Direct versus Representative Democracy and Debates on Reform

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• identifies that direct democracy means citizens decide the issue themselves, e.g. through a referendum.1 mark
• identifies that representative democracy means citizens elect someone to decide on their behalf, e.g. an MP.1 mark
• uses a correct, specific real example of direct democracy, e.g. the 2016 EU referendum.1 mark
• uses a correct, specific real example of representative democracy, e.g. a general election electing MPs to the House of Commons.1 mark
• explains a genuine difference beyond definition, e.g. that a referendum decides one issue directly while a general election gives a representative ongoing authority over many issues.1 mark
• expresses the explanation clearly and accurately, using correct terminology throughout.1 mark

Nothing ticked yet - 6 available

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• The introduction sets out a clear thesis that directly answers the question, and this thesis is sustained throughout. Each of the three main paragraphs presents a genuine two-sided debate, a point and a counterpoint, with accurate and detailed knowledge, and reaches a supported judgement. The conclusion follows logically from the three paragraph judgements rather than simply restating them. Analysis and evaluation are consistently strong throughout.3 marks
• A clear thesis is stated in the introduction and mostly sustained. Most paragraphs present both sides of the debate with generally accurate, relevant knowledge, though depth or balance may be uneven in one paragraph. Judgements are present in most paragraphs and the conclusion broadly follows from them.3 marks
• A thesis is attempted but may be unclear or only partly sustained across the essay. At least one paragraph is one-sided rather than presenting a genuine debate, which limits the level the answer can reach even where the knowledge shown is accurate. Judgements are inconsistent between paragraphs.2 marks
• Limited or generalised knowledge with little clear structure. Paragraphs tend to describe rather than debate the question, with few or no explicit judgements, and the response may drift away from the question set.2 marks
• Very limited, largely inaccurate or irrelevant knowledge. No clear thesis, paragraph structure or judgement is offered.2 marks
• No relevant content, or the response does not engage with the question.2 marks
• Case for referendums enhancing democracy: they give direct legitimacy to major constitutional decisions, e.g. the 2016 EU referendum and the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, decisions that arguably no single general election gave a clear mandate for.2 marks
• Case for referendums enhancing democracy: they can raise engagement on a specific issue, since the 2016 EU referendum recorded higher turnout than recent general elections at the time.2 marks
• Case for referendums enhancing democracy: they allow the electorate to settle issues Parliament itself may be reluctant to resolve, such as further UK constitutional change.2 marks
• Case against referendums (undermine democracy): they can oversimplify complex issues into a single yes/no choice, as critics argued of the 2016 EU referendum, where 'Leave' covered a wide range of different post-Brexit visions.2 marks
• Case against referendums (undermine democracy): campaigns can be dominated by well-funded groups and contested claims, raising concerns about the quality of information voters use to decide, as seen in criticism of both sides of the 2016 referendum campaign.2 marks
• Case against referendums (undermine democracy): a referendum result can conflict with representative democracy's principle of parliamentary sovereignty, creating tension over how binding a result should be, as debated after the 2016 result.2 marks
• Balanced content: the UK's mixed practice, using referendums sparingly for major constitutional questions (EU membership, devolution, Scottish independence, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement) rather than for routine policy, can be used to argue the current balance already limits referendums to where they add most legitimacy.2 marks
• A supported conclusion that weighs whether the legitimacy referendums add to major constitutional decisions outweighs the risks of oversimplification and tension with parliamentary sovereignty, rather than asserting one side without reference to the paragraph judgements.2 marks

Nothing ticked yet - 30 available