Edit filter log

'{{Short description|Plurality voting system}}{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2023}}{{Citation style|date=July 2024}} {{Splitto|date=September 2024|Single-member district}}{{Electoral systems sidebar|expanded=Single-winner}} [[File:Countries That Use a First Past the Post Voting System.png|thumb|Countries that primarily use a first-past-the-post voting system for national legislative elections]] '''First-preference plurality''' ('''FPP''')—often shortened simply to '''plurality'''—is a [[single-winner]] voting rule. Voters typically mark one candidate as their favorite, and the candidate with the largest number of [[First-preference votes|first-preference]] marks (a [[Plurality (voting)|''plurality'']]) is elected, regardless of whether they have over half of all votes (a ''[[majority]]''). It is sometimes called '''first-past-the-post''' (FPTP) in reference to [[Sports gambling|gambling on horse races]] (where bettors would guess which horse they thought would be first past the finishing post).<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-07-31 |title=First-past-the-post: a rogue's practice? |url=https://onelections.net/2018/07/31/first-past-the-post-a-rogues-practice/ |access-date=2024-09-09 |website=On Elections |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=13 January 2016 |title=First past the post |url=https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp/first-past-the-post |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220524111637/https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp/first-past-the-post |archive-date=24 May 2022 |access-date=25 May 2022 |website=nzhistory.govt.nz |publisher=[[Ministry for Culture and Heritage]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=6 September 2010 |title=First Past the Post and Alternative Vote explained |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/first-past-the-post-and-alternative-vote-explained |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240118113041/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/first-past-the-post-and-alternative-vote-explained |archive-date=18 January 2024 |access-date=13 July 2024 |website=gov.uk}}</ref> In [[Social choice theory|social choice]], FPP is generally treated as a [[Degeneracy (mathematics)|degenerate]] variant of [[ranked voting]], where voters rank the candidates, but only the first preference matters. As a result, FPP is usually implemented with a '''choose-one ballot''', where voters place a single bubble next to their favorite candidate. FPP has been used to elect the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|British House of Commons]] since the [[Middle Ages]].<ref>{{cite web |date=26 September 2016 |title=The Boundaries Review is a chance to bring back multi-member constituencies |url=https://blog.politics.ox.ac.uk/boundaries-review-chance-bring-back-multi-member-constituencies/}}</ref> Throughout the 20th century, many countries that previously used FPP have abandoned it in favor of other electoral systems, including the former British colonies of [[Australia]] and [[New Zealand]]. Most [[U.S. state|U.S. states]] still [[De jure|officially]] retain FPP for most elections. However, the combination of [[Partisan primary|partisan primaries]] with the [[two-party system]] mean the country has effectively used a variation on the [[two-round system]] since [[McGovern–Fraser Commission|the 1970s]], where the first round selects two major contenders who go on to receive the overwhelming majority of votes.<ref name=":0322">{{Cite web |last1=Santucci |first1=Jack |last2=Shugart |first2=Matthew |last3=Latner |first3=Michael S. |date=2023-10-16 |title=Toward a Different Kind of Party Government |url=https://protectdemocracy.org/work/toward-a-different-kind-of-party-government/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240716205506/https://protectdemocracy.org/work/toward-a-different-kind-of-party-government/ |archive-date=2024-07-16 |access-date=2024-07-16 |website=Protect Democracy |language=en-US |quote="Finally, we should not discount the role of primaries. When we look at the range of countries with [[first-past-the-post]] (FPTP) elections (given no primaries), none with an assembly larger than Jamaica’s (63) has a strict two-party system. These countries include the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Canada]] (where multiparty competition is in fact nationwide). Whether the U.S. should be called ‘FPTP’ itself is dubious, and not only because some states (e.g. [[Georgia (US State)|Georgia]]) hold runoffs or use the [[alternative vote]] (e.g. [[Maine]]). '''Rather, the U.S. has an unusual two-round system in which the first round winnows the field. This usually is at the intraparty level, although sometimes it is without regard to party (e.g. in Alaska and California).'''"}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Gallagher |first1=Michael |title=The Politics of Electoral Systems |last2=Mitchell |first2=Paul |date=2005-09-15 |publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-153151-4 |page=192 |language=en |chapter=The American Electoral System |quote="American elections become a two-round run-off system with a delay of several months between the rounds." |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Igdj1P4vBwMC&q=%22American+elections+become+a+two-round+run-off+system+with+a+delay+of+several+months+between+the+rounds.%22&pg=PA3}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last1=Bowler |first1=Shaun |title=The United States: A Case of Duvergerian Equilibrium |date=2009 |work=Duverger's Law of Plurality Voting: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States |pages=135–146 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-09720-6_9 |access-date=2024-08-31 |place=New York, NY |publisher=Springer |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-0-387-09720-6_9 |isbn=978-0-387-09720-6 |quote=In effect, the primary system means that the USA has a two-round runoff system of elections. |last2=Grofman |first2=Bernard |last3=Blais |first3=André}}</ref> [[File:Plurality ballot.svg|thumb|right|A first-past-the-post ballot for a single-member district. The voter must mark one (and [[Spoilt vote|only one]]).]] == Example == {{Tenn voting example}} In FPTP, only the first preferences matter. As such, the votes would be counted as 42% for Memphis, 26% for Nashville, 17% for Knoxville, and 15% for Chattanooga. Since Memphis has the most votes, it would win a FPTP election, even though it is far from the center of the state and a [[Majority-preferred candidate|majority of voters would prefer Nashville]]. Similarly, [[instant-runoff voting]] would [[Instant-runoff voting#Tennessee|elect Knoxville]], the easternmost city. This makes the election a [[center squeeze]]. By contrast, both [[Condorcet method]]s and [[score voting]] would [[Condorcet method#Example: Voting on the location of Tennessee's capital|return Nashville]] (the capital of Tennessee). == Properties and effects == {| class="wikitable" |+Table of [[Pathological (mathematics)#In voting and social choice|pathological behaviors]] ! !Pathology !Explanation/details |- |{{Xmark}} |[[Frustrated majority paradox|'''Frustrated majority''']] |The [[frustrated majority paradox]] occurs when a majority of voters prefer some candidate ''Alice'' to every other candidate, but ''Alice'' still loses the election. First-past-the-post is vulnerable to this paradox because of vote-splitting.<ref name="lse27685">Felsenthal, Dan S. (2010) [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27685/1/Review_of_Paradoxes_Afflicting_Various_Voting_Procedures_(LSERO).pdf Review of paradoxes afflicting various voting procedures where one out of m candidates (m ≥ 2) must be elected] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224094341/http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27685/1/Review_of_Paradoxes_Afflicting_Various_Voting_Procedures_(LSERO).pdf |date=24 February 2021 }}. In: Assessing Alternative Voting Procedures, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.</ref> |- |{{Xmark}} |[[Condorcet loser criterion|'''Condorcet loser paradox''']] |The '''[[Condorcet loser criterion|Condorcet loser]]''' paradox happens when a majority of voters prefer every other candidate to ''A'', but ''Alice'' still wins. First-past-the-post is vulnerable to this paradox because of vote-splitting.