Knowledge (AO1): Demonstrates factual knowledge and understanding.
Analysis (AO2): Explains and develops arguments.
Evaluation (AO3): Weighs arguments and makes judgments.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I disagree to a large extent with this statement as First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) provides stability in the UKs electoral system. First of all, FPTP is where constituency vote for a representative in the House of common. A strength in this arguement is that FPTP is more effecient for the people as they can just vote for a reprensentative that can speak on behalf of their problems... However, you could argue that Proportional Representation (PR) is more ideal as the electoral system than FPTP as peoples votes goe directly to the seats. To begin with PR is where the peoples votes go straight to the seats rather through representatives. This arguement lack credibility as it can lead to parties not being able to gain a majority (over 50%) which can lead to coalition governments, which happened in Weimar Germany as their electoral system was PR. Even though this may seem "more democratic"...this arguement lacks the understanding that it puts the UKs' politics at risk because the two parties may not come to an agreement which could slow decision-making. In conclusion, after weighing up bom sides, I've come to the agreement that I disagree with the statement as it implements stability... Even though having PR allows the peoples vote to seem more democratic... this can be countered as it puts the government at stakes which creates the arguement as invalid.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I disagree to a somewhat extent because of the strength of this argument. Because in First Past the Post the candidang with the most votes in local anPa win the seats. This hends to produce stable government and it is harder for extremists Partes to gain power. However the blaws with this argument is it cause disproportianate result and many votes may be wasted. For example the 2015 UK eleshon produced many considerably deeply unfair futhermore. Alternatively voting system might be Proporhnal representation. Seats a party win should roughly manoh the total voups. this arqumpur is fair representahue results. However the flaw with this arqument is it creats Coalinon gournment. In my conslu conclusion I thank that vor all vohny susien are imperukner and society is gang to willing to accept one.
Projected Mark: 10/15 (Mid Level 3)
Note: This is a projected mark based on this incomplete essay.
This is a solid Level 3 response. You show good knowledge of the key arguments for and against both systems (stability vs. fairness). You develop arguments for both perspectives and use a good example from the 2015 election to support your point about disproportionality.
WWW: You have a balanced structure, looking at both FPTP and PR. The use of the 2015 election is a strong piece of evidence (AO1).
EBI: Your conclusion is a little unclear. Try to make a decisive judgment that directly answers the "How far do you agree?" part of the question, based on the arguments you have weighed up.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
First Past Post electer syshtem should be re place this is because First Past Post is an ouded syshten where not everone vote is heko serias. this because First Past cals give credit to the people who vote however people who vote for disserent parts are seen which lede where people feel voting is not indarton in society because people only care about the party who win. This can py people off from votins.
Projected Mark: 3/15 (Low Level 1)
Note: This is a projected mark based on the limited quality of this fragment.
This answer shows some basic knowledge about a weakness of FPTP – that some votes feel wasted or don't count. You make a one-sided argument that the system is outdated. The written communication is limited, which makes it hard to follow the points being made.
WWW: You have correctly identified a key criticism of FPTP (that some votes feel wasted).
EBI: Try to structure your answer with clear points. You need to discuss the other side of the argument – what are the strengths of FPTP? You also need to discuss what PR is and what its strengths and weaknesses are.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I disagree with the statement that the first past the post electoral system should be replaced... This is because the first past the post electoral system (FPTP) is very helpful and benefitial. This is for example if two individuals wanted to become an MP and there is a clear way to solve this issue... Another reason why I disagree that the FPTP electoral system should be replaced... is because of Democracy... since everyone (registered) is allowed to be involved in the FPTP everyone would feel heard and cohesion would be significant... However, individuals may disagree with my statement as there are also disadvantages to the first past the post (FPTP) electoral system. For example many people may not like a specific individual campaigning to be an MP and may get a group of people to vote for the other party making the voting undemocratic.
Projected Mark: 7/15 (Mid Level 2)
Note: This is a projected mark based on this incomplete essay.
This is an adequate response. You show some knowledge of the arguments around FPTP, focusing on its clarity and democratic nature. You also attempt to bring in a counter-argument about tactical voting, which shows some balance. However, the arguments are not always clearly explained and lack specific evidence.
WWW: You have tried to look at different perspectives and have a clear structure.
