A LevelPoliticsEdexcelExam QuestionsUK Politics & Core Political IdeasElectoral Systems

Electoral Systems (Edexcel A Level Politics): Exam Questions

Exam code: 9PL0

7 hours14 questions
1
30 marks

The following two paragraphs give two sides of a contested debate considering whether referendums since 1997 have promoted democracy or instead have really served other political purposes.

The case for referendums promoting democracy

Referendums since 1997 have had a positive impact on political life and widened democracy. They have given a definitive answer on contested topics shaping the direction that the UK takes, be that devolution, membership of the EU or the rejection of alternative voting systems. Referendums add legitimacy to major constitutional changes. In Scotland 16- and 17-year-olds voted making choices about their future in referendums, thus widening participation. They have re-invigorated political life and opened up honest debate with their high turnouts and renewed activity in current events. They are a source of political education that engage the public and are a true injection of direct democracy.

The claims against the use of referendums

Referendums have been held for the benefit of the governing political parties, often settling their internal disputes, never for public benefit. New Labour liked to be popular and a series of ‘yes’ votes added to the idea of popularity. New Labour wanted to ensure its dominance in Scotland where it drew a large number of seats. New Labour later tired of referendums. The Conservatives agreed to a referendum on voting reform – not much of a choice as the vote was not about proportional representation. In reality, the referendum was a price to pay for the support of the Liberal Democrats to enter the coalition. Then the EU referendum. This was not a democratic move for the people of the UK. The referendum was an outright attempt by the Conservative Party to stop UKIP in its tracks. In the end it was a battle fought over false claims. Such a close result as the one on the EU has limited legitimacy. A leading Brexiter, Steve Baker, accepts that major referendums should require 60% approval to be effective and valid.

Using the source, evaluate the view that referendums since 1997 have not supported democracy but have been used for other political purposes.

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 only the information presented in the source.

How did you do?

2
30 marks

Evaluate the view that referendums held in the UK since 1997 have brought more disadvantages than advantages.

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

How did you do?

3
30 marks

The source depicts the weaknesses and strengths of first-past-the-post (FPTP) and considers that systems of proportional representation in use in the devolved bodies are a much better alternative.

First-past-the-post (FPTP) has weathered the test of time and proved it works. It has produced governments with working majorities in 18 of the 20 elections since 1945. It keeps extremism at bay and secures close and productive links between MPs and their constituencies. It is simple and quick in operation and allows the voters to rid themselves of governments which have failed, and enables the political system to break into new political ground as in 1979 and 1997. It delivers accountability and provides the basis for a clear mandate to govern.

Twice (1951 and February 1974) FPTP has made the loser the winner. It remains in use at Westminster because it benefits the Labour and Conservative parties. It is the distorting mirror of British politics. In the devolved bodies, methods of proportional representation (PR) such as the additional-member system (AMS) more faithfully reflect how people vote. PR systems allow the voice of other parties into political debate and government. For example, the single-transferable-vote (STV), as used in Northern Ireland, takes power away from political parties and delivers choice to the voters. The devolved bodies would have failed if FPTP had been used; their success depended on PR being used instead.

Using the source, evaluate the view — with specific reference to at least one devolved region using an alternative electoral system — that the case for PR to replace the Westminster FPTP voting system has now been established.

In your response you must:

  • compare and contrast different opinions in the source

  • examine and debate these views in a balanced way

  • analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

How did you do?

4
30 marks

Evaluate the view that the emergence of multiple parties in the UK means that the Westminster electoral system must be changed.

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

How did you do?

5
30 marks

Evaluate the view that the various electoral systems in use in the UK make significant differences to party representation.

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

How did you do?

6
30 marks

This source is adapted from a Hansard report of a debate in the House of Commons held in October 2017. More than 100,000 people had signed a petition calling for the introduction of proportional representation for elections to the Westminster parliament. Here are extracts from the speeches made by Steve Double MP (Conservative Party) and Caroline Lucas MP (Green Party).

Steve Double MP

Proportional representation will damage democracy by putting more power into the hands of parties. First-past-the-post (FPTP) invariably delivers strong and stable government. Votes are not wasted for we have seen turnout increase in recent times. It is clear and easy to understand. In addition it prevents extremist parties from gaining seats. There is a direct link between the MP and their constituency. The FPTP system enables us to exchange our strongly, passionately held views in the House of Commons. My party is committed to FPTP as the best system for this country.

Caroline Lucas MP

FPTP is damaging the legitimacy of our system of governance. A winner-takes-all approach to elections promotes adversarial politics. It encourages each of the major parties to seek to defeat their opposition completely, negating the need for postelection cooperation. Policy is likely to change dramatically when governments change. Countries with proportional representation (PR) systems outperform those with FPTP systems; PR would be likely to encourage more people to vote. It is very hard to persuade people to vote when they live in so-called ‘safe seats’. We would also improve the chances of electing a parliament that better reflects modern Britain.

(Sourced from: Crown Copyright)

Using the source, evaluate the view that proportional representation would improve elections to the House of Commons.