<ref name="lse27685" /> |- |{{Xmark}} |'''[[Center squeeze]]''' |The center squeeze paradox occurs when 2 polarized candidates claim majority over a centrist candidate and remove them from the running in a preliminary election. Even though this candidate was likely to be the bilaterally accepted nominee, polarization on either side "squeezed them" out of running and forced the election of a non-centrist candidate. FPP exclusively prioritizes rote majorities making it highly prone to eliminating Condorcet Winners via center squeeze. {{Confusing|date=September 2024}} . Systems that demonstrate center-squeeze have a bias towards extreme candidates. |- |{{Xmark}} |'''[[Spoiler effect]]''' |A [[spoiler effect]] is when the results of an election between ''A'' and ''B'' is affected by voters' opinions on an unrelated candidate ''C''. First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion, which makes it vulnerable to [[Spoiler effect|spoilers]]. |- |{{Xmark}} |[[Independence of clones|'''Cloning paradox''']] |The [[Independence of clones|'''cloning paradox''']] is a particular kind of spoiler effect that involves several perfect copies, or "clones", of a candidate. Candidate-cloning causes vote-splitting in FPP. |- |{{Xmark}} |'''[[Reversal symmetry|Best-is-worst paradox]]''' |The best-is-worst paradox occurs when an electoral system declares the same candidate to be in first and last place, depending on whether voters rank candidates from best-to-worst or worst-to-best. FPP demonstrates this pathology, because a candidate can be both the FPP winner and also the [[Anti-plurality voting|anti-plurality]] loser. |- |{{Xmark}} |[[Sincere favorite criterion|'''Lesser-evil voting''']] |Lesser-evil voting occurs when voters are forced to support a "lesser of two evils" by rating them higher than their actual favorite candidate. FPP is vulnerable to this pathology. |- |{{Tick}} |'''[[Later-no-harm criterion|Later-no-harm]]''' | rowspan="2" |Since plurality does not consider later preferences on the ballot at all, it is impossible to either harm or help a favorite candidate by marking later preferences. Thus it passes both Later-No-Harm and Later-No-Help. |- |{{Tick}} |[[Later-no-help criterion|'''Later-no-help''']] |- |{{Tick}} |'''[[Consistency criterion|Multiple-districts paradox]]''' |The multiple-districts paradox refers to a particularly egregious kind of [[gerrymander]], when it is possible to draw a map where a candidate who loses the election nevertheless manages to win in every [[electoral district]]. This is not possible under FPP, or other [[positional voting]] methods. |- |{{Tick}} |'''[[Monotonicity criterion|Perverse response]]''' |Perverse response occurs when a candidate loses as a result of receiving too ''much'' support from some voters, i.e. it is possible for a candidate to lose by receiving too many votes. FPP is not affected by this pathology. |- |{{Tick}} |'''[[No-show paradox]]''' |The [[no-show paradox]] is a situation where a candidate loses as a result of having ''too many'' supporters. In other words, adding a voter who supports ''A'' over ''B'' can cause ''A'' to lose to ''B''. FPP is not affected by this pathology. |} ===Two-party rule=== {{Main|Duverger's law}} [[File:First-past-the-post_2015.svg|alt=|thumb|A graph showing the difference between the popular vote (inner circle) and the seats won by parties (outer circle) at the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015 UK general election]]]] Perhaps the most striking effect of FPP is the fact that the number of a party's seats in a legislature has nothing to do with its vote count in an election, only in how those votes were geographically distributed. This has been a target of criticism for the method, many arguing that a fundamental requirement of an election system is to accurately represent the views of voters. FPP often creates "false majorities" by over-representing larger parties (giving a majority of the parliamentary/legislative seats to a party that did not receive a majority of the votes) while under-representing smaller ones. In Canada, [[majority government]]s have been formed due to one party winning a majority of the votes cast in Canada only three times since 1921: in [[1940 Canadian federal election|1940]], [[1958 Canadian federal election|1958]] and [[1984 Canadian federal election|1984]]. In the United Kingdom, 19 of the 24 general elections since 1922 have produced a single-party majority government. In all but two of them ([[1931 United Kingdom general election|1931]] and [[1935 United Kingdom general election|1935]]), the leading party did not take a majority of the votes across the UK. In some cases, this can lead to a party receiving the plurality or even majority of total votes yet still failing to gain a plurality of legislative seats. This results in a situation called a [[majority reversal]] or [[electoral inversion]].<ref>{{Cite journal|journal=American Economic Journal: Applied Economics|pages=327–357|volume=14|url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w26247|title=Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016|first1=Michael|last1=Geruso|first2=Dean|last2=Spears|first3=Ishaana|last3=Talesara|date=5 September 2019|issue=1|doi=10.3386/w26247|pmid=38213750 |pmc=10782436 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210319145533/https://www.nber.org/papers/w26247|access-date=14 July 2021|archive-date=19 March 2021|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://slide-finder.com/view/ELECTION-INVERSIONS-BY-VARIANTS.214192.html |title=Election Inversions By Variants of the U.S. Electoral College |access-date=14 July 2021 |archive-date=18 July 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210718043847/https://slide-finder.com/view/ELECTION-INVERSIONS-BY-VARIANTS.214192.html |url-status=dead |first=Nicholas R. |last=Miller |department=Department of Political Science |agency=UMBC }}</ref> Famous examples of the second-place party (in votes nationally) winning a majority of seats include the elections in Ghana in [[2012 Ghanaian general election|2012]], New Zealand in [[1978 New Zealand general election|1978]] and [[1981 New Zealand general election|1981]], and the United Kingdom in [[1951 United Kingdom general election|1951]]. Famous examples of the second placed party (in votes nationally) winning a plurality of seats include the elections in Canada in [[2019 Canadian federal election|2019]] and [[2021 Canadian federal election|2021]] as well as in Japan in [[2003 Japanese general election|2003]]. Even when a party wins more than half the votes in an almost purely two-party-competition, it is possible for the runner-up to win a majority of seats. This happened in [[Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]] in [[1966 Vincentian general election|1966]], [[1998 Vincentian general election|1998]], and [[2020 Vincentian general election|2020]] and in Belize in [[1993 Belizean general election|1993]]. Even with only two parties and equally-sized constituencies, winning a majority of seats just requires receiving more than half the vote in more than half the districts—even if the other party receives all the votes cast in the other districts—so just over a quarter of the vote is theoretically enough to win a majority in the legislature. With enough candidates splitting the vote in a district, the total number of votes needed to win can be made [[arbitrarily small]].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} === Two-party systems === Under first-past-the-post, a small party may draw votes and seats away from a larger party that it is ''more'' similar to, and therefore give an advantage to one it is ''less'' similar to. For example, in the [[2000 United States presidential election]], the left-leaning [[Ralph Nader]] drew more votes from the left-leaning [[Al Gore]], resulting in Nader [[Spoiler effect|spoiling the election]] for the Democrats. According to the political pressure group [[Make Votes Matter]], FPTP creates a powerful electoral incentive for large parties to target similar segments of voters with similar policies. The effect of this reduces political diversity in a country because the larger parties are incentivized to coalesce around similar policies.