a strong No vote, suggesting limited public appetite for change; political parties with effective local organisation can suffer under some proportional systems while others may benefit, changing party competition dynamics.
- Institutional and transitional considerations: think about the complexity of implementation, effects on party system, funding and campaigning, and whether reform should be national, phased or require thresholds to prevent fragmentation.
- Comparative evidence: cite examples where proportional systems have produced stable coalition governments with effective policy making, for example in some Scandinavian countries, and counter examples of fragmented systems with frequent elections in other contexts.
- Possible judgements: a reasoned conclusion might argue for cautious reform via a mixed or compensatory system that increases proportionality while retaining constituency links and avoiding extreme fragmentation, or alternatively conclude the costs to governability and public preference make major change undesirable without broad public mandate.

Proportional Systems and Electoral Reform Debates in the UK - Worksheets, Questions and Revision