EBI: You need to include a discussion of Proportional Representation (PR). The question asks you to compare FPTP with PR, so you must explain what PR is and discuss its strengths and weaknesses to get a higher mark.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I disagree... The first past the post system is brilliant cet not cellaring extremist parties into power. It also preutes it better to get into power as if a party has majority votes thay are granted to get into power. The First Past the Post system is a democratic procces in which voters get to chose who they want to represent them. I belive FPTP is better then Proporticnal Representate System.
Projected Mark: 5/15 (High Level 2)
Note: This is a projected mark based on this one-sided fragment.
This is a one-sided but reasonably clear argument in favour of FPTP. You've identified several key strengths of the system: keeping extremists out, producing majority governments, and the strong link between MPs and voters. This shows adequate knowledge.
EBI: To move into the higher levels, you must provide a balanced answer. This means you need to discuss the arguments *against* FPTP and the arguments *for* Proportional Representation. The question asks 'How far do you agree?', which requires you to look at both sides before making your final judgment.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I agree to an extent as they both have some flaws. For example one positive about the Past the post system is that it ensures extremest partys wont be elected, as they wont be able to get enough votes from any one constituency. However the disadvantage is that the number of votes gained by a party does not represent the number of seats earned. One good thing about the Proporcional representation is that every vote counts. which is good is it ensures that the public feel like they have a voice. But one disadvantage is here a voler votes agent instead of for a party they want. For example if somebody did not want ser UKIP to be elected they might vote for the Labour Party as they feel there vote might not matter and waste it.
Projected Mark: 9/15 (Low Level 3)
Note: This is a projected mark for this incomplete essay.
This is a good, balanced discussion that shows sound knowledge of both systems. You develop arguments for and against both FPTP and PR, touching on key ideas like extremism, disproportionality, and wasted votes. The structure is good and balanced.
EBI: The essay lacks a conclusion. To secure your place in Level 3, you need to write a conclusion that makes a final judgment and justifies it based on the points you've made. Your point about tactical voting could also be explained more clearly.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I agree because there are advantages for PR such as fewer wasted votes and offers more choice and is faver to minoritys. However there are advantage for FPTP such as extremist parties are unlikely to be elected... and very quickly so the winning party can take over. Fun fact - in 2010 there was a coalition government. However there are disadvantages such as the number of votes cast for a party doesnt reflect the number of seats... And conservatives votes won 43.6 seats was 56... labour votes won 32.2 seats was 311... on the other hand there are weakness such as more coaltion governments, MPs may have no links to constituencies and small parties can have unfair power... Strengths of FPTP are, its a simple system to understand...
Projected Mark: 12/15 (High Level 3)
Note: This is a projected mark for this detailed but unstructured and incomplete essay.
A very good and detailed response. You cover a wide range of arguments for and against both systems, showing sound knowledge and understanding. You use evidence, including the 2010 coalition and some (slightly inaccurate) election data, which is good practice. The evaluation is present, particularly when discussing the weaknesses of PR.
EBI: The essay is a little unstructured and jumps between points. A clearer paragraph structure would elevate it to Level 4. A clear concluding paragraph that weighs the arguments and justifies your final opinion is also needed.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I disagree with this because proportional representation only counts the number of seats a party wins. Also alot of the European Union uses the D'Hondt method which is a closed list system where the parties put forward a list of candidates... This is stable because votes must count towards how people have voted. However with First post the post, there is a simple system to understand and is cheap. Also results are calculates quickly and it produces a two party system, resulting in single party governments. On the other hand, first post the post also has its weaknesses such as only the winning votes count... Also it produces more coalition governments and MP's may have no links to constituency.
Projected Mark: 8/15 (High Level 2)
Note: This is a projected mark for this incomplete essay.
This is an adequate response with some good knowledge shown, particularly about the D'Hondt method and the simplicity/speed of FPTP. There is a clear attempt to build arguments and look at different perspectives. However, there are some significant misunderstandings, such as attributing coalition governments and a lack of constituency link to FPTP, when they are typically criticisms of PR.
EBI: Be careful to attribute the correct strengths and weaknesses to each system. Review the differences between FPTP and PR, especially regarding constituency links and the likelihood of coalitions.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I disagree to an extent with this statement because FPTP (First past the post) has many benefits. An example of this is that it stops extremist parties who have strong from becoming in power as it is determined on the ammounts seats you have. Another benefit...
