Skip to main content
EnglandPoliticsSyllabus dot point

How do different electoral systems work and what are their effects?

The features and effects of first-past-the-post and the other electoral systems used in the UK, the debate over electoral reform, the use of referendums, and the impact of different systems on parties and government.

A focused answer to AQA A-Level Politics on first-past-the-post and the other electoral systems used in the UK, their effects on parties and government, the debate over electoral reform, and the use of referendums.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.810 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. First-past-the-post (FPTP)
  3. The other UK systems
  4. Effects and the reform debate
  5. Referendums

What this dot point is asking

AQA wants you to explain how first-past-the-post and the other systems used in the UK work, evaluate their effects on parties, governments and voters, assess the debate over electoral reform, and explain the use of referendums including the 2011 AV referendum.

First-past-the-post (FPTP)

  • Strengths: simple to use and count, produces strong single-party majorities and decisive government, maintains a clear single MP-to-constituency link for accountability, and tends to keep out small extremist parties.
  • Weaknesses: highly disproportional (the share of seats does not match the share of votes, so a party can win a majority of seats on well under half the vote), produces many wasted votes and safe seats that discourage turnout, encourages tactical voting, and disadvantages smaller and geographically dispersed parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.

FPTP does not always deliver a majority: it produced hung parliaments in 2010 (leading to coalition) and 2017 (leading to a minority government), showing the outcome depends on how evenly support is distributed.

The other UK systems

These systems are more proportional than FPTP, often produce coalition or minority governments, and give smaller parties a fairer chance of representation, but they can weaken the single-member constituency link, hand power to parties in coalition negotiations, and produce less decisive outcomes. AMS and STV in particular show that proportional systems are workable in the UK.

Effects and the reform debate

Different systems shape the party system and the type of government: FPTP favours two large parties and single-party majority government (a majoritarian outcome), while proportional systems encourage multiparty politics, coalitions and minority governments (as seen in the Scottish Parliament). The reform debate weighs representation and fairness (votes matching seats, real choice, fewer wasted votes) against strong, accountable government (clear winners, decisive mandates, a single MP to hold to account). Reformers point to the disproportionality of FPTP; defenders point to the instability of coalitions and the success of FPTP in producing functioning governments.

Referendums

The 2011 AV referendum asked whether to replace FPTP with the Alternative Vote (a majoritarian, not proportional, system); nearly 68% voted no on a low turnout, ending the prospect of Westminster electoral reform for a generation. Referendums are also used for major constitutional change such as devolution (1997 and 1998), Scottish independence (2014) and EU membership (2016), reflecting the principle that fundamental changes need direct popular consent.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of AQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

AQA 20189 marksExplain and analyse three effects of the first-past-the-post electoral system. (Paper 2, Section A, short-answer)
Show worked answer →

Three distinct effects, each defined, illustrated and analysed.

One: strong single-party majority government. FPTP usually manufactures a majority from a plurality of votes. Analyse that this gives decisive government but on a minority of the vote (it is disproportional).

Two: a clear single-member constituency link. Each MP represents one area. Analyse that this aids accountability but produces many safe seats and wasted votes.

Three: disadvantage to smaller and dispersed parties. FPTP squeezes parties whose support is spread thinly. Analyse that this entrenches the two main parties and distorts the seats-to-votes ratio.

Markers reward three clearly different effects, accurate examples (hung parliaments in 2010 and 2017), and analysis of strengths and weaknesses.

AQA 202120 marksEvaluate the view that the UK should replace first-past-the-post for general elections. (Adapted from Paper 2, Section C essay; 25-mark essay rescoped to 20.)
Show worked answer →

A balanced essay with a sustained judgement and developed arguments on both sides.

For reform: FPTP is disproportional, wastes votes, creates safe seats and disadvantages smaller parties; more proportional systems (AMS, STV) give fairer representation, as used elsewhere in the UK.

Against reform: FPTP delivers strong, accountable single-party government and a clear constituency link, keeps out extremes, and the 2011 referendum rejected the Alternative Vote; proportional systems can produce unstable coalitions and weaken the MP link.

Markers reward a clear line of argument, accurate detail on the systems and the 2011 referendum, weighing of the two sides, and a justified conclusion. AO3 (evaluation) carries the most weight.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this