<ref>{{Cite web|title=First Past the Post|url=https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/first-past-the-post|access-date=26 June 2020|website=Make Votes Matter|archive-date=31 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731164815/https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/first-past-the-post|url-status=live}}</ref> The [[ACE Electoral Knowledge Network]] describes India's use of FPTP as a "legacy of British colonialism".<ref>{{Cite web|title=India – First Past the Post on a Grand Scale|url=https://aceproject.org/main/english/es/esy_in.htm|access-date=25 June 2020|website=ACE Electoral Knowledge Network}}</ref> [[Duverger's law]] is an idea in [[political science]] which says that constituencies that use first-past-the-post methods will lead to [[two-party system]]s, given enough time. Economist [[Jeffrey Sachs]] explains: {{Blockquote|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" (FPTP) 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.|from Sachs's ''The Price of Civilization'', 2011<ref name="twsM18xxuy">{{Cite book |last=Sachs |first=Jeffrey |title=The Price of Civilization |date=2011 |publisher=Random House |isbn=978-1-4000-6841-8 |location=New York |page=107}}</ref>}} However, most countries with first-past-the-post elections have multiparty legislatures (albeit with two parties larger than the others), the United States being the major exception.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dunleavy |first1=Patrick |last2=Diwakar |first2=Rekha |year=2013 |title=Analysing multiparty competition in plurality rule elections |url=http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/38452/1/Dunleavy_Analysing%20multiparty_2014_author.pdf |journal=Party Politics |volume=19 |issue=6 |pages=855–886 |doi=10.1177/1354068811411026 |s2cid=18840573 |access-date=30 June 2016 |archive-date=9 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220609031929/http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/38452/1/Dunleavy_Analysing%20multiparty_2014_author.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> There is a counter-argument to Duverger's Law, that while on the national level a plurality system may encourage two parties, in the individual constituencies supermajorities will lead to the vote fracturing.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dickson |first1=Eric S.|author2-link=Kenneth Scheve |last2=Scheve |first2=Kenneth |year=2010 |title=Social Identity, Electoral Institutions and the Number of Candidates |journal=British Journal of Political Science |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=349–375 |citeseerx=10.1.1.75.155 |doi=10.1017/s0007123409990354 |jstor=40649446|s2cid=7107526 }}</ref> === Strongholds, key constituencies and kingmakers === It has been suggested that the distortions in geographical representation provide incentives for parties to ignore the interests of areas in which they are too weak to stand much chance of gaining representation, leading to governments that do not govern in the national interest. Further, during election campaigns the campaigning activity of parties tends to focus on [[marginal seat]]s where there is a prospect of a change in representation, leaving safer areas excluded from participation in an active campaign.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2011-01-04 |title=First Past the Post is a 'broken voting system' |url=https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/first-past-the-post-is-a-broken-voting-system |access-date=15 November 2017 |website=ippr.org |publisher=Institute for Public Policy Research |archive-date=15 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115223042/https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/first-past-the-post-is-a-broken-voting-system |url-status=live }}</ref> Political parties operate by targeting districts, directing their activists and policy proposals toward those areas considered to be marginal, where each additional vote has more value.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Terry |first=Chris |date=2013-08-28 |title=In Britain's first past the post electoral system, some votes are worth 22 times more than others |url=http://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/08/28/in-britains-first-past-the-post-electoral-system-some-votes-are-worth-22-times-more-than-others/ |access-date=15 November 2017 |website=democraticaudit.com |publisher=London School of Economics}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Galvin |first=Ray |title=What is a marginal seat? |url=http://www.justsolutions.eu/marginals/startmarginals.html |access-date=15 November 2017 |website=justsolutions.eu |archive-date=15 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115215649/http://www.justsolutions.eu/marginals/startmarginals.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="electoral-reform1" /> This feature of FPTP has often been used by its supporters in contrast to proportional systems. In the latter, smaller parties act as 'kingmakers' in coalitions as they have greater bargaining power and therefore, arguably, their influence on policy is disproportional to their parliamentary size- this is largely avoided in FPP systems where majorities are generally achieved.<ref name="Brams/Kilgour2010">{{cite journal |author=Brams/Kilgour. Dorey |title=Kingmakers and leaders in coalition formation |journal=Social Choice and Welfare |year=2013 |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=1–18 |doi=10.1007/s00355-012-0680-4 |jstor=42001390 |s2cid=253849669 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42001390 |hdl=10419/53209 |hdl-access=free |access-date=11 March 2023 |archive-date=11 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230311121637/https://www.jstor.org/stable/42001390 |url-status=live }}</ref> FPP often produces governments which have legislative voting majorities,<ref name="Williams1998">{{Cite book |last=Andy Williams |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6keDJpK0xL8C&pg=PA24 |title=UK Government & Politics |publisher=Heinemann |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-435-33158-0 |page=24 |access-date=11 October 2016 |archive-date=22 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240522102106/https://books.google.com/books?id=6keDJpK0xL8C&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}</ref> thus providing such governments the legislative power necessary to implement their electoral [[manifesto]] commitments during their term in office. This may be beneficial for the country in question in circumstances where the government's legislative agenda has broad public support, albeit potentially divided across party lines, or at least benefits society as a whole. However handing a legislative voting majority to a government which lacks popular support can be problematic where said government's policies favor only that fraction of the electorate that supported it, particularly if the electorate divides on tribal, religious, or urban–rural lines. There is also the perceived issue of unfair coalitions where a smaller party can form a coalition with other smaller parties and form a government, without a clear mandate as was the case in the [[2009 Israeli legislative election]] where the leading party [[Kadima]], was unable to form a coalition so [[Likud]], a smaller party, managed to form a government without being the largest party. The use of [[proportional representation]] (PR) may enable smaller parties to become decisive in the country's [[legislature]] and gain leverage they would not otherwise enjoy, although this can be somewhat mitigated by a large enough [[electoral threshold]]. They argue that FPP generally reduces this possibility, except where parties have a strong regional basis. A journalist at ''[[Haaretz]]'' noted that Israel's highly proportional [[Knesset]] "affords great power to relatively small parties, forcing the government to give in to political blackmail and to reach compromises";<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ilan |first=Shahar |title=Major Reforms Are Unlikely, but Electoral Threshold Could Be Raised |newspaper=Haaretz |url=https://www.haaretz.com/1.5074292 |access-date=8 May 2010 |archive-date=21 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190821221203/https://www.haaretz.com/1.5074292 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Dr.Mihaela Macavei, University of Alba Iulia, Romania |title=Advantages and disadvantages of the uninominal voting system |url=http://www.uab.ro/reviste_recunoscute/reviste_drept/annales_10_2007/macavei_en.pdf |access-date=8 May 2010 |archive-date=24 December 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191224074113/http://www.uab.ro/reviste_recunoscute/reviste_drept/annales_10_2007/macavei_en.