Projected Mark: 4/15 (High Level 1)
Note: This is a projected mark based on the quality of this short fragment.
You have started to build an argument by identifying a key strength of FPTP – that it tends to keep extremist parties out of power. This shows some basic knowledge of the topic. The answer is one-sided and undeveloped.
EBI: To improve, you need to develop this point further (explain *how* FPTP does this). You must also provide a balanced argument by considering the weaknesses of FPTP and the arguments for PR. Finally, a conclusion is needed to summarise your view.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I agree with this statement because Proportional Representation (PR) has many benefits. A few examples are fewer votes waisted during voting and more choices are offered to the people voting. I also agree with this statement because there are quite some disadvantages in First Past the Post (FPTP) like only winning votes count and it encourages tactical voting... On the other hand others may dissagree and suggest that FPTP should be replaced with PR because it is a simple system to understand especially for elderly people and the results are calculated quickly unlike PR where coalition governments could be formed. I may partially dissagree because PR has some weaknesses such as small parties have unfair power... Overall I agree that FPTP should be replaced with PR because of the reasonably good strengths it comes with.
Projected Mark: 10/15 (Mid Level 3)
Note: This is a projected mark based on this incomplete essay.
This is a good, well-structured essay. You clearly understand the arguments for and against both systems. The discussion is balanced, covering points like wasted votes and tactical voting for FPTP, and the simplicity of FPTP versus the risk of coalitions and powerful small parties under PR. Your conclusion is clear and justified.
EBI: The point about FPTP being a simple system is a strength of FPTP, not an argument against replacing it. Be careful with how you phrase your points. To improve further, include specific examples or data to support your arguments.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
Someone might disagree with this to a large extent. This is due to the fact that first past the post (FPTP) makes our society more democratic. For example, people in every constituency feel that their vote has an actual impact. This is because FPTP makes our parliament have multiple political parties occuping seats. This means that citizens can feel represented by the party they voted for because even if they didn't win the election, they can still make suggestions in parliament. However, this argument is flawed because FPTP makes it less likely for smaller parties to get into parliament, this means that they won't be able to represent the people who voted for them which would make some citizens less likely to vote next time... Therefore, one could argue that FPTP makes the UK more represntative but in reality it just excludes smaller parties and desuades people in voting.
Projected Mark: 8/15 (High Level 2)
Note: This is a projected mark based on this incomplete essay.
This is an interesting essay that attempts a good level of analysis and evaluation, but it contains some significant misunderstandings. You argue that FPTP is democratic because votes have an impact and that it leads to multiple parties in parliament, which is often a criticism of FPTP and a feature of PR. You then correctly evaluate that this is flawed because FPTP actually excludes smaller parties. This shows some evaluation, but the initial premise is confused.
EBI: Revisit the core features of FPTP and PR. FPTP is criticised for *not* making every vote count ('wasted votes') and for creating a two-party system that *excludes* smaller parties. PR is the system that tends to result in multi-party parliaments.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I dissagre with this statement because eventho proportional representation is a good system it has it's flaw's. For exsample when voting their is never a majority wich lead's to a coalition goverment. Wich mean's two party's combined to run the country wich could be a problem if two party's with diffrent ideal's and values come together it could lead to argument's wich lead's to slower decison's being made. However (PR) doe's have it's advantge's like smaller party's being able to have seat's within parliment... I dissagree is because first past the post has more advantge's. For exsample... their is alway's a majority wich mean's we know who win's very quickly and they are put into power quickly. Secondly It prevent's party's with extremist ideal's from coming into power. how ever some people may argue that the total vote's dont equate to the seat's in parliment...
Projected Mark: 11/15 (High Level 3)
Note: This is a projected mark for this incomplete essay.
This is a good, well-structured Level 3 essay. You show a clear understanding of the arguments surrounding both systems. You develop arguments for your position by focusing on the strengths of FPTP (stability, speed, keeps extremists out) and the weaknesses of PR (coalitions). You also show good balance by acknowledging the arguments on the other side.
