Two grids on the same template. The first is empty - print it, fill in each cell with a one-line note while you revise. The second is a worked example to check yourself against.
Each cell asks one question: does this row strengthen the column quality (mark +) or weaken it (mark -)? Then add a one-line note saying why. The plus and minus columns are deliberately not pre-printed - your judgement is the work.
| System+ - | Proportional result | Strong single-party govt | Voter choice | MP-constituency link | Simple for voters | Fair to small parties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FPTP | ||||||
| AMS | ||||||
| STV | ||||||
| SV |
| System+ - | Proportional result | Strong single-party govt | Voter choice | MP-constituency link | Simple for voters | Fair to small parties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FPTP | -Poorly: 2024 saw Labour win 33.7% of votes but 411 seats (63.2%) and a majority of 174. | +Well, usually: it normally produces single-party majority government, though 2010 and 2017 strained that. | -Poorly: one cross only, and in safe seats the result is known in advance, driving tactical voting. | +Well: relatively small single-member seats give every voter one clear, accessible local MP. | +Well: one cross, few spoiled ballots and fast, clear results. | -Poorly: it rewards concentrated support and punishes spread support (SNP 2.5% beat Reform's 14.3% on seats). |
| AMS | +Well: the regional list top-up seats correct the disproportionality the FPTP half produces. | -Poorly: coalition or minority government is the norm, with policy settled by post-election deals. | +Well: two votes that can be split between different parties. | ±Partly: it keeps a local constituency member but creates two classes of member. | ±Partly: more complex than FPTP, with two votes and a closed list set by party leaders. | +Well: top-up list seats let smaller parties win seats in line with their support. |
| STV | +Well: highly proportional, with very few wasted votes, which is why it suits power-sharing. | -Poorly: coalition government is built in. | +Well: the widest voter choice of any UK system, ranking candidates across and within parties. | ±Partly: every area still has members, but large multi-member seats dilute the single-MP link. | -Poorly: complex counts, with surplus and eliminated votes transferred on preferences. | +Well: highly proportional, so smaller parties win seats in line with support. |
| SV | -Poorly: a majoritarian single-winner system, not designed to be proportional. | +Well: it elects a single winner with a broader mandate than a plain plurality. | ±Partly: a first and second choice, but a second choice only counts if it is for one of the top two. | +Well: it elects one representative for a single post (a mayor or PCC), a clear single mandate. | ±Partly: more than one cross, and a second choice that only counts in limited cases. | -Poorly: a single-winner majoritarian system favours the leading candidates. |