Edexcel Government & Politics - Unit 1 06/06/16
Scroll to see replies
Original post by MBenjamin
any positives of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system? I'm currently assessing all the electoral systems and can post the document if anyone would like it!
Yes please!
Original post by mollyadtr
No problem!
If the essay question was as vague as 'assess the advantages of pr' would you talk about specific pr systems as well as the general advantages and disadvantages do ya think?
Posted from TSR Mobile
If the essay question was as vague as 'assess the advantages of pr' would you talk about specific pr systems as well as the general advantages and disadvantages do ya think?
Posted from TSR Mobile
I would talk about different PR systems assess the advantages heavily, support them with facts and say briefly the disadvantages but then say why it's better than another electoral system like FPTP which supports why it should be introduced.
For example :
The major issue with FPTP is that there is an altered reflection of the votes cast and the seats won. This therefore restricts how public views are reflected in parliament because there is little proportionality which allows the public to have their opinions conveyed. Using the example of UKIP, the 2 million votes they received equated to only 1 seat. A representative proportionality system such as STV would be better in place of FPTP because the distribution of votes in the electorate is reflected proportionally in parliament. Unlike FPTP, this would allow everyone's views to be reflected in proportion; much fairer that the current system.
(this was from an essay that I did in controlled conditions and got 21/25)
Original post by backup1
Yes please!
nearly done, will be available ASAP
Original post by lilavocado
my teacher said to talk about specific ones in discussing your advantages and disadvantages 
Ahh okay that makes sense thank you 😁
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Louise12307
Additionally, forcing people to vote might lead to an increase in 'donkey voting' (random selection) or spoilt ballot papers.
I'm pretty sure Donkey Voting is voting for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot - so first candidate as first-preference, second as second etc. rather than random selection
Original post by mollyadtr
No problem!
If the essay question was as vague as 'assess the advantages of pr' would you talk about specific pr systems as well as the general advantages and disadvantages do ya think?
Posted from TSR Mobile
If the essay question was as vague as 'assess the advantages of pr' would you talk about specific pr systems as well as the general advantages and disadvantages do ya think?
Posted from TSR Mobile
talk about PR as a whole and use specific electoral systems for examples.
Original post by popcornjpg
I'm pretty sure Donkey Voting is voting for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot - so first candidate as first-preference, second as second etc. rather than random selection
Yeah, that's what I've understood about it.
Original post by popcornjpg
I'm pretty sure Donkey Voting is voting for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot - so first candidate as first-preference, second as second etc. rather than random selection
Ah that's true! I thought that might be the case that's why I didn't try and elaborate too much on it and gave a vague comment in brackets. Thank you!
Original post by MBenjamin
I would talk about different PR systems assess the advantages heavily, support them with facts and say briefly the disadvantages but then say why it's better than another electoral system like FPTP which supports why it should be introduced.
For example :
The major issue with FPTP is that there is an altered reflection of the votes cast and the seats won. This therefore restricts how public views are reflected in parliament because there is little proportionality which allows the public to have their opinions conveyed. Using the example of UKIP, the 2 million votes they received equated to only 1 seat. A representative proportionality system such as STV would be better in place of FPTP because the distribution of votes in the electorate is reflected proportionally in parliament. Unlike FPTP, this would allow everyone's views to be reflected in proportion; much fairer that the current system.
(this was from an essay that I did in controlled conditions and got 21/25)
For example :
The major issue with FPTP is that there is an altered reflection of the votes cast and the seats won. This therefore restricts how public views are reflected in parliament because there is little proportionality which allows the public to have their opinions conveyed. Using the example of UKIP, the 2 million votes they received equated to only 1 seat. A representative proportionality system such as STV would be better in place of FPTP because the distribution of votes in the electorate is reflected proportionally in parliament. Unlike FPTP, this would allow everyone's views to be reflected in proportion; much fairer that the current system.
(this was from an essay that I did in controlled conditions and got 21/25)
cheers for that, i can see how that paragraph would get a good mark
I'm retaking unit 1 tomorrow and revising choosing topics political participation and elections. I feel like the examiner marked me relatively harshly on last years (JUNE 2015) elections 25 marker, however im aware it isn't a great answer and punctuation isn't great. I got my paper back from last year and i have rewritten my answer word for word. Q2,PART C.