EBI: Add a conclusion at the end to weigh up the points you've made and state your final, justified opinion. This would likely have pushed the mark up to a 12.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I disagree with this statement as First Past the Post electoral system could be seen as very useful for keeping the uk civic. This is because First Past the Post stops extremist parties... and only allows 1 seat / vote per person in their constituences. Adding onto this... this is important because it keeps majorities of the people happy. Adding onto this First Past the Post allows for quicker and smoother electoral processes... However some may argue that Propoctinal representation is a better elector system as the amount of votes represen the amount of seats so propostinal representation is an example of direct demoecucy... However a problem with this system is that it does not represent smaller areas which means some people do not have a say to what happens in the uk. In conclusion I belive First Past the post is a better voting system as it represents everybody.
Projected Mark: 10/15 (Mid Level 3)
Note: This is a projected mark based on the quality of this fragment.
A good response that shows sound knowledge and understanding of the arguments. You clearly lay out the strengths of FPTP (stops extremists, clear link, quick results, stable government) and then present the main counter-argument for PR (proportionality). You also correctly identify a weakness of PR (loss of local representation). The essay is balanced and has a clear conclusion.
EBI: Your final sentence in the conclusion ("it represents everybody") slightly contradicts your earlier point about PR being more proportional. Be careful to ensure your conclusion logically follows all your reasoning. To improve, add specific examples to support your points.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I agree with this point to an extent as I beleve other parties may have the chance may get a stronger seat in parliament. For example if there were two parties and one of them had more votes but from all around and the other party had less votes but from the same place, the party with less voted would have a stronger seat in parliament because their votes came from one place instead of everywhere. Another advantage of the PR is that if you don't want a certain party to win you could vote for them and they probably still woudn't have a seat in parliament. Overall I think it would be better if the Proportional Representation was replaced as maybe more voices would be heard and this could benefit for the public... weak parties can maybe get that opportunity to speak for us.
Projected Mark: 8/15 (High Level 2)
Note: This is a projected mark based on this incomplete essay.
This essay shows an adequate understanding of some of the key issues, particularly the idea of fairness and representation for smaller parties. Your example of concentrated vs. spread-out votes is a good (if slightly confused) attempt to explain the disproportionality of FPTP. You make a clear argument for PR based on the idea of more voices being heard.
EBI: The essay is unbalanced. You need to include the arguments *against* PR and the arguments *for* FPTP (e.g., stability, strong MP link) to get into the higher levels. Your explanation of tactical voting is also a little confused; PR *reduces* the need for tactical voting.
"The First Past the Post electoral system should be replaced with Proportional Representation in the UK." (15 marks) How far do you agree with this view?
I disagree with view almost entirely due to the flaws consisted inside proportional representation... However on the other hand people who support this suggest that every vote makes noting that they wouldn't have the idea that their vote is meaningless... Adding on why I disagree with this point is it allows extremise partis to become and gain a lot more seats... Yet people could also argue the good of first past the post (FPTP) such as how... allows constituency's to vote for who the represent them... Adding on to the opposing side could argue that First past the post sometimes leads to a coalition goverment due to parties not gaining the majority of seats. For example in 2010 under the FPTP system a coalition govment was formed... Oh a failed showing the weakness in FPTP and how overall both voting systems have positives and negatives.
Projected Mark: 13/15 (High Level 4)
Note: This is a projected mark based on the quality of this excellent but incomplete essay.
This is an excellent, comprehensive discussion showing detailed knowledge and clear evaluation. You develop multiple arguments for both sides, covering wasted votes, extremism, constituency links, and coalition governments. Your use of the 2010 coalition as evidence is superb. The evaluation is sustained throughout as you weigh the different points against each other. Your final sentence serves as a justified, nuanced conclusion.
EBI: Your argument that FPTP can lead to coalitions is slightly confused - while it did in 2010, it's a much rarer outcome than under PR. A final concluding paragraph would strengthen the essay's structure.
Examiner's Comments
Projected Mark: 11/15 (High Level 3)
Note: This is a projected mark based on the quality of this fragment. To achieve this, a full essay would need to sustain this level of analysis.
This is a good essay that fits securely in Level 3. You establish a clear line of argument and sustain it to a justified conclusion. There is a good discussion showing sound knowledge of both FPTP and PR, and you develop arguments for different perspectives before evaluating them to support your own view.
WWW: Your structure is logical, addressing arguments and counter-arguments clearly. You show good evaluation by weighing the pros and cons. Your conclusion is strong and directly answers the question.
EBI: To reach Level 4, try to use more specific, recent examples from UK politics. For instance, you could have mentioned the 2010 UK coalition or the disproportionate results of the 2015 election.