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> [[Tony Blair]], defending FPP, argued that other systems give small parties the balance of power, and influence disproportionate to their votes.<ref name="Dorey2008">{{cite book|author=P. Dorey|title=The Labour Party and Constitutional Reform: A History of Constitutional Conservatism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JsaHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA400|date=17 June 2008|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|isbn=978-0-230-59415-9|pages=400–}}</ref> The concept of kingmakers is adjacent to how [[Winston Churchill]] criticized the [[Instant-runoff voting|alternative vote]] system as "determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates."<ref name="Johnston2011">{{cite book|author=Larry Johnston|title=Politics: An Introduction to the Modern Democratic State|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZcpZ1eADwSMC&pg=PA231|date=13 December 2011|publisher=University of Toronto Press|isbn=978-1-4426-0533-6|pages=231–}}</ref> meaning that votes for the least supported candidates may change the outcome of the election between the most supported candidates. In this case however, this is a feature of the alternative vote, since those votes would have otherwise been wasted (and in some sense this makes every vote count, as opposed to FPP), and this effect is only possible when no candidate receives an outright majority of first preference votes. it is related to kingmakers in that the lesser-known candidates may encourage their supporters to rank the other candidates a certain way. Supporters of electoral reform generally see this as a positive development, and claim that alternatives certain to FPP will encourage less negative and more positive campaigning, as candidates will have to appeal to a wider group of people. Opinions are split on whether the alternative vote (better known as [[Instant-runoff voting|instant runoff voting]] outside the UK) achieves this better than other systems. === Extremist parties === Supporters and opponents of FPP often argue whether FPP advantages or disadvantages extremist parties. Among single-winner systems, FPP suffers from the [[Center squeeze|center squeeze phenomenon]], where more moderate candidates are squeezed out by more extreme ones. However, the different types (or the absence of) of party primaries maybe strengthen or weaken this effect. In general, FPP has no mechanism that would benefit more moderate candidates and many supporters of FPP defend it electing the largest and most unified (even if more polarizing) minority over a more consensual majority supported candidate. Allowing people into parliament who did not finish first in their district was described by [[David Cameron]] as creating a "Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either."<ref>"[[David Cameron]]. "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8485118/David-Cameron-why-keeping-first-past-the-post-is-vital-for-democracy.html David Cameron: why keeping first past the post is vital for democracy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180118220917/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8485118/David-Cameron-why-keeping-first-past-the-post-is-vital-for-democracy.html|date=18 January 2018}}." ''Daily Telegraph.'' 30 April 2011</ref> However, FPP often results in [[strategic voting]], which has prevented extreme left- and right-wing parties from gaining parliamentary seats{{Citation needed|date=September 2024}}, as opposed to [[proportional representation]]. This also implies that strategic voting is necessary to keep extremists from gaining seats, which often fails to materialize in practice for multiple reasons. In comparison, many other systems encourage voters to rank other candidates and thereby not (or at least less often to) have to strategically compromise on their first choice at the same time. On the other hand, [[the Constitution Society]] published a report in April 2019 stating that, "[in certain circumstances] FPP can ... abet [[Extremism|extreme politics]], since should a radical faction gain control of one of the major political parties, FPP works to preserve that party's position. ...This is because the psychological effect of the plurality system disincentivises a major party's supporters from voting for a minor party in protest at its policies, since to do so would likely only help the major party's main rival. Rather than curtailing extreme voices, FPP today empowers the (relatively) extreme voices of the Labour and Conservative party memberships."<ref>{{Cite news|first=Peter|last=Walker|date=22 April 2019|title=First past the post abets extreme politics, says thinktank|work=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/23/first-past-the-post-abets-extreme-politics-says-thinktank|archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20231206101252/https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/23/first-past-the-post-abets-extreme-politics-says-thinktank|archive-date=6 December 2023|url-status=live|access-date=23 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=The Electoral System and British Politics|url=https://consoc.org.uk/publications/the-electoral-system-and-british-politics/|website=consoc.org.uk|access-date=23 June 2020|archive-date=25 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625171041/https://consoc.org.uk/publications/the-electoral-system-and-british-politics/|url-status=live}}</ref> For example, the [[electoral system of Hungary]], a mixed system dominated by FPP have seen Fidesz (right-wing, populist party) win 135 seats in the [[2022 Hungarian parliamentary election]] and has remained the largest party in Hungary since [[2010 Hungarian parliamentary election|2010]] by changing the electoral system to mostly use FPP instead of the previous mixed system using mostly the [[two-round system]]. Since 2010, Fidesz has implemented other anti-democratic reforms that now mean the European Parliament no longer qualifies Hungary as a full democracy.<ref>{{cite press release |title=MEPs: Hungary can no longer be considered a full democracy |date=15 September 2022 |publisher=[[European Parliament]] |url=https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220909IPR40137/meps-hungary-can-no-longer-be-considered-a-full-democracy |ref=20220909IPR40137 |access-date=25 March 2023 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220915103936/https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220909IPR40137/meps-hungary-can-no-longer-be-considered-a-full-democracy |archive-date=15 September 2022}}</ref> Electoral reform campaigners have argued that the use of FPP in [[South Africa]] was a contributory factor in the country adopting the [[apartheid]] system after the [[1948 South African general election#Results|1948 general election]] in that country.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Cowen|first=Doug|title=The Graveyard of First Past the Post|url=https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-graveyard-of-first-past-the-post/|access-date=4 July 2020|website=Electoral Reform Society|archive-date=4 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200704094624/https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-graveyard-of-first-past-the-post/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Winter|first=Owen|date=25 August 2016|title=How a Broken Voting System Gave South Africa Apartheid in 1948|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/owen-winter/south-africa-apartheid_b_11662272.html|access-date=4 July 2020|website=Huffington Post|archive-date=18 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210318014711/https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/owen-winter/south-africa-apartheid_b_11662272.