WHAT WOULD YOU GIVE ME /25? (curious to see how accurate some people are)
http://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A-Level/Government-and-Politics/2013/Exam-materials/6GP01_01_msc_20150812.pdf
The uk currently uses the electoral system called fptp. the uk is broken up into 650 constituencies. A majority of 326 seats is needed. The method in which the electorate vote is by going to a polling station and putting a X on the political party in which they prefer.
One reason as to why electoral reform is needed is because there is an unproportional vote to seats ratio in the uk. In 1992, the lib dems had 6 million votes but gained 40 seats but in 1997, they had a decrease of 800000 votes to 5.2 million but gained over 60 seats. Although, they had less votes, they gained more seats than in their previous election. This freezes out minorities as they do not have a voice. This is undemocratic.
Another reason as to why the uk electoral system needs to be reformed is because of the poor social representaion in parliament. Only 22% of MPs are female in the houses where as in the uk, 52% are female. Also, ethnic minorities are underepresented as there are only 4% of ethnic MPs, but 8% in the uk. this is undemocratic because there isnt social representation of the uk, in the houses of parliament.
Another reason as to why there shouldn't be a reform of the Westminster elections is because of the amount of safe seats. An example of a safe seat is in the constituency of Chelsea, in which they had 80% of voters voting conservative in the 2010 election. This again, freezes out other parties and encourages tactical voting amongst the electorate as they are aware their party will not win. It will also decrease voter turnout as people realise its inevitable their will lose, so dont vote.
A reason as to why there doesn't need to be an electoral reform because fptp is very simple as is easy to calculate with the majority of votes recieved by the next day. As you only have 1 vote, there are little amounts of wasted votes and the amount of 'donkey voters' which would occur in electoral systems such as STV and CRL.
Another reason as to why the westminster electoral system should not be reformed is because it normally delivers a strong and stable government which is accountable to the electorate such as the current conservative party which won the 2015 election. As they won through a majority, there was no need for another party to be in power, allowing the conservatives to make independent decisions for the better of the electorate.
Another reason is because it had served the UK very well for the past 100 years, so it reduces the need of change.
In conclusion, I believe that the westminster should have an electoral reform because the votes to seats is unproportional which freezes out minorities and is undemocratic.
WHAT WOULD YOU GIVE ME /25? (curious to see how accurate some people are)
http://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A-Level/Government-and-Politics/2013/Exam-materials/6GP01_01_msc_20150812.pdf
The uk currently uses the electoral system called fptp. the uk is broken up into 650 constituencies. A majority of 326 seats is needed. The method in which the electorate vote is by going to a polling station and putting a X on the political party in which they prefer.
One reason as to why electoral reform is needed is because there is an unproportional vote to seats ratio in the uk. In 1992, the lib dems had 6 million votes but gained 40 seats but in 1997, they had a decrease of 800000 votes to 5.2 million but gained over 60 seats. Although, they had less votes, they gained more seats than in their previous election. This freezes out minorities as they do not have a voice. This is undemocratic.
Another reason as to why the uk electoral system needs to be reformed is because of the poor social representaion in parliament. Only 22% of MPs are female in the houses where as in the uk, 52% are female. Also, ethnic minorities are underepresented as there are only 4% of ethnic MPs, but 8% in the uk. this is undemocratic because there isnt social representation of the uk, in the houses of parliament.
Another reason as to why there shouldn't be a reform of the Westminster elections is because of the amount of safe seats. An example of a safe seat is in the constituency of Chelsea, in which they had 80% of voters voting conservative in the 2010 election. This again, freezes out other parties and encourages tactical voting amongst the electorate as they are aware their party will not win. It will also decrease voter turnout as people realise its inevitable their will lose, so dont vote.
A reason as to why there doesn't need to be an electoral reform because fptp is very simple as is easy to calculate with the majority of votes recieved by the next day. As you only have 1 vote, there are little amounts of wasted votes and the amount of 'donkey voters' which would occur in electoral systems such as STV and CRL.
Another reason as to why the westminster electoral system should not be reformed is because it normally delivers a strong and stable government which is accountable to the electorate such as the current conservative party which won the 2015 election. As they won through a majority, there was no need for another party to be in power, allowing the conservatives to make independent decisions for the better of the electorate.