In your response you must:

  • compare and contrast different opinions in the source.

  • examine and debate these views in a balanced way.

  • analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

How did you do?

7
30 marks

Evaluate the view that the additional member system offers the best balance between fair representation and stable government of any electoral system used in the UK.

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

How did you do?

8
30 marks

The following two articles disagree about the decision, made by the Elections Act 2022, to replace the supplementary vote with first-past-the-post for elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. Article 1 argues the change was a mistake. Article 2 defends it.

Article 1

The supplementary vote, they said, allows losing candidates – those coming second in terms of first preferences – to win. But this argument is circular: it works only if we have already accepted the first past the post definitions of 'winner' and 'loser'.

… [In May 2024] the proportion of spoilt ballots across the mayoral elections fell to 0.7%. … That reduction … is a clear benefit from the change in voting systems, and it should not be dismissed as insignificant. … [I]f the ballot papers being used were confusing some voters, the first step should have been to research better ballot paper designs, not to ditch a system that in other respects was superior. Unintended spoiling of ballots is unlikely to have changed the result … whereas the switch in counting rules changed the result in multiple cases.

In sum, the supplementary vote is clearly more democratic for single executive offices. All the major parties – including the Conservatives – seem to recognise that by using transferable vote systems … to elect their leaders. The change to first past the post harmed democracy.

Source: adapted from Alan Renwick, 'The new voting system for mayors and PCCs: how it affects democracy', UCL Constitution Unit Blog, 24 May 2024. Reproduced by permission of the Constitution Unit, UCL.

Article 2

Our electoral system has had first past the post at its heart for a very long time—and very successfully. … [In] the referendum in 2011 … the British people were quite conclusive in their view: they did not want the alternative vote system. I accept that it is not the same as the supplementary vote system, but it showed that the British public had no appetite to change.

… [T]he difference between the spoilt ballot papers in the local elections … and the police and crime commissioner and London mayoral elections is too great to be laid wholly at the door of the … design of the ballot paper.

… It gives a clear result to the candidate with the most votes, and that is the heart of accountability. If that candidate does not perform to the electorate's will or expectation, they can boot him out … The supplementary vote system … clearly allows weaker candidates, with fewer first preference votes, to get through the system because of second preference votes, which have the same value as first preference ones—that does not seem right.

Source: extract taken from a House of Lords debate on the Elections Bill (speech of Baroness Noakes), 23 March 2022, HL Deb c1004. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Using the source, evaluate the view that replacing the supplementary vote with first-past-the-post was a mistake.

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 only the information presented in the source.

How did you do?

9
30 marks

Evaluate the view that the constituency link is the most important advantage of the first-past-the-post electoral system.

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

How did you do?

10
30 marks

Evaluate the view that the 2011 referendum settled the question of electoral reform at Westminster for a generation.

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

How did you do?

11
30 marks

The Northern Ireland Assembly has been elected by the single transferable vote since 1998, with voters ranking candidates in five-member constituencies.

The two extracts disagree about how well it has worked. Article 1 (2017), from an electoral reform campaign group, argues it has served Northern Ireland well. Article 2 (2026) is a Westminster speech by a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament who has fought elections under the system for over forty years, arguing it dilutes the mandate and produces unstable government.

Article 1

Last year's Northern Ireland Assembly election saw some fascinating developments. From a 50% increase in women's representation, to the growth of cross-community parties and some surprise upsets, it was testament to an evolving democracy, under a voting system that allows voters' diverse views to be represented.

… [The research] finds that while there are divisions in how people vote, a significant chunk of voters are 'crossing the divide'. … Overall, 21% of all voters' preferences express some preference for a cross-community party – allowing a possibility for 'crossing the divide' that would be far more difficult under a majoritarian, winner-takes-all system. … 17% of Protestants and 20% of Catholics first preference a 'centrist' … party – votes which would most likely not result in Stormont representation under a first past the post system.

… Nearly a third (32%) of all preferences were for candidates outside the 'Big Four' parties – a 'window for diversity that simply wouldn't be there without Northern Ireland's proportional voting system'. … [The single transferable vote] opens the door for a more open and less divided politics.

Source: adapted from Katie Ghose, 'Northern Ireland's voting system allows for a more diverse, open politics', Electoral Reform Society, 17 February 2017. Reproduced by permission.

Article 2

Although the single transferable vote was introduced as a tool to ensure cross-community representation in a deeply divided society, let us be honest about its practical realities. First, it is complex. Sometimes it is confusing. Every election shows that many people, no matter how many times they are told how the system works, still spoil their votes by marking six or seven Xs, or by writing one, two, three, four, five and six in different columns.

… [The single transferable vote] also fundamentally dilutes the democratic mandate. Counting goes on for days. Fractional transfers of votes decide who wins the final seats. Candidates with a minuscule share of first-preference votes can end up being elected on the 10th or 11th count, not because they were anybody's first choice but because they were the least disliked one.

… We must never trade a system of proven stability and direct accountability for one of permanent compromise, fractured local representation and endless coalition haggling.

