Which Voting System Is Better? - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From IELTS Simulation Tests Academic Reading Test 07 · Part 2 · Questions 14–26
Reading Passage
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14–26 which are based on Reading Passage 2 below.
Which Voting System is Better?
Voting is often portrayed as a very simple activity—all that is required being a list of names, boxes and a pen with which to tick the preferred option—but it is actually an intricate process that can take many different forms on which everyone from mathematicians to political scholars, interest groups, politicians and voters often have divergent opinions. Two of the most popular of these voting systems are known as First-Past-the-Post (FPP) and Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP), and they have quite different features.
FPP is one of the simplest voting systems. Voters select one person from a list of candidates in their electorate, and the candidate with the highest number of votes is elected to represent them. While this might sound simple and fair, it can have several undesirable effects. Firstly, because of the 'all or nothing' result, FPP produces a large number of wasted votes—votes which do not affect the outcome of the election. This is the case in the majority of electorates, which are safe or relatively safe. Consequently, the party that gains the highest number of seats in Parliament may not actually gain the most votes—in the 2005 UK elections, for example, the Labour party governed alone with only 35 percent of the vote. Because of the pressure on voters not to 'waste' their vote, FPP tends to foster tactical voting for a rival but less popular candidate, thus sidelining minority voices and third party candidacies in favour of a race between two, often similar, contestants.
MMP attempts to create a parliament that represents a national consensus, rather than combining the results from dozens of local 'mini-elections'. Voters select their electorate candidate, as in FPP, but they also select a party, which will gain seats in Parliament proportionate to the party vote. This opens the door for representation amongst parties that may have broad support nationally, but not enough support in any single geographical area to win an electorate seat. While Parliament as a whole may be more representative, however, the ability to affect change within parliament can often accrue to a centrist, smaller party that has the ability to essentially choose the government, by selecting between the major parties as coalition partners. This phenomenon is known as the 'tail wagging the dog'. Finally, the party vote tends to bring in Members of Parliament (MPs) in an order that is chosen, not by the electorate, but by the party itself. This is one of MMP's undemocratic moves that favours party establishment and hierarchy over the will of the public.
New Zealand's transition from FPP to MMP demonstrates the benefits and drawbacks of each system. In the 1970s, many New Zealanders grew disillusioned with the two-party system. FPP did not provide voters with another viable option; however, the leading third party received a considerable 16 percent of the vote in 1978 but gained only one of the 92 seats in parliament—three years later their vote share was up to 21 percent, but they gained only two seats. A Royal Commission subsequently recommended a shift to MMP, and in 1993 a state-wide referendum was held that passed in favour of the reform.
The 1996 elections wore away much public enthusiasm for MMP, however. The result was indecisive, and with neither major party able to govern alone, the power to form a coalition rested upon a third party, New Zealand First. Instead of forming a coalition with Labour—a party that many voters considered to be its natural ally—the New Zealand First party sided with the National party. This was followed by a subsequent rise in party-hopping—Members of Parliament (MPs) leaving the parties from which they were elected. Eventually, the coalition disbanded with Prime Minister Jenny Shipley sacking New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters, from Cabinet.
Nevertheless, after these initial teething problems, New Zealand voters and politicians have grown accustomed to MMP and learnt to focus on its possibilities rather than its hindrances. One of the most notable benefits is that Parliament has become far more representative of the diversity in modern New Zealand society. MMP introduced a number of MPs who had previously been marginalised from mainstream politics: women, people from diverse ethnic backgrounds, and community activists. Relationships between major and minor parties have also grown more stable, and in many ways minor parties now function as auditors keeping a check on the major parties. MMP is not without its flaws, but the transition has generally been a positive experience.
Questions
Questions 14–19 True / False / Not Given
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 2?
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this
Questions 20–26 Summary Completion
Complete the summary below with words taken from Reading Passage 2.
Use NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS for each answer.
Public dissatisfaction with elections came about as a result of the 20 in New Zealand, and many people voted for a 21 instead. However, the parliamentary representation was disproportionate to the number of votes received and, after investigation, this situation eventually led to a national 22 which asked the people to express their preference for a particular electoral system.
The first experience was messy, however: 23 ensued after the New Zealand First party decided to go into 24 with National instead of the Labour party.
New Zealanders have since become used to MMP, and its advantages are now clearer. People once 25 from affairs of state have gained access to Parliament, and major and minor parties now get along better—the latter taking on the role of 26 .