Another reason is because it had served the UK very well for the past 100 years, so it reduces the need of change.
In conclusion, I believe that the westminster should have an electoral reform because the votes to seats is unproportional which freezes out minorities and is undemocratic.
Original post by Nightcall
Thats a gigantic confidence boost then!
I hope you realise it will NEVER fall to that low ever again lol.
Original post by ACTT
I'm retaking unit 1 tomorrow and revising choosing topics political participation and elections. I feel like the examiner marked me relatively harshly on last years (JUNE 2015) elections 25 marker, however im aware it isn't a great answer and punctuation isn't great. I got my paper back from last year and i have rewritten my answer word for word. Q2,PART C.
WHAT WOULD YOU GIVE ME /25? (curious to see how accurate some people are)
http://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A-Level/Government-and-Politics/2013/Exam-materials/6GP01_01_msc_20150812.pdf
The uk currently uses the electoral system called fptp. the uk is broken up into 650 constituencies. A majority of 326 seats is needed. The method in which the electorate vote is by going to a polling station and putting a X on the political party in which they prefer.
One reason as to why electoral reform is needed is because there is an unproportional vote to seats ratio in the uk. In 1992, the lib dems had 6 million votes but gained 40 seats but in 1997, they had a decrease of 800000 votes to 5.2 million but gained over 60 seats. Although, they had less votes, they gained more seats than in their previous election. This freezes out minorities as they do not have a voice. This is undemocratic.
Another reason as to why the uk electoral system needs to be reformed is because of the poor social representaion in parliament. Only 22% of MPs are female in the houses where as in the uk, 52% are female. Also, ethnic minorities are underepresented as there are only 4% of ethnic MPs, but 8% in the uk. this is undemocratic because there isnt social representation of the uk, in the houses of parliament.
Another reason as to why there shouldn't be a reform of the Westminster elections is because of the amount of safe seats. An example of a safe seat is in the constituency of Chelsea, in which they had 80% of voters voting conservative in the 2010 election. This again, freezes out other parties and encourages tactical voting amongst the electorate as they are aware their party will not win. It will also decrease voter turnout as people realise its inevitable their will lose, so dont vote.
A reason as to why there doesn't need to be an electoral reform because fptp is very simple as is easy to calculate with the majority of votes recieved by the next day. As you only have 1 vote, there are little amounts of wasted votes and the amount of 'donkey voters' which would occur in electoral systems such as STV and CRL.
Another reason as to why the westminster electoral system should not be reformed is because it normally delivers a strong and stable government which is accountable to the electorate such as the current conservative party which won the 2015 election. As they won through a majority, there was no need for another party to be in power, allowing the conservatives to make independent decisions for the better of the electorate.
Another reason is because it had served the UK very well for the past 100 years, so it reduces the need of change.
In conclusion, I believe that the westminster should have an electoral reform because the votes to seats is unproportional which freezes out minorities and is undemocratic.
WHAT WOULD YOU GIVE ME /25? (curious to see how accurate some people are)
http://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A-Level/Government-and-Politics/2013/Exam-materials/6GP01_01_msc_20150812.pdf
The uk currently uses the electoral system called fptp. the uk is broken up into 650 constituencies. A majority of 326 seats is needed. The method in which the electorate vote is by going to a polling station and putting a X on the political party in which they prefer.
One reason as to why electoral reform is needed is because there is an unproportional vote to seats ratio in the uk. In 1992, the lib dems had 6 million votes but gained 40 seats but in 1997, they had a decrease of 800000 votes to 5.2 million but gained over 60 seats. Although, they had less votes, they gained more seats than in their previous election. This freezes out minorities as they do not have a voice. This is undemocratic.
Another reason as to why the uk electoral system needs to be reformed is because of the poor social representaion in parliament. Only 22% of MPs are female in the houses where as in the uk, 52% are female. Also, ethnic minorities are underepresented as there are only 4% of ethnic MPs, but 8% in the uk. this is undemocratic because there isnt social representation of the uk, in the houses of parliament.