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Leblang and Chan found that a country's electoral system is the most important predictor of a country's involvement in war, according to three different measures: (1) when a country was the first to enter a war; (2) when it joined a multinational coalition in an ongoing war; and (3) how long it stayed in a war after becoming a party to it.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Leblang |first1=D.|last2=Chan|first2=S.|date=2003|title=Explaining Wars Fought By Established Democracies: Do Institutional Constraints Matter?|journal=Political Research Quarterly|page=56-24: 385–400}}</ref><ref name="PR and Conflict">{{Cite web|title=PR and Conflict|url=https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/conflict|access-date=27 June 2020|website=Make Votes Matter|archive-date=31 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731155640/https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/conflict|url-status=live}}</ref> When the people are fairly represented in parliament, more of those groups who may object to any potential war have access to the political power necessary to prevent it. In a proportional democracy, war and other major decisions generally requires the consent of the majority.<ref name="PR and Conflict" /><ref>{{Cite web|date=19 November 2017|title=What the Evidence Says|url=https://fairvotingbc.com/join-the-campaign-for-fair-voting/why-voting-reform/what-the-evidence-says/|access-date=27 June 2020|website=Fair Voting BC|archive-date=29 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200629185607/https://fairvotingbc.com/join-the-campaign-for-fair-voting/why-voting-reform/what-the-evidence-says/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=3 May 2010|title=Democracy: we've never had it so bad|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/03/democracy-first-past-the-post|access-date=27 June 2020|website=The Guardian|archive-date=22 May 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240522102019/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/03/democracy-first-past-the-post|url-status=live}}</ref> The British human rights campaigner [[Peter Tatchell]], and others, have argued that Britain entered the Iraq War primarily because of the political effects of FPP and that proportional representation would have prevented Britain's involvement in the war.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Tatchell|first=Peter|date=3 May 2010|title=Democracy: we've never had it so bad|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/03/democracy-first-past-the-post|access-date=26 June 2020|website=The Guardian|archive-date=22 May 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240522102019/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/03/democracy-first-past-the-post|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Barnett|first=Anthony|title=Will Labour's next leader finally break with first-past-the-post?|url=https://labourlist.org/2020/01/will-labours-next-leader-finally-break-with-first-past-the-post/|access-date=5 July 2020|website=Labourlist.org|date=10 January 2020|archive-date=5 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200705132235/https://labourlist.org/2020/01/will-labours-next-leader-finally-break-with-first-past-the-post/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Root|first=Tim|date=30 September 2019|title=Making government accountable to the people|url=https://leftfootforward.org/2019/09/making-government-accountable-to-the-people/|access-date=5 July 2020|website=Left Foot Forward|archive-date=31 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200731180947/https://leftfootforward.org/2019/09/making-government-accountable-to-the-people/|url-status=live}}</ref> ===Tactical voting=== {{Main|Strategic voting}} To a greater extent than many others, the first-past-the-post method encourages "tactical voting". Voters have an incentive to vote for a candidate who they predict is more likely to win, as opposed to their preferred candidate who may be unlikely to win and for whom a vote could be considered as [[wasted vote|wasted]]. FPP wastes fewer votes when it is used in two-party contests. But waste of votes and minority governments are more likely when large groups of voters vote for three, four or more parties as in Canadian elections. Canada uses FPP and only two of the last seven federal Canadian elections ([[2011 Canadian federal election|2011]] and [[2015 Canadian federal election|2015]]) produced single-party majority governments. In none of them did the leading party receive a majority of the votes. The position is sometimes summarized, in an extreme form, as "all votes for anyone other than the runner-up are votes for the winner."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Begany |first=Brent |date=2016-06-30 |title=The 2016 Election Proves The Need For Voting Reform |url=https://policyinterns.com/2016/06/30/the-2016-election-proves-the-need-for-voting-reform/ |access-date=2019-10-22 |website=Policy Interns |language=en |archive-date=22 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191022182755/https://policyinterns.com/2016/06/30/the-2016-election-proves-the-need-for-voting-reform/ |url-status=live }}</ref> This is because votes for these other candidates deny potential support from the second-placed candidate, who might otherwise have won. Following the extremely close [[2000 United States presidential election|2000 U.S. presidential election]], some supporters of [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] candidate [[Al Gore]] believed one reason he lost to [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] [[George W. Bush]] is that a portion of the electorate (2.7%) voted for [[Ralph Nader]] of the [[Green Party (United States)|Green Party]], and exit polls indicated that more of them would have preferred Gore (45%) to Bush (27%).<ref>{{Cite news |last=Rosenbaum |first=David E. |date=24 February 2004 |title=THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE INDEPENDENT; Relax, Nader Advises Alarmed Democrats, but the 2000 Math Counsels Otherwise |work=The New York Times |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E4D6173CF937A15751C0A9629C8B63 |access-date=7 February 2017 |archive-date=19 September 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080919015320/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E4D6173CF937A15751C0A9629C8B63 |url-status=live }}</ref> The election was ultimately determined by the [[United States presidential election in Florida, 2000|results from Florida]], where Bush prevailed over Gore by a margin of only 537 votes (0.009%), which was far exceeded by the 97488 (1.635%) votes cast for Nader in that state. In [[Puerto Rico]], there has been a tendency for [[Puerto Rican Independence Party|Independentista]] voters to support [[Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico|Populares]] candidates. This phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the [[New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico|Estadistas]] have the most voters on the island, and is so widely recognised that Puerto Ricans sometimes call the Independentistas who vote for the Populares "melons", because that fruit is green on the outside but red on the inside (in reference to the party colors). Because voters have to predict who the top two candidates will be, results can be significantly distorted: * 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 [[Great Britain]] region), entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting ''against'' the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] by voting [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]], [[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrat]] in [[England]] and [[Wales]], and since 2015 the [[Scottish National Party|SNP]] in [[Scotland]], depending on which is seen as best placed to win in each locality. Such behavior is difficult to measure objectively. Proponents of other voting methods in [[single-member district]]s argue that these would reduce the need for tactical voting and reduce the [[spoiler effect]]. Examples include preferential voting systems, such as [[Instant-runoff voting|instant runoff voting]], as well as the [[two-round system]] of runoffs and less tested methods such as [[approval voting]] and [[Condorcet method]]s. [[Wasted vote]]s are seen as those cast for losing candidates, and for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. For example, in the [[2005 United Kingdom general election|UK general election of 2005]], 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes—a total of 70% "wasted" votes. On this basis 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 FPP than elsewhere."