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q14 | FALSE | Because of the pressure on voters not to 'waste' their vote, FPP tends to foster tactical voting for a rival but less popular candidate, thus sidelining minority voices and third party candidacies in favour of a race between two, often similar, contestants | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that under FPP, voters often make a strategic choice to vote for a candidate they like less because they do not want to throw their vote away on someone who cannot win. Answer Explanation: The answer is FALSE because voters in the First-Past-the-Post (FPP) system do not always pick their favorite person; instead, they often use tactical voting to choose another candidate so their vote is not wasted. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is FALSE because the text explains that voters in the FPP system feel pressure not to waste their votes. This leads to "tactical voting," where a voter chooses a different candidate who has a better chance of winning rather than the one they truly prefer. Therefore, voters do not "always" choose the candidate they like best. |
| Q15 | TRUE | Firstly, because of the 'all or nothing' result, FPP produces a large number of wasted votes—votes which do not affect the outcome of the election | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that under the First-Past-the-Post (FPP) voting system, a lot of votes end up being wasted because they do not have any impact on who wins the election. Answer Explanation: The answer is TRUE because the statement matches the information given in the text. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is TRUE because the text clearly states that the FPP system creates many wasted votes that do not change the election result. In the text, the phrase 'a large number of wasted votes' matches 'many votes', and 'votes which do not affect the outcome of the election' means the same thing as 'have no role in determining the electoral result'. |
| Q16 | NOT GIVEN | Voters select one person from a list of candidates in their electorate, and the candidate with the highest number of votes is elected to represent them | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that voters choose one person from a list in their voting area (electorate), but it does not state whether these areas are decided by geographic boundaries. Answer Explanation: The answer "NOT GIVEN" means that the text does not provide enough clear information to confirm whether First-Past-the-Post (FPP) defines its electorates based on geographic borders. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is NOT GIVEN because the passage mentions that voters pick candidates in their "electorate", but it never explains whether or how these electorates are "geographically-determined". Key terms like "geographically-determined" are absent regarding the specific definition of FPP electorates, so we cannot know from the text if this statement is true or false. |
| Q17 | TRUE | While Parliament as a whole may be more representative, however, the ability to affect change within parliament can often accrue to a centrist, smaller party that has the ability to essentially choose the government, by selecting between the major parties as coalition partners. This phenomenon is known as the 'tail wagging the dog' | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that under MMP, a small political party can have the power to decide which big party gets to rule, meaning a small group can end up having very big control. Answer Explanation: The answer "TRUE" means the passage agrees that under the MMP voting system, smaller political parties can get a surprisingly large amount of power or control. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is TRUE because paragraph 3 mentions that in MMP, the power to make decisions and choose the government can go to a "smaller party" that decides which major party to team up with. The text describes this unequal power with the phrase "the 'tail wagging the dog'", which directly matches the idea of "minor parties" having "disproportionate influence". |
| Q18 | FALSE | A Royal Commission subsequently recommended a shift to MMP, and in 1993 a state-wide referendum was held that passed in favour of the reform | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that in 1993, the people of New Zealand voted on changing the electoral system, and the vote was successful because the majority chose to support the change. Answer Explanation: The answer is FALSE because the statement gives information that is completely opposite to what the text says. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is FALSE because the statement claims that New Zealand voters rejected a change to the voting system in the early 1990s. However, the passage explains that in 1993 (the early 1990s), a national vote (referendum) took place and it "passed in favour of the reform." This means the voters accepted and supported the change rather than rejecting it. |
| Q19 | TRUE | Consequently, the party that gains the highest number of seats in Parliament may not actually gain the most votes—in the 2005 UK elections, for example, the Labour party governed alone with only 35 percent of the vote While Parliament as a whole may be more representative, however, the ability to affect change within parliament can often accrue to a centrist, smaller party that has the ability to essentially choose the government, by selecting between the major parties as coalition partners |
Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage shows that in FPP, a party can control the whole government with only a small portion (35 percent) of the total vote. It also shows that in MMP, a small party can decide who forms the government instead of the overall majority of voters. Answer Explanation: The answer "TRUE" means that in both voting systems (FPP and MMP), a government can be created even if most voters did not vote for it or support that choice. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is TRUE because the passage explains how both systems can result in a government that lacks a true majority mandate from voters. In the FPP system, the text notes that the winning party "may not actually gain the most votes," pointing out that a party governed alone with only 35 percent of the vote. In the MMP system, a small third party can "essentially choose the government" by deciding which major party to partner with, rather than following the clear choice of the public majority. |