Another reason as to why there shouldn't be a reform of the Westminster elections is because of the amount of safe seats. An example of a safe seat is in the constituency of Chelsea, in which they had 80% of voters voting conservative in the 2010 election. This again, freezes out other parties and encourages tactical voting amongst the electorate as they are aware their party will not win. It will also decrease voter turnout as people realise its inevitable their will lose, so dont vote.
A reason as to why there doesn't need to be an electoral reform because fptp is very simple as is easy to calculate with the majority of votes recieved by the next day. As you only have 1 vote, there are little amounts of wasted votes and the amount of 'donkey voters' which would occur in electoral systems such as STV and CRL.
Another reason as to why the westminster electoral system should not be reformed is because it normally delivers a strong and stable government which is accountable to the electorate such as the current conservative party which won the 2015 election. As they won through a majority, there was no need for another party to be in power, allowing the conservatives to make independent decisions for the better of the electorate.
Another reason is because it had served the UK very well for the past 100 years, so it reduces the need of change.
In conclusion, I believe that the westminster should have an electoral reform because the votes to seats is unproportional which freezes out minorities and is undemocratic.
I'd give it around 16-18 at most
- social statistics are wrong
- points are too simple, need more examples IMO for safe seats for instance
- outdated statistics for first point? why not just use 2015 general election stats (paper was in June, elections may, so no excuse)?
- I'd remove the last point about it serving the UK, its not a great point
personally I feel like you're trying to get in too many points and sacrificing detail. need more examples and statistics for top mark answers.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ACTT
I'm retaking unit 1 tomorrow and revising choosing topics political participation and elections. I feel like the examiner marked me relatively harshly on last years (JUNE 2015) elections 25 marker, however im aware it isn't a great answer and punctuation isn't great. I got my paper back from last year and i have rewritten my answer word for word. Q2,PART C.
WHAT WOULD YOU GIVE ME /25? (curious to see how accurate some people are)
http://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A-Level/Government-and-Politics/2013/Exam-materials/6GP01_01_msc_20150812.pdf
The uk currently uses the electoral system called fptp. the uk is broken up into 650 constituencies. A majority of 326 seats is needed. The method in which the electorate vote is by going to a polling station and putting a X on the political party in which they prefer.
One reason as to why electoral reform is needed is because there is an unproportional vote to seats ratio in the uk. In 1992, the lib dems had 6 million votes but gained 40 seats but in 1997, they had a decrease of 800000 votes to 5.2 million but gained over 60 seats. Although, they had less votes, they gained more seats than in their previous election. This freezes out minorities as they do not have a voice. This is undemocratic.
Another reason as to why the uk electoral system needs to be reformed is because of the poor social representaion in parliament. Only 22% of MPs are female in the houses where as in the uk, 52% are female. Also, ethnic minorities are underepresented as there are only 4% of ethnic MPs, but 8% in the uk. this is undemocratic because there isnt social representation of the uk, in the houses of parliament.
Another reason as to why there shouldn't be a reform of the Westminster elections is because of the amount of safe seats. An example of a safe seat is in the constituency of Chelsea, in which they had 80% of voters voting conservative in the 2010 election. This again, freezes out other parties and encourages tactical voting amongst the electorate as they are aware their party will not win. It will also decrease voter turnout as people realise its inevitable their will lose, so dont vote.
A reason as to why there doesn't need to be an electoral reform because fptp is very simple as is easy to calculate with the majority of votes recieved by the next day. As you only have 1 vote, there are little amounts of wasted votes and the amount of 'donkey voters' which would occur in electoral systems such as STV and CRL.
Another reason as to why the westminster electoral system should not be reformed is because it normally delivers a strong and stable government which is accountable to the electorate such as the current conservative party which won the 2015 election. As they won through a majority, there was no need for another party to be in power, allowing the conservatives to make independent decisions for the better of the electorate.
Another reason is because it had served the UK very well for the past 100 years, so it reduces the need of change.
In conclusion, I believe that the westminster should have an electoral reform because the votes to seats is unproportional which freezes out minorities and is undemocratic.
WHAT WOULD YOU GIVE ME /25? (curious to see how accurate some people are)
http://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A-Level/Government-and-Politics/2013/Exam-materials/6GP01_01_msc_20150812.pdf
The uk currently uses the electoral system called fptp. the uk is broken up into 650 constituencies. A majority of 326 seats is needed. The method in which the electorate vote is by going to a polling station and putting a X on the political party in which they prefer.
