A first-past-the-post election is one that is won by the candidate receiving more votes
than any other(s).
It is a common, but not universal, feature of electoral systems with single-member legislative
districts, and generally results over time in a two-party competition.
Overview The first-past-the-post voting method is one
of the several plurality voting systems.
Confusion in terminology often exists between highest vote, majority vote and plurality
voting systems.
All three use a first-past-the-post voting method, but there are subtle differences in
the method of execution.
First-past-the-post voting is also used in two-round systems and some exhaustive ballots.
First-past-the-post voting methods can be used for single and multiple member elections.
In a single member election the candidate with the highest number, not necessarily a
majority, of votes is elected.
The two-round voting system uses a first-past-the-post voting method in each of the two rounds.
The first round determines which two candidates will progress to the second, final round ballot.
In a multiple member first-past-the-post ballot, the first number of candidates, in order of
highest vote, corresponding to the number of positions to be filled are elected.
If there are six vacancies then the first six candidates with the highest vote are elected.
A multiple selection ballot where more than one candidate can be voted for is also a form
of first-past-the-post voting in which voters are allowed to cast a vote for as many candidates
as there are vacant positions; the candidate(s) with the highest number of votes is elected.
The Electoral Reform Society is a political pressure group based in the United Kingdom
which advocates scrapping First Past the Post for all National and local elections.
It argues FPTP is 'bad for voters, bad for government and bad for democracy'.
It is the oldest organisation concerned with electoral systems in the world.
All U.S. States – other than Maine and Nebraska – as of 2014 use a winner-take-all form
of simple plurality, first-past-the-post voting to determine the electors appointed to the
Electoral College.
Under the typical system, the candidate that gains the highest vote total wins all of the
state's available electors regardless of the number or percent of votes won, or the difference
separating the top vote-getter and the first runner-up.
Example Under a first-past-the-post voting system
the highest polling candidate is elected.
In this real-life example, Tony Tan obtained a greater number than the other candidates,
and so was declared the winner.
Effects The effect of a system based on single seat
constituencies is that the larger parties gain a disproportionately large share of seats,
while smaller parties are left with a disproportionately small share of seats.
For example, the 2005 UK General election results in Great Britain were as follows:
It can be seen that Labour took a majority of seats, 57%, with only 36% of the vote.
The largest two parties took 69% of votes and 88% of seats.
Meanwhile, the smaller Liberal Democrat party took over a fifth of votes but only about
a tenth of the seats in parliament.
Criticisms Tactical voting
To a greater extent than many other electoral methods, the first-past-the-post system encourages
tactical voting.
Voters have an incentive to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely
to win, even if they would prefer another of the candidates to win, because a vote for
any other candidate will likely be "wasted" and have no impact on the final result.
The position is sometimes summed up, in an extreme form, as "All votes for anyone other
than the second place are votes for the winner", because by voting for other candidates, they
have denied those votes to the second place candidate who could have won had they received
them.
Following the extremely close 2000 U.S. presidential election, some supporters of Democratic candidate
Al Gore believed he lost the election to Republican George W. Bush because a portion of the electorate
voted for Ralph Nader of the Green Party, and exit polls indicated that more of these
voters would have preferred Gore to Bush, with the rest not voting in Nader's absence.
In Puerto Rico, there are three principal voter groups: the Independentistas, the Populares,
and the Estadistas.
Historically, there has been a tendency for Independentista voters to elect Popular candidates
and policies.
This phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the Estadistas have
the most voters on the island.
It is so widely recognised that the Puerto Ricans sometimes call the Independentistas
who vote for the Populares "melons", because the fruit is green on the outside but red
on the inside.
Because voters have to predict in advance who the top two candidates will be, results
can be significantly distorted: Substantial power is given to the media.
Some voters will tend to believe the media's assertions as to who the leading contenders
are likely to be in the election.
Even voters who distrust the media will know that other voters do believe the media, and
therefore that those candidates who receive the most media attention will probably be
the most popular and thus most likely to be the top two.
A new candidate with no track record, who might otherwise be supported by the majority
of voters, may be considered unlikely to be one of the top two candidates; thus they will
receive fewer votes, which will then give them a reputation as a low poller in future
elections, perpetuating the position.
The system may promote votes against as opposed to votes for.
In the UK, entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting against the Conservative
party by voting either Labour or Liberal Democrat.
For example, in a constituency held by the Conservatives, with the Liberal Democrats
as the second-place party and the Labour Party in third, Labour supporters might be urged
to vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate rather than their own candidate, on the basis
that Labour supporters would prefer an MP from a competing left/liberal party to a Conservative
one.
If enough voters use this tactic, the first-past-the-post system effectively becomes runoff voting - a
completely different system - in which the first round is held in the court of public
opinion.
A good example of this is believed to be the Winchester by-election, 1997.
Proponents of other single-winner voting systems argue that their proposals would reduce the
need for tactical voting and reduce the spoiler effect.
Examples include the commonly used two-round system of runoffs and instant runoff voting,
along with less tested systems such as approval voting and Condorcet methods.
Effect on political parties
Duverger's law is an idea in political science which says that constituencies that use first-past-the-post
systems will become two-party systems, given enough time.
Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains:
The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress.
Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post"
principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the
congressional seat.
The losing party or parties win no representation at all.