| Q20 | two-party system | In the 1970s, many New Zealanders grew disillusioned with the two-party system | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that during the 1970s, many people in New Zealand became disappointed and unhappy with having only two main political parties running the government. Answer Explanation: The answer refers to a political structure dominated by two main political parties. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the text explaining why people in New Zealand became unhappy with their elections. In the passage, the phrase "grew disillusioned with" directly matches "Public dissatisfaction with", showing that the cause of this dissatisfaction was the "two-party system". |
| Q21 | third party | In the 1970s, many New Zealanders grew disillusioned with the two-party system. FPP did not provide voters with another viable option; however, the leading third party received a considerable 16 percent of the vote in 1978 but gained only one of the 92 seats in parliament—three years later their vote share was up to 21 percent, but they gained only two seats | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that people in New Zealand were dissatisfied with having only two main parties, so a large number of voters chose to support the leading third party instead. Answer Explanation: The answer "third party" refers to a minor political party that is separate from the two main dominant parties. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the fourth paragraph. The text states that many New Zealanders were unhappy with the traditional two-party system, leading many people to vote for an alternative option—specifically, the "third party", which won a significant percentage of votes (16% in 1978 and 21% in 1981) but very few seats. |
| Q22 | referendum | A Royal Commission subsequently recommended a shift to MMP, and in 1993 a state-wide referendum was held that passed in favour of the reform | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that an official group suggested changing to the MMP system, and in 1993, all the people in the country voted in a referendum to support this change. Answer Explanation: The answer "referendum" refers to a nationwide vote in which citizens directly make a decision on a specific political issue or law. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the fourth paragraph. The summary explains that after an investigation into the unfair voting results, a national vote took place so the public could choose their preferred voting system. The passage matches this by stating that after a Royal Commission made recommendations, a "state-wide referendum" was held in 1993 to decide on changing to the MMP system. Here, "state-wide" matches "national", making "referendum" the correct word to fill in the blank. |
| Q23 | party-hopping | Instead of forming a coalition with Labour—a party that many voters considered to be its natural ally—the New Zealand First party sided with the National party. This was followed by a subsequent rise in party-hopping—Members of Parliament (MPs) leaving the parties from which they were elected | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that after New Zealand First chose to work with the National party instead of Labour, there was an increase in politicians leaving their original political parties. Answer Explanation: The answer "party-hopping" means politicians leaving the political party that helped them get elected to join a different party or become independent. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "party-hopping" because the summary describes what happened after the New Zealand First party chose to partner with National rather than Labour. The passage states that this decision "was followed by a subsequent rise in party-hopping". The word "ensued" in the summary means followed as a consequence, directly matching this event. |
| Q24 | coalition | Instead of forming a coalition with Labour—a party that many voters considered to be its natural ally—the New Zealand First party sided with the National party | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that the New Zealand First party chose to join together and form a joint government with the National party rather than partnering with Labour. Answer Explanation: The answer "coalition" means a temporary partnership between two or more political parties to form a government together. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is confirmed by the fifth paragraph, which discusses the 1996 elections in New Zealand. The text explains that the New Zealand First party had to decide which major party to partner with, ultimately choosing the National party instead of Labour to form a government. In the summary sentence, the phrase "decided to go into coalition with" directly matches the passage's discussion of forming a "coalition" with one of the major parties. |
| Q25 | marginalised / marginalized | MMP introduced a number of MPs who had previously been marginalised from mainstream politics: women, people from diverse ethnic backgrounds, and community activists | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage states that the MMP voting system brought into Parliament several politicians who were previously excluded or left out of regular political power. Answer Explanation: The answer "marginalised" means kept out, ignored, or treated as less important and having no power. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the last paragraph of the passage. The summary describes how individuals who used to be kept out of national politics were able to enter Parliament under the new system. In the text, the author notes that MMP brought in Members of Parliament (MPs) who had "previously been marginalised from mainstream politics" (such as women, ethnic minorities, and community activists). Therefore, the exact word fitting the blank is "marginalised". |
| Q26 | auditors | Relationships between major and minor parties have also grown more stable, and in many ways minor parties now function as auditors keeping a check on the major parties | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that smaller political parties now act like checkers or reviewers (auditors) to make sure the bigger political parties behave properly. Answer Explanation: The answer refers to people or groups whose job is to examine and keep a check on what others are doing. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is correct because the summary describes how smaller (minor) political parties behave alongside larger (major) parties. The passage states that smaller parties now act or "function as auditors keeping a check on the major parties," which matches the idea of "the latter taking on the role of auditors." |