Garantie de satisfaction à 100% Disponible immédiatement après paiement En ligne et en PDF Tu n'es attaché à rien
Recherché précédemment par vous
Summary A Level Politics UK Politics Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 9PL0/01 Exemplar Essay - 24/30 A-A* grade - UK Electoral System€5,51
Ajouter au panier
Summary A Level Politics UK Politics Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 9PL0/01 Exemplar Essay - 24/30 A-A* grade - UK Electoral System
4 vues 0 achat
Cours
Unit 1 - People and Politics (9PL0)
Établissement
PEARSON (PEARSON)
A Level Politics UK Politics Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 9PL0/01.
This is an exemplar essay I wrote in Year 12 that received 24/30. Equivalent to an A-A* grade.
Topic: UK Electoral System. Evaluate the view that PR should replace FPTP system used for elections to the House of Commons (...
Evaluate the view that PR should replace FPTP system used for elections to the House of
Commons (30)
Some people think we should not replace the FPTP system with PR for elections in the
House of Commons because they claim that the FPTP status quo continues to deliver for
voters. However, I strongly disagree and think that we should switch to a PR system such as
STV, or even a semi-PR system such as AMS. Proportional representation, it will be shown,
maintains government strength and strong constituency links, whilst facilitating third parties
to flourish which boosts pluralism and produces better local outcomes.
Some people think we should keep the FPTP system for elections in the House of Commons
because they claim it ensures a strong and stable government. For example, in 1997, just
over 40% of voters voted for Blair, yet he dominated a whopping 64% of seats. This suggests
to some people we should keep the FPTP system because this meant Blair had a majority of
179 MPs in the House of Commons, so had a massive mandate for implementing dramatic
constitutional changes such as the Human Rights Act 1998. But this view is misguided. In
fact, most large majorities under FPTP (such as Blair’s) in the House of Commons are
facilitated by tactical voting. For example, one-third of voters in 2019 admitted that they
voted for the ‘lesser of two evils’ (Labour or Conservative). This reflects my view that we
should switch to a PR system because tactical voting, facilitated by FPTP, hurts the voter’s
democratic choice to vote for the party that best represents their views. By contrast, a
proportional or semi-proportional system would also deliver a strong government, but
stamp down on the voter’s tendency to vote tactically. For example, in 2011, the SNP
secured a majority of 53% of seats in the Scottish Parliament which has used the hybrid
system, AMS. This justifies my view that we should switch to a PR variant (AMS) because a
third party under AMS received a significant majority, but also boosted local outcomes: the
SNP implemented the National Health Service regulations in 2011 which made medical
prescriptions free in the NHS. Therefore, we should switch to a PR variant (AMS) because a
majority equal to that of FPTP was secured, but voters voted with their heart, so I think local
outcomes were far better for the Scottish people.
Some people also think we should keep the FPTP system for elections in the House of
Commons because they claim third parties are well-represented. For example, Stephen
Farry, MP for the Alliance Party, made a spoken contribution to the House of Commons
when he interrogated the government over a lack of contingency planning for a surge in
refugees as a result of the Russia-Ukraine crisis. This suggests to some that we should keep
the FPTP system because there were processes in place which allowed a representative
from a third party to directly challenge the executive government. Therefore, some think
Farry represented the views of liberal centrists from Northern Ireland, a minority group. But
this view is misguided. In fact, spoken contributions in the House of Commons are of little
significance and third parties are not listened to by the executive government. For example,
despite Farry’s spoken contribution, the government ignored his claims at first, so had to
scramble to put together plans for Ukrainian refugees later on. A proportional system, by
contrast, would allow third parties to have a larger voice in the legislative chamber. For
example, the Green-EFA alliance in the European parliament (which is run by a Closed Party
List) won a sizeable 67 seats in 2019 because their vote share matched their seat share. This
justifies my view that we should switch to PR because the Green Party coalition became
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur luke3. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €5,51. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
