Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by backup1)
    Yes please!
    nearly done, will be available ASAP
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    talk about PR as a whole and use specific electoral systems for examples.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    anyone else screwed?????
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    All done!
    Attached Files
  1. File Type: docx Electoral Systems.docx (154.5 KB, 105 views)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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)
    cheers for that, i can see how that paragraph would get a good mark
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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/co...c_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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nightcall)
    Thats a gigantic confidence boost then!
    I hope you realise it will NEVER fall to that low ever again lol.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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/co...c_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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Stop starting every single paragraph with 'another reason'.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Honestly don't waste your time doing 2015 questions as they will not re-appear.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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/co...c_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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What is everyone's predictions for tomorrows exam?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You guys are way too generous! The examiner awarded me 9/25. Felt i should have been awarded a couple of marks more but im aware its a poor essay.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.