Katana VentraIP

First-past-the-post voting

First-past-the-post voting (FPTP or FPP)[1] is a plurality voting system wherein voters cast a vote for a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. Analogous systems for multi-winner contests are known as plurality block voting or "block voting" systems; both FPTP and block voting are "plurality" systems in that the winner needs only a plurality of the votes and not an absolute majority (greater than half).

The term first-past-the-post is a metaphor from horse racing of the plurality-voted candidate winning such a race. ; The electoral system is formally called single-member [district] plurality voting (SMP/SMDP) when used in single-member districts, and informally called choose-one voting in contrast to ranked voting[2] or score voting.[3]


FPTP is one of the simplest electoral systems, and has been used to elect the House of Commons of England (and its successors for Great Britain and the United Kingdom) since the Middle Ages. Its use extends to former British colonies, most notably the United States, Canada, and India. It is used as the primary form of allocating seats for legislative elections in about a third of the world's countries, mostly in the English-speaking world. It is also used to directly elect heads of states in some, although far less than the two-round system. For legislative elections, a country using FPTP typically is divided into geographic constituencies that each elect one member to the legislature using this method.


Notwithstanding its simplicity and antiquity, there are several major drawbacks to FPTP. As a winner-take-all method, it often produces disproportional results, particularly when electing members of a legislature, in the sense that political parties do not get representation according to their share of the popular vote. This usually favours the largest party and parties with strong regional support to the detriment of smaller parties without a geographically concentrated base. Supporters of electoral reform are generally highly critical of FPTP because of this and point out other flaws, such as FPTP's vulnerability to gerrymandering which can create districts distorting representation in the legislature, the high number of wasted votes, and the chance of a majority reversal (i.e., the party winning the most votes getting fewer seats than the second-largest party and losing the election). Throughout the 20th century many countries that previously used FPTP have abandoned it in favour of other electoral systems, including the former British colonies of Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand (these nations now use STV, IRV + STV, and MMP, respectively).


Some countries use FPTP alongside proportional representation (PR) in a parallel voting system. The PR element may add to the disproportionality of FPTP, rather than compensating for it. Others use it in so-called compensatory mixed systems, such as part of mixed-member proportional representation or mixed single vote systems, which aim to counterbalance these. In some countries that elect their legislatures by proportional representation, FPTP is used to elect the head of state.

the largest city, but far from the others (42% of voters)

Memphis

near the center of the state (26% of voters)

Nashville

somewhat east (15% of voters)

Chattanooga

far to the northeast (17% of voters)

Knoxville

Terminology[edit]

The phrase first-past-the-post is a metaphor from British horse racing, where there is a post at the finish line[8] (though there is no specific percentage "finish line" required to win in this voting system, only being furthest ahead in the race).


FPTP is a plurality voting method, a plurality meaning the largest part of the whole, in contrast to majority, which generally means more than half of the whole. Under FPTP the candidate with the highest number (but not necessarily a majority) of votes is elected. Sometimes the term relative majority is used to refer to a plurality as opposed to an absolute majority meaning a (standard) majority. The word majority is also sometimes used to refer to the number of votes (or percentage of votes) a candidate won an election with: "Candidate A won the election with a 5000 vote majority" would mean Candidate got 5000 more votes than Candidate B, but could also mean Candidate A won 5000 votes in total, and won.


Even though FPTP is a type of plurality voting, it is categorised as a majoritarian system, even though it is not "majority voting" (like a two-round system is). This is because majoritarian representation (one of the 3 major types of electoral systems alongside proportional representation and mixed systems) is defined by the winner (of an electoral district) getting all the seats, and therefore all single-winner systems (such as FPTP) are majoritarian.


FPTP is primarily used in systems that use single-member electoral divisions. The multiple-member version of plurality voting is when each voter casts (up to) the same number of votes as there are positions to be filled, and those elected are the highest-placed candidates; this system is called the multiple non-transferable vote (MNTV) and is also known as plurality block voting.


When voters have only a single vote each, which is non-transferable, but there are multiple seats to be filled, that system is called the single non-transferable vote (SNTV). When voters have only a single vote each, which is a preferential vote and transferable if necessary, but there are multiple seats to be filled, that system is called the single transferable vote (STV). The multiple-round election (runoff voting) method most commonly uses the FPTP voting method in the second round. The first round, usually held according to SNTV rules, determines which candidates may progress to the second and final round. As usually only two candidates are in the second round, one or the other takes a majority of the votes. Thus, it is truly majoritarian.

Some voters will vote based on their view of how others will vote as well, changing their originally intended vote;

Substantial power is given to the media, because some voters will believe its assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be. Even voters who distrust the media will know that others do believe the media, and therefore those candidates who receive the most media attention will probably be the most popular;

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, and thus lose votes to tactical voting;

The method may promote votes against as opposed to votes for. For example, in the UK (and only in the region), entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting against the Conservative Party by voting Labour, Liberal Democrat in England and Wales, and since 2015 the SNP in Scotland, depending on which is seen as best placed to win in each locality. Such behaviour is difficult to measure objectively.

Great Britain

(The Chamber of Deputies uses party list PR. Only twice used FPTP, first between 1902 and 1905 used only in the elections of 1904,[59] and the second time between 1951 and 1957 used only in the elections of 1951 and 1954.)[60]

Argentina

(replaced by IRV in 1918 for both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with STV being introduced to the Senate in 1948)

Australia

(adopted in 1831, replaced by party list PR in 1899)—[61] the Member of the European Parliament for the German-speaking electoral college is still elected by FPTP[62]

Belgium

(replaced by proportional representation in 1981)

Cyprus

(replaced by proportional representation in 1920)

Denmark

(adopted in 1995, replaced by party list PR in 1998)

Hong Kong

(used between 1860 and 1882, and between 1892 and 1919)

Italy

(replaced by parallel voting in 1993)

Japan

(replaced by proportional representation in June 2017)

Lebanon

(replaced by MMP Party list in 2002)

Lesotho

(replaced by STV in 1921)

Malta

(replaced by parallel voting in 1977)

Mexico

(replaced by parallel voting)[63]

Nepal

(replaced by party list PR in 1917)[64]

Netherlands

(replaced by MMP in 1996)

New Zealand

(replaced by IRV in 2002)[65]

Papua New Guinea

(replaced by parallel voting in 1998 for House of Representatives elections, and by multiple non-transferable vote in 1941 for Senate elections)

Philippines

(replaced by party list PR)[66]

Portugal

(adopted in 1990, replaced by party list PR in 1992)[67]

Serbia

(replaced by party list PR in 1994)

South Africa

(replaced by parallel voting in 1995)

Tanzania

Cube rule

Deviation from proportionality

Plurality-at-large voting

Approval voting

Single non-transferable vote

Single transferable vote

from International IDEA

A handbook of Electoral System Design

ACE Project: What is the electoral system for Chamber 1 of the national legislature?

—detailed explanation of first-past-the-post voting

ACE Project: First Past The Post

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.

Vote No to Proportional Representation BC

Fact Sheets on Electoral Systems provided to members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, British Columbia.

The Problem With First-Past-The-Post Electing (data from UK general election 2005)

on YouTube

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained (video)

The fatal flaws of First-past-the-post electoral systems