<ref>{{Cite book|last=Drogus|first=Carol Ann|url=https://archive.org/details/introducingcompa00drog/page/257|title=Introducing comparative politics: concepts and cases in context|publisher=CQ Press|year=2008|isbn=978-0-87289-343-6|pages=[https://archive.org/details/introducingcompa00drog/page/257 257]|url-access=registration}}</ref> ===Geography=== The effect of a system based on plurality voting spread over many separate districts is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distributed support gain a disproportionately small share. This is because in doing this they win many seats and do not 'waste' many votes in other areas. As voting patterns are similar in about two-thirds of the districts, it is more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats under FPP than happens in a proportional system, and under FPP it is rare to elect a majority government that actually has the support of a majority of voters. Because FPP permits many [[wasted vote]]s, an election under FPP is more easily gerrymandered. Through [[gerrymandering]], electoral areas are designed deliberately to unfairly increase the number of seats won by one party by redrawing the map such that one party has a small number of districts in which it has an overwhelming majority of votes (whether due to policy, demographics which tend to favor one party, or other reasons), and many districts where it is at a smaller disadvantage.{{citation needed|date=June 2020}} The British [[Electoral Reform Society]] (ERS) says that regional parties benefit from this system. "With a geographical base, parties that are small UK-wide can still do very well".<ref name="First Past the Post">{{Cite web |title=First Past the Post |url=https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/first-past-the-post/ |access-date=2019-12-16 |website=electoral-reform.org.uk |language=en-US |archive-date=13 December 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191213064535/https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/first-past-the-post/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On the other hand, minor parties that do not concentrate their vote usually end up getting a much lower proportion of seats than votes, as they lose most of the seats they contest and 'waste' most of their votes.<ref name="electoral-reform1">{{Cite web |title=First Past the Post |url=https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/first-past-the-post/ |access-date=2019-12-05 |website=electoral-reform.org.uk |language=en-US |archive-date=13 December 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191213064535/https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/first-past-the-post/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The ERS also says that in FPP elections using many separate districts "small parties without a geographical base find it hard to win seats".<ref name="First Past the Post" /> [[Make Votes Matter]] said that in the [[2017 United Kingdom general election|2017 general election]], "the Green Party, Liberal Democrats and UKIP (minor, non-regional parties) received 11% of votes between them, yet they ''shared'' just 2% of seats", and in the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015 general election]], "[t]he same three parties received almost a quarter of all the votes cast, yet these parties ''shared'' just 1.5% of seats."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Make Votes Matter—Everything wrong with First Past the Post—Proportional Representation |url=https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/first-past-the-post |access-date=2019-12-16 |website=Make Votes Matter |language=en-GB |archive-date=2 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191102013320/https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/first-past-the-post |url-status=live }}</ref> According to Make Votes Matter, in the 2015 UK general election [[UK Independence Party|UKIP]] came in third in terms of number of votes (3.9 million/12.6%), but gained only one seat in Parliament, resulting in one seat per 3.9 million votes. The Conservatives on the other hand received one seat per 34,000 votes.<ref name=":0" /> The winner-takes-all nature of FPP leads to distorted patterns of representation, since it exaggerates the correlation between party support and geography. For example, in the UK the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] represents most of the rural seats in England, and most of the south of England, while the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] represents most of the English cities and most of the north of England.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Divided by Values: Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party and England's 'North-South Divide' |last1=Beech |first1=Matt |date=2020-07-03 |url=https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/5456 |last2=Hickson |first2=Kevin|journal=Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique |volume=XXV |issue=2 |doi=10.4000/rfcb.5456 |s2cid=198655613 |doi-access=free }}</ref> This pattern hides the large number of votes for the non-dominant party. Parties can find themselves without elected politicians in significant parts of the country, heightening feelings of regionalism. Party supporters (who may nevertheless be a significant minority) in those sections of the country are unrepresented. In the 2019 Canadian federal election [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservatives]] won 98% of the seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan with only 68% of the vote. The lack of non-Conservative representation gives the appearance of greater Conservative support than actually exists.<ref>{{Cite web |title=First Past the Post |url=http://www.conservativeelectoralreform.org/support-reform/first-past-the-post/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115214736/http://www.conservativeelectoralreform.org/support-reform/first-past-the-post/ |archive-date=15 November 2017 |access-date=15 November 2017 |website=conservativeelectoralreform.org |publisher=Conservative Action for Electoral Reform}}</ref> Similarly, in Canada's 2021 elections, the Conservative Party won 88% of the seats in Alberta with only 55% of the vote, and won 100% of the seats in Saskatchewan with only 59% of the vote.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://enr.elections.ca/Provinces.aspx |title=Elections Canada – Results by Province(s) |work=2021 Elections Canada – Provinces |publisher=Elections Canada |date=2020-09-21 |access-date=2021-11-04 |archive-date=9 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221209014337/https://enr.elections.ca/Provinces.aspx |url-status=live }}</ref> First-past-the-post within geographical areas tends to deliver (particularly to larger parties) a significant number of [[safe seat]]s, where a representative is sheltered from any but the most dramatic change in voting behavior. In the UK, the Electoral Reform Society estimates that more than half the seats can be considered as safe.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2010-04-07|title=General Election 2010: Safe and marginal seats|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/07/election-safe-seats-electoral-reform|access-date=15 November 2017|website=The Guardian|archive-date=3 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303235530/http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/07/election-safe-seats-electoral-reform|url-status=live}}</ref> It has been claimed that members involved in the 2009 [[United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal|expenses scandal]] were significantly more likely to hold a safe seat.