Week 11 — Votes Into Seats: Design an Electoral Rule and Read the 2024 Result

Assignment 10 of the term — design an electoral rule for a made-up country, read the 2024 UK result with the data scaffold, and explain to a roommate why the most votes do not always mean the most seats.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, well-labelled analysis. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned the difference between a plurality and a majority, what parties do, the four electoral-system families, the D'Hondt method, Duverger's law, and how to read the 2024 UK general election for what it documents and what it does not settle. Week 8 gave you the three-layer read (design, practice, verdict), and Week 1 gave you the empirical/normative distinction; this assignment puts both to work on an election. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles.

The task

You will design an electoral rule for a made-up country, then read a real election. Treat your country as illustrative: it is not real, and no real person, candidate, or current officeholder belongs in it. Report the 2024 figures at the party level only.

Work these two problems, showing how you got each count:

1. Your made-up country's legislature has 120 seats elected by proportional representation, and one party wins 35 percent of the list vote. If its seat share matched its vote share exactly, how many seats would it hold?
2. In the 2024 UK general election, Labour won 33.7 percent of the vote and 63.2 percent of the seats. What is the gap between its seat share and its vote share, in percentage points?

Beside each count, add the interpretation that makes it political science:

• Problem 1, your electoral rule. Choose one of the four families (first-past-the-post, majority-runoff, proportional representation, or mixed-member proportional) for your country's legislature, and say how a winner is decided under it. If you choose a proportional or mixed rule, say whether it uses an electoral threshold and how your count fits it; if you choose a plurality or runoff rule, say how your count compares with what that rule would give a party with 35 percent spread thinly across many districts. Say which party system your rule tends toward, using Duverger's law as a tendency with its mechanical and psychological effects and its named exceptions. Then defend your choice with at least one premise labelled empirical and one labelled normative, state the strongest case for a family you rejected as its defenders would put it, and give your reply.
• Problem 2, the 2024 result. Read the House of Commons Library's figures with the five data questions: what is measured, over whom and when, what it shows, what it does not show, and whether it shows correlation or cause. Use the contrast between Reform UK (14.3 percent of the vote, 5 seats) and the Liberal Democrats (12.2 percent, 72 seats), and name the mechanism behind the gap. Then sort three claims by kind and layer: "the election used 650 single-member constituencies under plurality rules", "Labour won 411 seats on 33.7 percent of the vote", and "Labour's seats gave it a mandate for every promise".

Explain it to a non-expert

A roommate tells you, "The party with the most votes always gets the most seats, so an election result is always a fair picture of what voters wanted." Write a 3–5 sentence message to that roommate that explains, in everyday words, the difference between a vote share and a seat share, uses the 2024 contrast between Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats as the example, and names one limit of what the seat count can tell you. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coach explaining a tournament's tiebreak rule to a parent in the stands. Model answer: "Our team won more games than the other team, but they still finished first because the league ranks teams by points, and a draw earns a point too. So the standings depend on the scoring rule, not only on wins. If the league counted wins alone, the order would flip. The limit is that the table tells you who finished where, not whether the rule is the fairest one."

Use that pattern for your message to the roommate, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both counts, your electoral rule, your reading of the 2024 result, and your message to the roommate before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show how you got each count when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one choice, reading, or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you, and it will not tell you which electoral system is better.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory political science course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's ideas: plurality and majority, what parties do, the four electoral-system families, the D'Hondt method, Duverger's law, and reading the 2024 UK general election. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a court case, or a quotation, never quote Duverger, never tell me which electoral system is better or fairer, and never bring in a living politician, a candidate, a current officeholder, or a current election.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. My country is illustrative.
PROBLEM P1: Your made-up country's legislature has 120 seats elected by proportional representation, and one party wins 35 percent of the list vote. If its seat share matched its vote share exactly, how many seats would it hold?
PROBLEM P2: In the 2024 UK general election, Labour won 33.7 percent of the vote and 63.2 percent of the seats. What is the gap between its seat share and its vote share, in percentage points?
After each count, I must interpret it: for P1, my own electoral rule for the made-up country, named as one of the four families with how a winner is decided, the threshold or district comparison that fits my count, the party system my rule tends toward using Duverger's law as a tendency with its mechanical and psychological effects and its named exceptions, a defense with at least one empirical and one normative premise labelled by kind, the strongest case for a family I rejected stated charitably, and my reply; for P2, the 2024 result read with the five data questions, the Reform UK and Liberal Democrat contrast with the mechanism named, and three claims sorted by kind and layer, including the mandate claim. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a roommate who believes the party with the most votes always gets the most seats, explaining vote share and seat share in everyday words, using the 2024 contrast, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.
Course facts to hold me to: a plurality is the most votes, and a majority is more than half; first-past-the-post elects the one candidate with the most votes in each single-member district; majority-runoff holds a second round between the top two when no one clears 50 percent; proportional representation gives parties seats roughly in line with their vote shares, usually from party lists with an electoral threshold; mixed-member proportional tops up district seats with list seats toward each party's list share. Duverger (1951), Political Parties (English translation 1954): single-member plurality rules tend to produce two-party competition through a mechanical effect and a psychological effect; the United Kingdom, Canada, and India are named exceptions. In the 2024 UK general election (House of Commons Library): 650 single-member constituencies under plurality rules; turnout 59.7 percent; Labour 33.7 percent of the vote and 411 seats, about 63.2 percent of the seats; Reform UK 14.3 percent and 5 seats; Liberal Democrats 12.2 percent and 72 seats; Scottish National Party 2.5 percent and 9 seats. A geographically efficient vote converts into seats and a dispersed one does not. A mandate is a normative judgment a seat count does not settle.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct counts (20 points), political-science reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 count points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my message to the roommate only with P2.
COUNT UNITS: A correct count = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing count or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, all parts accurate (a named family with how a winner is decided, the threshold or district comparison, the party-system tendency with Duverger's two effects and its exceptions, a defense with premises labelled by kind, a charitable statement of a rejected family, and a reply) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. For P2, all parts accurate (the five data questions answered, the Reform UK and Liberal Democrat contrast with the mechanism named, the three claims sorted by kind and layer with the mandate claim as normative, and the message to the roommate with one limit) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. Swapping a vote share and a seat share, treating Duverger's law as a guarantee, or treating a seat count as proof of a mandate earns no unit for that part. Naming a term alone does not earn a unit.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to political science, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the starting values and the operation behind the count are visible = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a count alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both counts with their interpretations AND written my message to the roommate AND revised at least one choice, reading, or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; never round it. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my counts and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with both counts, your electoral rule, your reading of the 2024 result, and your message to the roommate — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled diagram of your rule with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 11 skills — naming an electoral family by how a winner is decided, stating Duverger's law as a tendency, reading election data for what it documents and what it does not settle, keeping a vote share apart from a seat share, and stating the case for a rejected system charitably — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, your electoral rule, your reading of the 2024 result, and the message to the roommate. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that answers one of two reflection options of equal weight, your choice: (a) which choice, reading, or explanation you changed, what prompted the change, and one question you still have; or (b) which place in your first draft swapped a vote share and a seat share, or treated a seat count as a mandate, and how you caught it. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The electoral rule, the counts, the reading of the 2024 result, the revision, and the final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment, write your defense, or add evidence you did not produce, and never ask it to quote Duverger: his book is in copyright, and this course states his argument in words. Use only the House of Commons Library's 2024 figures given here. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com