Source: extract taken from a Westminster Hall debate, 'Elections: First Past the Post' (speech of Jim Shannon), House of Commons, 24 June 2026, Hansard vol. 788. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Using the source, evaluate the view that the single transferable vote has served Northern Ireland well.

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 only the information presented in the source.

How did you do?

12
30 marks

Evaluate the view that electoral systems in the UK have a greater impact on the type of government formed than on the representation of parties.

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

How did you do?

13
30 marks

The UK uses several electoral systems at once. Members of Parliament are elected by first past the post, the Scottish Parliament by the additional member system, the Northern Ireland Assembly by the single transferable vote, and the Senedd by a closed list system since 2026.

Both extracts come from the same House of Commons debate on proportional representation in January 2025. Article 1 argues that one system should be used for all elections. Article 2, the Government's reply, defends the present arrangement.

Article 1

[T]rust in politics is very important for a functioning democracy, but sadly the data shows that trust is collapsing. At the last general election, we faced the second lowest turnout in the last 100 years, with just six in 10 people voting.

… We have the most unrepresentative Parliament in living memory. The governing party has about 34% of the votes cast, but 63% of the seats in this great House. What sort of system is that? It is completely unrepresentative. My good party had 14% of votes cast, yet we do not have even a mere 1% of seats in the Chamber. … We have 823,000 votes cast for every Reform seat; for the Labour party, it is a mere 23,000 votes for each seat.

… Voters still come up to me and say, "How does this work?". People get confused, because … we have one system for the general election and another in the devolved nations. Why can we not have a single simple system that we know works, and that is used in so many democracies around the world—a variant of proportional representation?

Source: extract taken from a House of Commons debate, 'Proportional Representation: General Elections' (speech of Richard Tice), 30 January 2025. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

[T]hat individual mandate—our names are on the ballot paper—is strengthened under the first-past-the-post system … that means that our electorate can single out [Members of Parliament], which could not happen under a party-list system, in order to remove them.

… [The Minister:] The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the importance of the constituency connection. Hon. Members have made important contributions about alternative systems, outlining their merits and limitations. Each of those systems has its pros and cons … At this time the Government have no plans to change the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. … [T]he first-past-the-post system, while not perfect, provides for a direct relationship between Members of Parliament and their local constituency. A change would require a national conversation and referendum. … We had an opportunity to change the voting system in the 2011 referendum. Unfortunately for those who are proponents of such a change, that referendum was lost. … [H]owever, I stress that we are not averse to changes to, and innovation in, our democracy.

Source: extract taken from a House of Commons debate, 'Proportional Representation: General Elections' (intervention of Richard Holden and reply of the Minister), 30 January 2025. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK should adopt a single electoral system for all elections.

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 only the information presented in the source.

How did you do?

14
30 marks

Referendum results in the United Kingdom are normally advisory rather than legally binding, because Parliament cannot bind itself. In January 2017 the Supreme Court held that the 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union did not by itself authorise ministers to act, and that an Act of Parliament was needed.

Both extracts come from the Commons debate on that Bill, on 31 January 2017. Article 1, from the responsible Secretary of State, argues Parliament is bound to implement the result. Article 2 argues that members must vote on their own judgement.

Article 1

The Bill responds directly to the Supreme Court judgment of 24 January, and seeks to honour the commitment the Government gave to respect the outcome of the referendum held on 23 June 2016. It is not a Bill about whether the [United Kingdom] should leave the European Union or, indeed, about how it should do so; it is simply about Parliament empowering the Government to implement a decision already made—a point of no return already passed.

We asked the people of the [United Kingdom] whether they wanted to leave the European Union, and they decided they did. At the core of this Bill lies a very simple question: do we trust the people or not? The democratic mandate is clear: the electorate voted for a Government to give them a referendum. Parliament voted to hold the referendum, the people voted in that referendum, and we are now honouring the result of that referendum, as we said we would.

… We will respect the will of the people and implement their decision by 31 March.

Source: extract taken from a House of Commons debate on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, Second Reading (speech of the Secretary of State), 31 January 2017, Hansard vol. 620. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

[I]t is my intention to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill … it falls to me to be the first Member of this House to set out the case for why I believe … that it is in the national interest for the United Kingdom to be a member of the European Union. … It is a case that hardly received any national publicity during the extraordinary referendum campaign, but it goes to the heart of the historic decision that the House is being asked to make now.

… Most Members, I trust, are familiar with Burke's address to the electors of Bristol. I have always firmly believed that every [Member of Parliament] should vote on an issue of this importance according to their view of the best national interest. I never quote Burke, but I shall paraphrase him. He said to his constituents, "If I no longer give you the benefit of my judgment and simply follow your orders, I am not serving you; I am betraying you." I personally shall be voting with my conscience content.

Source: extract taken from a House of Commons debate on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, Second Reading (speech of Kenneth Clarke), 31 January 2017, Hansard vol. 620. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Using the source, evaluate the view that referendum results should be legally binding on Parliament.

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 only the information presented in the source.

How did you do?