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wickham|first=Alex|title="Safe seats" almost guarantee corruption|url=http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3678/_safe_seats_almost_guarantee_corruption|access-date=15 November 2017|website=thecommentator.com|archive-date=15 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415082539/http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3678/_safe_seats_almost_guarantee_corruption|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=FactCheck: expenses and safe seats|url=http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/factcheck+expenses+and+safe+seats/3388597.html|access-date=15 November 2017|website=channel4.com|publisher=Channel 4|archive-date=8 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210508102457/http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/factcheck+expenses+and+safe+seats/3388597.html|url-status=live}}</ref> ==History== The [[House of Commons of England]] originated in the Middle Ages as an assembly representing the gentry of the counties and cities of the Kingdom, each of which elected either one or two members of parliament (MPs) by [[block plurality voting]]. Starting in the 19th century, [[electoral reform]] advocates pushed to replace these multi-member constituencies with single-member districts.{{Cn|date=September 2024}} Elections to the Canadian [[House of Commons of Canada|House of Commons]] have always been conducted with FPP.{{Cn|date=September 2024}} The [[United States]] broke away from British rule in the late 18th century, and its constitution provides for an electoral college to elect its president. Despite original intentions to the contrary, by the mid-19th century this college had transformed into a ''de facto'' use of FPP for each state's presidential election. This further morphed through the introduction of the [[party primary]], which made American elections into a [[two-round system]] in practice. ===Criticism and replacement=== {{multiple image | direction = vertical | width = 250 | footer = People campaigning against first-past-the-post and in favour of proportional representation | image1 = Guelph Rally on Electoral Reform - National Day of Action for Electoral Reform - 11 Feb 2017 - 04.jpg | image2 = Make Votes Matter ! No to FPTP. Yes to PR. (51868539320).jpg }} Non-plurality voting systems have been devised since at least 1299, when [[Ramon Llull]] came up with both the Condorcet and [[Borda count]] methods, which were respectively reinvented in the 18th century by the [[Marquis de Condorcet]] and [[Jean-Charles de Borda]]. More serious investigation into electoral systems came in the late 18th century, when several thinkers independently proposed systems of [[proportional representation]] to elect legislatures. The [[single transferable vote]] in particular was invented in 1819 by [[Thomas Wright Hill]], and first used in a public election in 1840 by his son [[Rowland Hill|Rowland]] for the [[Adelaide City Council]] in Australia. STV saw its first national use in Denmark in 1855, and was reinvented several times in the 19th century. The Proportional Representation Society was founded in England in 1884 and began campaigning. STV was used to elect the British House of Commons's [[university constituencies]] between 1918 and their abolition in 1950.{{Cn|date=September 2024}} Many countries which use FPP have active campaigns to switch to proportional representation (e.g. UK<ref>{{Cite web |title=What We Stand For |url=https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/who-we-are/what-we-stand-for/ |website=electoral-reform.org.uk |access-date=25 June 2020 |archive-date=26 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200626022218/https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/who-we-are/what-we-stand-for/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and Canada<ref>{{Cite web |title=Home |url=https://www.fairvote.ca/ |website=Fair Vote Canada |access-date=25 June 2020 |archive-date=1 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200701200741/https://www.fairvote.ca/ |url-status=live }}</ref>). Most modern democracies use some form of proportional representation.<ref>{{cite web |title=Electoral Systems around the World |url=https://www.fairvote.org/research_electoralsystems_world |website=FairVote.org |access-date=18 July 2020 |archive-date=11 September 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210911132640/https://www.fairvote.org/research_electoralsystems_world |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform – About LCER |url=https://www.labourcampaignforelectoralreform.org.uk/About-LCER |website=labourcampaignforelectoralreform.org.uk |access-date=25 June 2020 |archive-date=11 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210811033648/https://www.labourcampaignforelectoralreform.org.uk/About-LCER |url-status=dead }}</ref> == Countries using FPP == === Legislatures elected exclusively by single-member plurality === The following is a list of countries currently following the first-past-the-post voting system for their national legislatures.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Countries using FPTP electoral system for national legislature |url=http://www.idea.int/esd/type.cfm?electoralSystem=FPTP |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006214357/http://www.idea.int/esd/type.cfm?electoralSystem=FPTP |archive-date=6 October 2014 |access-date=3 December 2018 |website=idea.int}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Electoral Systems |url=http://aceproject.org/epic-en/CDTable?question=ES005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140826220250/http://aceproject.org/epic-en/CDTable?question=ES005 |archive-date=26 August 2014 |access-date=3 November 2015 |publisher=ACE Electoral Knowledge Network}}</ref> [[File:FPTP lower house.svg|thumb|400x400px|Map showing countries where the lower house or unicameral national legislature is elected by FPTP (red) or mixed systems using FPTP (pink - mixed majoritarian, purple/lavender - mixed proportional/compensatory).]] {{div col|colwidth=22em}} *{{Flagicon|Antigua and Barbuda}} [[Antigua and Barbuda]] *{{Flagicon|Azerbaijan}} [[Azerbaijan]] *{{Flagicon|Bahamas}} [[Bahamas]] *{{Flagicon|Bangladesh}} [[Bangladesh]] *{{Flagicon|Barbados}} [[Barbados]] *{{Flagicon|Belarus}} [[Belarus]] *{{Flagicon|Belize}} [[Belize]] *{{Flagicon|Botswana}} [[Botswana]] *{{Flagicon|Canada}} [[Canada]] (for the [[House of Commons (Canada)|lower house]] only) *{{Flagicon|Dominica}} [[Dominica]] *{{Flagicon|Eritrea}} [[Eritrea]] *{{Flagicon|Eswatini}} [[Eswatini]] *{{Flagicon|Ethiopia}} [[Ethiopia]] *{{Flagicon|The Gambia}} [[The Gambia]] *{{Flagicon|Ghana}} [[Ghana]] *{{Flagicon|Grenada}} [[Grenada]] *{{Flagicon|India}} [[India]] (for the [[Lok Sabha|lower house]] only) *{{Flagicon|Jamaica}} [[Jamaica]] *{{Flagicon|Kenya}} [[Kenya]] *{{Flagicon|Liberia}} [[Liberia]] *{{Flagicon|Malaysia}} [[Malaysia]] *{{Flagicon|Malawi}} [[Malawi]] *{{Flagicon|Maldives}} [[Maldives]] *{{Flagicon|Mauritius}} [[Mauritius]] *{{Flagicon|Federated States of Micronesia}} [[Federated States of Micronesia]] *{{Flagicon|Myanmar}} [[Myanmar]] (both houses) *{{Flagicon|Nigeria}} [[Nigeria]] (both houses) *{{Flagicon|Palau}} [[Palau]] (lower house only) *{{Flagicon|Qatar}} [[Qatar]] *{{Flagicon|Saint Kitts and Nevis}} [[Saint Kitts and Nevis]] *{{Flagicon|Saint Lucia}} [[Saint Lucia]] *{{Flagicon|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines}} [[Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]] *{{Flagicon|Samoa}} [[Samoa]] *{{Flagicon|Solomon Islands}} [[Solomon Islands]] *{{Flagicon|Tonga}} [[Tonga]] *{{Flagicon|Trinidad and Tobago}} [[Trinidad and Tobago]] *{{Flagicon|Uganda}} [[Uganda]] *{{Flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[United Kingdom]] (for the [[House of Commons|lower house]] only) *{{Flagicon|Yemen}} [[Yemen]] *{{Flagicon|Zambia}} [[Zambia]] {{div col end}} ==== Upper house only ==== {{div col|colwidth=22em}} *{{Flagicon|Bhutan}} [[Bhutan]] *{{Flagicon|Dominican Republic}} [[Dominican