AO1: Support for many parties is now widespread in all parts of the UK. This was highlighted in 2015. Other examples can be used. AO2: The Labour and Conservative parties no longer dominate the choices made by the UK electorate. AO3: We can conclude that given the support for other parties, the share of the seats they receive is unfair. AO1: In the devolved regions, more accurate representation is obtained with systems of PR which reflects the wide spectrum of political parties. AO2: When we compare systems other than FPTP, we can see a more accurate reflection of the choices people made at the ballot box. AO3: Electoral change to the Westminster system can be judged to be crucial to represent support for more parties. AO1: Tactical voting is a consequence of the FPP in Westminster; a change to PR would allow the electorate to vote for their first-choice party. AO2: Tactical voting creates resentment within the electorate and makes them feel their vote is meaningless. Other systems like AO3: STV make every vote matter. AO1: It is easy to conclude that the need for tactical voting under FPTP shows it undermines democracy. AO2: FPTP works when there is a binary choice – it fails miserably when more than two parties contest elections. It denies a voice to many voters. AO3: Some Westminster constituencies can have a 3- or 4-way split. This can lead to less than 25% of the eligible electorate producing an MP for the whole constituency.

AO1: The Westminster system may have some imperfections, but its strong points outweigh the negatives – such as, in the main, delivering strong and stable government without coalitions. AO2: In the vast majority of cases, it has delivered governments able to implement manifesto promises and claim a mandate. AO3: We can conclude that effective single-party governments are formed, which is a vital mechanism for accountability. AO1: The Westminster system provides a local linkage of an MP speaking on behalf of a constituency, unlike some forms of PR. AO2: In a multi-member constituency, as under PR, an area has many and varied competing voices. Under FPTP, a single MP speaks with authority for all. AO3: We can conclude that having clear, local representatives is an important part of the democratic electoral process. AO1: The Westminster system keeps out smaller, single-issue parties. This enables the larger parties to adopt their views if popular and represent the electorate in this way. AO2: Under FPTP, it is hard for these smaller parties, whose vote is often not concentrated, to gain a significant foothold and use this to play a larger part in the government than their support may warrant. AO3: We can conclude that under FPTP the two major parties have a wide collection of ideas which covers the political spectrum – but allows government to be effective. AO1: The Westminster system is also good at providing and ensuring accountability, and also being a vehicle for major changes. AO2: FPTP provides party accountability when they seek re-election and gives the voters the chance to throw out those with whom it dislikes. A FPTP system is also good at introducing ‘sea-change’ politics and we see this in certain ‘watershed’ elections such as 1997. AO3: Without FPTP, our democracy would be weaker and less transparent, and it would be hard to introduce major shifts in policy and ideas.