Proportional Systems and Electoral Reform Debates in the UK

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

• identifies a genuine advantage, e.g. that seat shares reflect vote shares more closely under proportional systems.1 mark
• explains why this matters, e.g. that smaller parties with evenly spread support are less likely to be shut out of representation.1 mark
• names a correct, real UK example of such a system, e.g. the Additional Member System.1 mark
• correctly identifies where that system is used, e.g. the Scottish Parliament.1 mark
• links the example specifically to the advantage identified, rather than describing the system in general terms.1 mark
• expresses the explanation clearly using accurate terminology.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 replacing FPTP: the Additional Member System in Scotland and Wales has produced results that more closely reflect each party's regional vote share, showing proportionality is achievable without abandoning a constituency link entirely.2 marks
• Case for replacing FPTP: the Single Transferable Vote in Northern Ireland allows voters to express a ranked preference across multiple parties and candidates, which can better represent a divided electorate than a single-choice FPTP vote.2 marks
• Case for replacing FPTP: the 2011 AV referendum result cannot be used to argue against proportional systems specifically, since AV itself is not a proportional system.2 marks
• Case against replacing FPTP: AMS and STV have both produced coalition or minority devolved governments at various points, which critics argue shows a trade-off between proportionality and the strong, decisive government FPTP tends to deliver at Westminster.2 marks
• Case against replacing FPTP: the 2011 referendum result, while about AV rather than a proportional system, showed that when UK voters were directly asked to change the Westminster voting system, they chose to keep FPTP, suggesting public appetite for reform may be limited.2 marks
• Case against replacing FPTP: AMS's two classes of representative and STV's larger, multi-member constituencies can be seen as weakening the single, clearly identifiable constituency MP that FPTP provides.2 marks
• Balanced content: the UK already runs several systems side by side, so replacing FPTP at Westminster would not be introducing an untested principle, but would still be a significant change to how national government is formed.2 marks
• A supported conclusion that weighs the proportionality gains shown in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland against the value of the government stability and constituency link FPTP is credited with at Westminster, rather than asserting one side without reference to both.2 marks

Nothing ticked yet - 30 available