One reason as to why electoral reform is needed is because there is an unproportional vote to seats ratio in the uk. In 1992, the lib dems had 6 million votes but gained 40 seats but in 1997, they had a decrease of 800000 votes to 5.2 million but gained over 60 seats. Although, they had less votes, they gained more seats than in their previous election. This freezes out minorities as they do not have a voice. This is undemocratic.
Another reason as to why the uk electoral system needs to be reformed is because of the poor social representaion in parliament. Only 22% of MPs are female in the houses where as in the uk, 52% are female. Also, ethnic minorities are underepresented as there are only 4% of ethnic MPs, but 8% in the uk. this is undemocratic because there isnt social representation of the uk, in the houses of parliament.
Another reason as to why there shouldn't be a reform of the Westminster elections is because of the amount of safe seats. An example of a safe seat is in the constituency of Chelsea, in which they had 80% of voters voting conservative in the 2010 election. This again, freezes out other parties and encourages tactical voting amongst the electorate as they are aware their party will not win. It will also decrease voter turnout as people realise its inevitable their will lose, so dont vote.
A reason as to why there doesn't need to be an electoral reform because fptp is very simple as is easy to calculate with the majority of votes recieved by the next day. As you only have 1 vote, there are little amounts of wasted votes and the amount of 'donkey voters' which would occur in electoral systems such as STV and CRL.
Another reason as to why the westminster electoral system should not be reformed is because it normally delivers a strong and stable government which is accountable to the electorate such as the current conservative party which won the 2015 election. As they won through a majority, there was no need for another party to be in power, allowing the conservatives to make independent decisions for the better of the electorate.
Another reason is because it had served the UK very well for the past 100 years, so it reduces the need of change.
In conclusion, I believe that the westminster should have an electoral reform because the votes to seats is unproportional which freezes out minorities and is undemocratic.
17-18/25
- your conclusion needs to be a lot stronger
- paragraphs need to be more substantial rather than lots of points which aren't very well supported
- it's clear that you know your stuff but I think you may want to address your essay structure
my teacher recommends this for each main paragraph, of which you should have three, and normally, by using this structure i can get from 20-23/25
S - state your argument and what you're going to talk about in this paragraph in once sentence
D - develop your point
E - give an example to support what you've just said and explain the relevance of this example
A - reinforce your argument again without repeating what you've already said, it may sound basic but by just using the word 'because' you automatically force yourself to explain
R - give a reason why you have said everything you have said and link it back to the question with a brief concluding statement and a link to the next paragraph
Your introduction needs to lead in to the argument, your seems quite separate. Also your conclusion should try to have more bulk, this is where you balance your argument and come to 'conclusion'. I also agree with what people have said previously - you don't have much analysis in your paragraph you're just stating a reason, then a fact, but you need to actually say what this means, what this does, how it hinders democracy etc.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- BTEC Results FINAL Certificate
- Jack Grealish loves alcohol and women
- Unite Students Replacement Tenancy
- Cardiff Summer Tenancy Takeover 16/06/24 – 31/08/24 (Private)
- School is killing me - Y11 "GYG" 2022
- You sit 5 papers for A Level Physics?
- Need student accommodation London
- 4 weeks Until 1st Year Med Exams
- London accommodation needed
- gyg gcse 2024!
- ⭐niamhcheesecake's Yr 11 journal: help me conquer Gcse's :(( ⭐
- Tenancy at Stratford one
- When does swansea uni move in, have freshers and start teaching
- Room available Stratford One
- Are there 12 markers in AQA A level psychology?
- Terrorist NHS worker planned to bomb hospital
- DBS Disclosures and Barring Services
- KCL Tenancy Takeover Moonraker Point
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 11 hours ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3A/3B) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 3 (7152/3) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 2 (7152/2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 1 (7152/1) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-Level Politics Paper 2 - 7152/2 7 June 2023 [Exam chat]Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 11 hours ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3 (9PL0 3A/3B) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 3 (7152/3) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 2 (7152/2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 weeks ago
AQA A Level Politics Paper 1 (7152/1) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-Level Politics Paper 2 - 7152/2 7 June 2023 [Exam chat]Last reply 2 months ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
