Hello, my name's Mrs. Tomassi and I'm gonna be working through a review on your Citizenship lesson today.

Hopefully you've got everything you need, you're settled, you're good to go.

If that's the case, then we'll get started.

The title of today's lesson is "Should political problems be solved by a referendum?" Now this forms part of the unit on "How can politicians involve citizens in direct decision-making?" Hopefully by the end of lesson today you'll be able to create a reasoned argument about whether political problems should be solved by a referendum.

In this lesson today, there'll be two keywords.

First is referendum.

Now referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political issue which has been referred to them for a direct decision.

It's a form of direct democracy.

The second keyword is proportional representation.

Now this is an electoral system where political parties get a number of seats in Parliament that matches the percentage of votes they receive in an election.

You will see these in bold throughout the lesson so if you ever need to, you can refer back to them here.

We'll make a start with the first learning cycle, which is, "What are political problems?" And what do you think political problems are? Now these are any issues or challenges that arise in relation to how a country is governed, how decisions are made, or how power is distributed.

And what happens is when political problems are not dealt with, it could lead to further issues, things like low voter turnout, distrust in the political system, disengagement in politics.

Now, all of these different things, if you've looked at democracy before, will impact how democratic a country is then seen to be.

Andeep says, "I wanted to vote in the last general election, but I was not allowed because I'm under 18.

Yet the decisions they make affect my future." So this actually is a political problem.

Restrictions on who can vote can leave citizens feeling excluded from the decision-making process.

So in the UK, as of May 2025, citizens have to be at least 18 to vote in a general election.

Now, there are at the moment some political parties that are campaigning to lower the voting age to 16.

For example, the Labour Party, who are also currently the government as well.

So this is one to keep an eye on to see if this might change.

But this gives you an example of what a political issue looks like.

Blessing says, "I do not think it's fair that there's not enough representation in Parliament." What does that mean? So what this is saying actually is that the UK Parliament doesn't represent citizens from a range of different groups, and this can cause political problems because it may lead to laws and practises that don't actually reflect the experiences or needs of everyone in the country.

And some people might feel that politics doesn't represent or include them, so it leads to lower engagement or trust overall.

True or false? If political problems are not dealt with, it can lead to further problems such as disengagement in politics.

That is true.

Billy says, "I never learned much about politics in school.

I don't even know how voting works." Now, a lack of civic education could lead to citizens feeling unprepared to take part in democracy.

So when citizens feel like they don't understand how voting or systems work, they could be disconnected or unsure how to get involved.

Can you think why that might be a problem? If people don't understand how it works or they're disconnected, what could happen? So something this can lead to is voter apathy.

Now that's when people choose not to vote or participate in politics because they feel it doesn't matter or they might not understand it.

Now obviously if that happens and people then don't vote, it could then lead to low voter turnout as well.

Sandra says, "I voted for a party that got 12% of the national vote but did not win any seats.

What is the point of voting?" What do you think about this one? Now, in the UK, do you know what voting system is used? It's called first past the post, and what that means is quite literally it is the first to get that number of seats needed that wins, so in each constituency there is only one seat.

So it's not that the majority wins, so actually that one seat could have been won with 30 to 40% of the votes.

And what this can mean is that actually overall the smaller parties might get quite a few votes in different areas, but they don't win a big enough win in one area to actually get a seat.

Now some people see this as unfair outcomes, especially for those smaller parties who might actually get quite a few votes but not get any seats.

And this could lead to lower trust in the political system and reduced engagement in democracy.

So which of the following are political problems? A, citizens disagreeing over a local housing development.

B, a lack of representation of young people in Parliament.

C, lower voter turnout in general elections.

D, unfair results caused by the voting system.

It is B, C, and D.

That first one, A, could end up being dealt with by the local government.

So this moves us onto the first task.

Can you explain with an example what a political problem is in the UK? When you're finished, if you unpause, and then we can go through the feedback together.

Good luck.

So how did you get on with that one? Now your response could have looked like this.

"One political problem in the UK is unfair representation caused by first past the post voting system.

This means that smaller political parties can get a large number of votes but still win very few or no seats in Parliament.

This can make people feel like their voice does not count and reduces trust in the democratic system." Now you might have picked some of the other issues that we looked at, like low voter turnout or lack of civic education, anything like that, and it's just being able to explain and give an example to show why it's a political problem.

For example, if you did pick lack of civic education, you could have wrote something like this.

So, "One political problem in the UK is limited civic education.

This can make it harder for some people to understand how the political system works.

