AO1: FPTP has and continues to fail. AO2: A core requirement of an electoral system is to fairly represent how people voted and that all votes are of equal worth wherever they are cast. AO3: We have to conclude that if a system of election fails to accurately reflect how the public voted then it should be abandoned for a system which can do that. AO1: AMS has worked in Scotland & Wales. AO2: AMS has brought both majority governments – as in Scotland and stable coalition governments again in Scotland and Wales. AO3: It is perfectly possible to have a seamless introduction of AMS with a constituency and list system working together. AO1: STV has worked in Northern Ireland (NI). AO2: STV has delivered legitimately accepted administration in NI. At its outset the end product was a power sharing executive to heal wounds in NI society. AO3: The same process could operate for the Westminster Parliament where turnout levels have fallen and voters feel alienated. AO1: Other parties have entered the political framework. AO2: Outside of Westminster elections as we move to the devolved regions we see a wide range of political parties and this reflects the way people have voted and the spectrum of political values in society. The occupiers of power are not just the Labour and Conservative parties. The more proportional systems used in the devolved regions are good at reflection the party choice and voter preference. AO3: Confidence in a political system is increased if people can see a reflective elected assembly which represents and voices their views. FPTP cannot accommodate the spectrum of ideas in the devolved areas nor indeed in the wider UK elections.

AO1: FPTP delivers majorities 18/20. It works for the whole of the UK not a region of it. AO2: A majority government with an ability to put in place its manifesto is a crucial component of a functioning democracy. The wider state has to have stability. AO3: We can conclude that a stable government able to pass and produce legislation and act decisively ranks very high in the requirements of any political system. The systems in use in the devolved areas are fine for devolved areas as they have an element of 'locality' infused in them but only FPTP works for the entire UK. AO1: FPTP keeps a constituency link. AO2: In many other systems of PR representative are returned who have no local accountability and regions are left without a voice to speak and address their localised needs. This arises from list members in Scotland and Wales. It is a feature of STV in NI. AO3: Westminster MPs act as champions for their local constituency and can bring things to national attention from a local perspective. It also acts to hold representatives' accountant in a local context. Under FPTP we have named people who can be identified – whereas a list simply benefits those favoured by the political party. AO1: Simple, easy and swift unambiguous system. AO2: Many votes are spoiled and/or lost under systems of PR where it is felt the system is too complicated for the voter to understand. FPTP is a swift system which has an impressive turnaround time. Often in the devolved regions a coalition is required. AO3: Systems of PR can be slow to produce an outcome and it may mean deals are struck with political rivals after the election and thus the mandate of the new government may not be seen as legitimate. A coalition can be considered to have less legitimacy. AO1: Decisively removes unwanted governments. AO2: It may often be the case that in systems of PR a radical re-alignment is never possible. It may be the case that one party stays perpetually in power and all that the election does is to possibly change its partner in office. As has been the case in Wales. In a similar vein the SNP have become the dominant group in Scotland. AO3: In 1979 and then again in 1997 the public had tired of one particular party and one fixed set of ideas and needed new direction and values This ability to deliver change in a decisive manner is a huge benefit given by FPTP.