The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps
just two, a principle known in political science as Duverger's Law.
Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections.
First-past-the-post tends to reduce the number of viable political parties to a greater extent
than most other methods, thus making it more likely that a single party will hold a majority
of legislative seats.
FPTP's tendency toward fewer parties and more frequent one-party rule can potentially produce
a government that may not consider as wide a range of perspectives and concerns.
It is entirely possible that a voter will find that all major parties agree on a particular
issue.
In this case, the voter will not have any meaningful way of expressing a dissenting
opinion through his or her vote.
As fewer choices are offered to the voters, voters may vote for a candidate with whom
they largely disagree so as to oppose a candidate with whom they disagree even more.
The downside of this is that candidates will less closely reflect the viewpoints of those
who vote for them.
It may also be argued that one-party rule is more likely to lead to radical changes
in government policy that are only favoured by a plurality or bare majority of the voters,
whereas multi-party systems usually require greater consensus in order to make dramatic
changes.
Wasted votes Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates
or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory.
For example, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates
and 18% were excess votes - a total of 70% wasted votes.
This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may
play no part in determining the outcome.
This "winner-takes-all" system may be one of the reasons why "voter participation tends
to be lower in countries with FPTP than elsewhere."
Gerrymandering
Because FPTP permits many wasted votes, an election under FPTP is easily gerrymandered.
Through gerrymandering, constituencies are deliberately designed to unfairly increase
the number of seats won by one party at the expense of another.
For example, suppose that governing Blue-dot party wishes to reduce the seats that will
be won by opposition Red-dot party in the next election.
It creates a number of constituencies in each of which the Red-dot party has an overwhelming
majority of votes The Red-dot party will win these seats, but a large number of its voters
will waste their votes.
Then the rest of the constituencies are designed with small majorities for the Blue-dot party.
Few Blue-dot votes are wasted, and the Blue-dot party will win a large number of seats by
small margins.
As a result of the gerrymander, the Red-dot party's seats have cost it more votes than
the Blue-dot party's seats.
In the diagram, after the gerrymander, the Blue-dot party will win three seats and the
Red-dot party only one seat, despite the existence of an equal number of voters overall for both
parties.
Manipulation charges The presence of spoilers often gives rise
to suspicions that manipulation of the slate has taken place.
The spoiler may have received incentives to run.
A spoiler may also drop out at the last moment, inducing charges that such an act was intended
from the beginning.
Disproportionate influence of smaller parties Smaller parties can disproportionately change
the outcome of an FPTP election by swinging what is called the 50-50% balance of two party
systems, by creating a faction within one or both ends of the political spectrum which
shifts the winner of the election from an absolute majority outcome to a simple majority
outcome favouring the previously less favoured party.
In comparison, for electoral systems using proportional representation small groups win
only their proportional share of representation.
However in PR systems, small parties can become decisive in Parliament so gaining a power
of blackmail against the Government, a problem which is generally reduced by the FPTP system.
Voting system criteria Scholars rate voting systems using mathematically
derived voting system criteria, which describe desirable features of a system.
No ranked preference method can meet all of the criteria, because some of them are mutually
exclusive, as shown by statements such as Arrow's impossibility theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite
theorem.
Majority criterion Y The majority criterion states that "if one
candidate is preferred by a majority of voters, then that candidate must win".
First-past-the-post meets this criterion.
Although the criterion is met for each constituency vote, it is not met when adding up the total
votes for a winning party in a parliament.
Condorcet winner criterion N The Condorcet winner criterion states that
"if a candidate would win a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate
must win the overall election".
First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion.
Condorcet loser criterion N The Condorcet loser criterion states that
"if a candidate would lose a head-to-head competition against every other candidate,
then that candidate must not win the overall election".
First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion.
Independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion N The independence of irrelevant alternatives
criterion states that "the election outcome remains the same even if a candidate who cannot
win decides to run."
First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion.
Independence of clones criterion N The independence of clones criterion states
that "the election outcome remains the same even if an identical candidate who is equally-preferred
decides to run."
First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion.
List of the countries currently following FPTP system
Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda,
Botswana, Canada, Cook Islands, Dominica, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, India, Jamaica,
Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Micronesia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Palau,
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, Sierra Leone,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, United Republic of Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago,
Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Virgin Islands British, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
See also
Cube rule Deviation from proportionality
Plurality-at-large voting Single non-transferable vote
Single transferable vote References
External links A handbook of Electoral System Design from
International IDEA ACE Project: What is the electoral system
for Chamber 1 of the national legislature?
ACE Project: First Past The Post - Detailed explanation of first-past-the-post voting
ACE Project: Experiments with moving away from FPTP in the UK
ACE Project: Electing a President using FPTP ACE Project: FPTP on a grand scale in India
The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform says the new proportional electoral system
it proposes for British Columbia will improve the practice of democracy in the province.
ASSEMBLY AUDIO AND VIDEO Below, you'll find audio and video recordings of six Learning
Phase weekends, a meeting held in Prince George and the six Deliberation Phase weekends.
The Learning Phase and Deliberation Phase recordings were broadcast on Hansard TV during
2004.
- week 5 gives a detailed description by David Farrell, of the University of Manchester,
Elizabeth McLeay of Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
The Problem With First-Past-The-Post Electing The Problems with First Past the Post Voting
Explained on YouTube