This may lead to lower levels of participation, such as fewer people voting or getting involved in political discussions, which can affect how decisions are made in a democracy." Now, if you managed to do that, then we'll move on to the next learning cycle.

So we're gonna look at now, "What happens when political problems occur?" So in order to prevent further issues, political problems can be dealt with in different ways.

Some of them do involve citizens more directly.

Could you think of what they might be? So this would be things like using referendums, or using different electoral systems such as proportional representation.

You might see this as PR as well.

Aisha says, "That seems like a lot of work to change a country's electoral system.

I wonder if it's ever happened before?" What do you think? So actually, it has.

Like Jacob says here, "My dad went travelling to New Zealand and he said they changed their electoral system there in the late 1990s." And that's what we're gonna have a look at now.

This timeline here shows you the change in electoral system and how it happened over the years in New Zealand.

So it starts from the 1970s where there was a momentum for change.

Then there was a general election in 1981.

After this, in 1986, the Royal Commission reviewed the electoral system and report published of the different systems that might work.

Then in 1992 they put it to a referendum which had different options that they could change the system to or they could keep it the same.

1993, they had a referendum to choose between proportional representation or first past the post.

And then in 1996, the first new mixed-member proportional election occurred.

If you're not too sure what mixed-member proportional is, we will have a look at that in the lesson now.

So, if we go through each of these, what happened? So in the 70s and 80s, like we said, there was momentum for change.

This was because many people felt that the system wasn't very fair and didn't properly represent them.

So at the time, New Zealand used the first past the post system.

So if that rings bells, where else uses that? That's used here in the UK.

So in 1981, the general election, the Social Credit Party received 21% of the national vote.

So we think now that's just over one in five, but they only won two seats in Parliament.

So here the national vote really did not reflect the proportional representation vote.

So what happened then? In 1986, the Royal Commission reviewed the system and they recommended changing it to proportional representation and suggested increasing the number of MPs so that when you have proportional representation, to balance it out properly, it allows some MPs to be picked from a party list, and it just means that it helps to balance to ensure that that portion of votes matches the number of seats, and it's just giving a little bit more flexibility if you needed to do that by adding some more MPs.

Then what happened is New Zealand put it to the people to decide.

So to decide whether or not there was going to be electoral reform, they held two referendums. The first, like we were saying earlier, the government just wanted to see if the people actually wanted change or not.

And what they promised was that the second would be the binding referendum if the public supported change.

So what happened at the first one was 85% of the voters said they wanted to change the voting system.

Around 70% chose a form of proportional representation.

This was the mixed-member proportional from earlier.

And this links into also, you know, that bit of flexibility were were saying earlier by increasing the MPs, so it allows for a bit of first past the post and you'll get your MP who wins the most seats, but then it's balanced out by these additional seats.

So that say Party A got 20% of the votes and they didn't win any in that first round through the first past the post, then they would bump up and equal those seats by giving them additional seats in Parliament, so they're those extra MPs.

And what that does, it just helps to balance to ensure that the representation matches the percentage of the election.

So there, 70% roughly voted for that as their preferred alternative.

So next, in 1993, the second, and this was the binding referendum, the one that really counted to make the change was held.

In this, 54% supported moving to mixed-member proportional, and as a result, New Zealand changed its voting system and this was introduced for future elections.

Even in 2025, it is still used now.

Check for understanding.

So what event is missing in the timeline? You've got the 1970s, 1981, 1986, 1992, and 1996.

What is that missing one? Hopefully you managed to get that that was the 1993 and that was that binding referendum between proportional representation and first past the post.

So Aisha says, "Did changing the electoral system in New Zealand improve political engagement and strengthened democracy?" So just by hearing what happened, can you think if it did or not? If you thought it did, you'd be correct.

So, according to the Democracy Index, New Zealand has consistently been considered a full democracy.

So in 2023, as an example, it ranked second globally.

So across the whole world, New Zealand is ranked second highest in terms of being democratic, and the score was 9.

61 out of 10.

Over the years, this reform has contributed to increased public trust and engagement in the political system and helped to strengthen New Zealand's reputation as being considered one of the most democratic nations globally.

Aisha says, "So does that mean every country should change its voting system to become more democratic?" What do you think about this one? Should they or shouldn't they? Now this one hasn't so much got a correct answer.

There's gonna be pros and cons to doing each, and it's also gonna depend on those individual countries.

So changing the system can bring more fairness, but it could also cause new challenges.

So proportional representation, because you are ensuring that you've got those lots of different voices heard, it means coalition governments are more common.

What's a coalition government? Did you know this one? This is when you have more than one party as part of the government, and this can mean that they have to work together and it could slow down decision-making, especially if those parties don't agree on a lot of topics.

