{"id":"study-electoral-systems-compare-lines","audience":"college","category":"studying","technique":"format","track":"study","title":"Compare two electoral systems feature by feature","free":false,"task":"Your Comparative Politics exam asks you to contrast electoral systems. Get exactly 4 numbered lines covering how votes become seats, number of parties, link to a local representative, and one example country, each in the form 'Feature: FPTP | PR', plain text, under 90 words. Use only your lecture notes, including the professor's fix about Germany.","materialLabel":"Your lecture notes (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"POLS 1150 - Comparative Politics - Lecture 7 - Electoral systems (Prof. Szabo)\n\nFIRST-PAST-THE-POST (FPTP):\n- Country split into districts; the candidate with the most votes in each district wins the seat.\n- Tends to produce two big parties (Duverger's law).\n- Strong link: each voter has one local representative.\n- Examples: United Kingdom, Canada.\n\nPROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (PR):\n- Parties get seats in proportion to their share of the vote (e.g., 20% of votes -> about 20% of seats).\n- Tends to produce many parties and coalition governments.\n- Weaker local link: often voters choose a party list, not a person.\n- Examples: Netherlands, Israel.\n- I wrote \"Germany = pure PR.\"\n   ** Prof. Szabo: \"Germany is MIXED, half district seats, half list seats. Don't use it as a PR example on the exam.\" **\n\nExam: short answer + one comparison table question.\nNot on this exam: ranked-choice voting (we'll cover it after Thanksgiving).","rules":[{"type":"numberedItems","count":4},{"type":"maxWords","max":90},{"type":"plainText"}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Asking to compare","why":"The AI writes an essay or a table with extra rows, not lines you can memorize.","fix":"Show the shape: \"Feature: FPTP | PR\".","checks":["r0"]},{"title":"Not saying how many lines","why":"The AI picks its own number, and it usually picks more lines than you need.","fix":"Be exact: \"Exactly 4 numbered lines.\"","checks":["numberedItems"]},{"title":"Trusting the AI to count words","why":"AI is bad at counting. Ask for a total and it often lands 20% over.","fix":"Cap each side: \"each side under 8 words.\"","checks":["maxWords"]},{"title":"Missing the correction","why":"Your notes list Germany as PR, which your professor said is wrong.","fix":"Add: \"Don't use Germany as a PR example.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Letting in other systems","why":"The AI may add ranked-choice or mixed systems.","fix":"Add: \"Only FPTP and PR, only from my notes.\"","checks":["r2","plainText"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Says how many lines","patterns":["\\b(4|four)\\b.{0,25}line"]},{"label":"Shows the line shape","patterns":["\\|","FPTP.{0,10}PR","like ['\"]","format"]},{"label":"Uses the correction","patterns":["germany","mixed","correct"]},{"label":"Sets a length limit","patterns":["\\d+\\s*words","word (limit|count)","under \\d+"]},{"label":"Says to use only the material","patterns":["only.{0,30}(notes|material|source|excerpt|text|reading|passage|draft|facts|article|handout|sheet|guide|chapter|data|list)","no outside","don't add","do not add","don't invent","lecture"]}],"hint":"Comparison lines work when each one covers one feature for both systems. Name the 4 features, show the line shape, and point the AI to the Germany correction.","rubricLabels":["Has 4 lines covering votes to seats, number of parties, local representative link, and an example country, each in the form 'Feature: FPTP | PR'","The example country line uses only the notes' examples (UK or Canada for FPTP; Netherlands or Israel for PR), and does not list Germany as PR","Uses only the lecture notes: no ranked-choice voting or other systems, and no explanations beyond the 4 lines"]}