To give you an example, Israel uses a form of pure proportional representation.

Between 2019 and 2022, the country held five general elections due to unstable coalition governments.

True or false? Proportional representation always leads to fairer and more stable governments.

That's false.

Why is it false? Proportional representation can make elections fairer by better reflecting the number of votes each party receives.

It can also lead to unstable coalition governments.

For example, between 2019 and 2022, Israel had five elections due to unstable governments.

So now that was looking at electoral changes, now we're gonna just look at how some other countries use referendums for political problems. Australia is a good example 'cause they've used referendums to decide on constitutional changes.

These are matters that are ingrained in the constitution.

So in 2023, they held a referendum on whether to create an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which the idea was to be a formal body that advises the government on issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The proposal was rejected by the majority of voters and the change was not addressed into the constitution.

So although this one wasn't, it does show you how Australia used referendums for the people to make that decision.

The outcome of a referendum affects whether a proposal was turned into law or not.

So like we saw in that one in Australia, in that case it didn't.

So in this case it was good because it allowed citizens to have a direct say in an important national issue.

And many saw it as a meaningful step towards acknowledging Indigenous voices in decision-making.

However, some felt that they didn't have clear information about how the Voice would work, so then couldn't make an informed decision from that.

And the response was also only yes or no.

This is the thing with referendums, they tend to have yes or no responses.

So the no result makes it hard to pass similar reforms in the future because then it could be argued, okay, but we've done something similar to that before.

Now in this case, it could discourage the progress on Indigenous rights.

What was the key outcome of the 2023 Australian referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament? A, the proposal was accepted and added to the constitution.

B, the referendum was postponed due to lack of public interest.

C, the proposal was rejected by the majority and the constitution remained unchanged.

D, the referendum allowed citizens to vote on local reforms. It was C, the proposal was rejected by the majority and the constitution remains unchanged.

This moves us on to the final task for today.

Referendums are only a tool to support political issues.

The topic of the referendum is more important for dealing with political issues than simply holding a referendum.

Write two paragraphs and a conclusion that discusses both sides of the argument.

So if you take some time to think about what this is really asking you, and you might also wanna make a plan about what you're gonna say before you go ahead and write it.

If you'll remember as well, when you're working towards the GCSE, you always wanna be able to argue both sides of the argument, so this is a really good one here to try and think of the pros and the cons and then pick your strongest argument to actually write about.

Also, never forget to put your conclusion down either.

And what's more important? Is it the topic of the referendum, or is it just that holding a referendum that's important? So once you've got your own response, unpause and we'll go through the feedback together.

How did you get on with that? Now hopefully this response will just give you an idea of the structure and the amount of detail that would be good, especially if you're working towards writing a long essay response for the GCSE.

If you do want to, after you could always go back and check your own response and make sure you've got it in enough detail as well.

So we'll go through this one together.

"The topic of a referendum can affect how much political change it actually brings.

For example, in New Zealand in 1993, a referendum was held about changing the voting system.

This led to a new way of voting called mixed-member proportional, which changed how members of Parliament were chosen.

This shows that when a referendum focuses on a clear and important issue, it can make a big difference in how the political system works.

However, some people believe that holding a referendum is important even if the topic is difficult or the result doesn't lead to immediate change.

In 2023, Australia held a referendum about creating an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

Although the proposal did not pass, the referendum helped people learn more about Indigenous rights and started important conversations across the country.

This means referendums can help more people get involved in politics and discuss important issues, no matter the outcome." And then finally, "In conclusion, referendums are a useful way to get the public involved in political decisions.

The topic of the referendum may be what decides how much real change happens.

Clear and focused topics, like New Zealand's voting reform, can lead to big changes.

However, when the topic is complex, like Australia's referendum, the process still encourages public debate and participation." So as I said, if you wanna look at your response now and see if you managed to get enough detail, it's always good to have that clear and concise conclusion at the end that shows exactly what you were trying to, the message you were trying to get across.

If you're happy with your response and you're ready to, we will just move on to the summary for today.

So to summarise, political problems are any issue or challenges that arise in relation to how a country is governed, decisions are made and how power is distributed.

When political problems are not addressed, it can lead to low voter turnout and distrust in the political system.

Some countries choose to involve citizens in the decision-making process to deal with political issues, such as through the use of referendums. Australia uses referendums to make constitutional changes.

New Zealand used referendums in the 1990s as a method to determine if electoral reform was necessary.

So hopefully you've decided where you stand on, should political problems be solved by a referendum? Thanks so much for working with me today and enjoy the rest of your day.