Republic]] *{{Flagicon|Poland}} [[Poland]] {{div col end}} ==== Varies by state ==== {{div col|colwidth=22em}} *{{Flagicon|United States}} [[Elections in the United States|United States]] (both houses){{refn|group=footnote|name=first|Prior to the [[2020 United States elections|2020 election]], the US states of [[Alaska]] and [[Maine]] completely abandoned FPTP in favor of [[Instant-runoff voting]] or IRV. In the US, 48 of the 50 [[U.S. state|states]] and the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]] use FPTP-[[General ticket|GT]] to choose the electors of the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]] (which in turn elects the president); Maine and [[Nebraska]] use a variation where the electoral vote of each congressional district is awarded by FPTP (or by IRV in Maine beginning in 2020), and the statewide winner (using the same method used in each congressional district in the state) is awarded an additional two electoral votes. In states that employ FPTP-GT, the presidential candidate gaining the greatest number of votes wins all the state's available electors (seats), regardless of the number or share of votes won (majority vs non-majority plurality), or the difference separating the leading candidate and the first runner-up.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Electoral College Frequently Asked Questions|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html|access-date=23 October 2015 |date=6 July 2023 |archive-date=6 December 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20231206102739/https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/faq |url-status=live |work=[[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]]}}</ref>}} {{div col end}} ==== Subnational legislatures ==== {{div col|colwidth=22em}} * {{Flagicon|Cook Islands}} [[Cook Islands]] (New Zealand) * {{Flagicon|US Virgin Islands}} [[US Virgin Islands]] *{{Flagicon|Bermuda}} [[Bermuda]] *{{Flagicon|Cayman Islands}} [[Cayman Islands]] {{div col end}} === Use of single-member plurality in mixed systems for electing legislatures === The following countries use single-member plurality to elect part of their national legislature, in different types of mixed systems. '''Alongside block voting (fully majoritarian systems) or as part of mixed-member majoritarian systems (semi-proportional representation)''' {{div col|colwidth=22em}} *{{Flagicon|Brazil}} [[Brazil]] – in the [[Brazilian Senate|Federal Senate]], alongside [[plurality block voting]] (alternating elections) *{{Flagicon|Hungary}} [[Hungary]] – as part is a mixed system (parallel voting with partial compensation) *{{Flagicon|Ivory Coast}} [[Ivory Coast]] – in single-member electoral districts, alongside [[party block voting]] *{{Flagicon|Iran}} [[Iran]] – in single-member electoral districts for [[Assembly of Experts|Khobregan]], alongside [[plurality block voting]] *{{Flagicon|Marshall Islands}} [[Marshall Islands]] – in single-member electoral districts, alongside [[plurality block voting]] *{{Flagicon|Oman}} [[Oman]] – in single-member electoral districts, alongside [[plurality block voting]] *{{Flagicon|Pakistan}} [[Pakistan]] – alongside seats distributed proportional to seats already won *{{Flagicon|Singapore}} [[Singapore]] – in single-member electoral districts, alongside [[party block voting]] *{{Flagicon|Taiwan}} [[Taiwan|Republic of China (Taiwan)]] – as part is a mixed system (parallel voting){{div col end}} '''As part of mixed-member proportional (MMP) or additional member systems (AMS)''' {{div col|colwidth=22em}} *{{Flagicon|Bolivia}} [[Bolivia]] *{{Flagicon|Lesotho}} [[Lesotho]] *{{Flagicon|New Zealand}} [[New Zealand]] *{{Flagicon|South Korea}} [[South Korea]] – as part is a mixed system (AMS and parallel voting) Subnational legislatures *{{Flagicon|Scotland}} [[Scottish Parliament|Scotland]] (United Kingdom){{div col end}} === Heads of state elected by FPP === {{div col|colwidth=22em}} *{{Flagicon|Angola}} [[Angola]] ([[Double simultaneous vote]] for the presidential and legislative elections) *{{Flagicon|Bosnia and Herzegovina}} [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]] (one for each main ethnic group) *{{Flagicon|Cameroon}} [[Cameroon]] *{{Flagicon|Democratic Republic of the Congo}} [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]] *{{Flagicon|Equatorial Guinea}} [[Equatorial Guinea]] *{{Flagicon|The Gambia}} [[The Gambia]] *{{Flagicon|Guyana}} [[Guyana]] ([[Double simultaneous vote]] for the presidential and legislative elections) *{{Flagicon|Honduras}} [[Honduras]] *{{Flagicon|Iceland}} [[Iceland]] *{{Flagicon|Kiribati}} [[Kiribati]] *{{Flagicon|Malawi}} [[Malawi]] *{{Flagicon|Mexico}} [[Mexico]] *{{Flagicon|Nicaragua}} [[Nicaragua]] *{{Flagicon|Nigeria}} [[Nigeria]] *{{Flagicon|Palestine}} [[State of Palestine|Palestine]] *{{Flagicon|Panama}} [[Panama]] *{{Flagicon|Paraguay}} [[Paraguay]] *{{Flagicon|Philippines}} [[Philippines]] *{{Flagicon|Rwanda}} [[Rwanda]] *{{Flagicon|Singapore}} [[Singapore]] *{{Flagicon|South Korea}} [[South Korea]] *{{Flagicon|Taiwan}} [[Taiwan]] (from 1996 [[Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China|constitutional amendment]]) *{{Flagicon|Tanzania}} [[Tanzania]] *{{Flagicon|Venezuela}} [[Venezuela]] {{div col end}} ===Former use=== {{incomplete list|date=July 2016}} * [[Argentina]] (The [[Argentine Chamber of Deputies|Chamber of Deputies]] uses [[Party-list proportional representation|party list PR]]. Only twice used FPTP, first between 1902 and 1905 used only in the {{ill|1904 Argentine legislative election|lt=elections of 1904|es|Elecciones legislativas de Argentina de 1904}},<ref>{{Cite book |last=Milia |first=Juan Guillermo |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NStcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA40 |title=El Voto. Expresión del poder ciudadano |date=2015 |publisher=Editorial Dunken |isbn=978-987-02-8472-7 |location=Buenos Aires |pages=40–41 }}{{Dead link|date=May 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> and the second time between 1951 and 1957 used only in the [[1951 Argentine general election|elections of 1951]] and [[1954 Argentine general election|1954]].)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Law 14,032 |url=http://www.saij.gob.ar/legislacion/ley-nacional-14032.htm?bsrc=ci |website=Sistema Argentino de Información Jurídica |access-date=19 October 2017 |archive-date=20 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171020135532/http://www.saij.gob.ar/legislacion/ley-nacional-14032.htm?bsrc=ci |url-status=live }}</ref> * [[Australia]] (replaced by [[Instant-runoff voting|IRV]] in 1918 for both the [[Australian House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] and the [[Australian Senate|Senate]], with [[Single transferable vote|STV]] being introduced to the Senate in 1948) * [[Belgium]] (adopted in 1831, replaced by [[Party-list proportional representation|party list PR]] in 1899)—<ref name="winklerprins">{{cite encyclopedia | title=Kiesstelsel. §1.1 Federale verkiezingen | encyclopedia=Encarta-encyclopedie Winkler Prins | publisher=Microsoft Corporation/Het Spectrum | year=1993–2002}}</ref> the [[Member of the European Parliament]] for the [[German-speaking electoral college]] is still elected by FPTP<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2019/03/20/elections-2019-the-european-parliament/ | title=Elections 2019: The European Parliament | work=Flanders News | date=17 April 2019 | access-date=2 December 2022 | quote=The European Parliament elections in Belgium will be held on 26 May, the same day as the regional and federal elections. In the European elections there are three Belgian constituencies: the Dutch-speaking electoral college, the Francophone electoral college and the German-speaking electoral college. | archive-date=6 April 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230406012005/https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2019/03/20/elections-2019-the-european-parliament/ | url-status=live }}</ref> * [[Cyprus]] (replaced by [[proportional representation]] in 1981) * [[Denmark]] (replaced by [[proportional representation]] in 1920) * [[Hong Kong]] (adopted in 1995, replaced by [[Party-list proportional representation|party list PR]] in 1998) * [[Italy]] (used between 1860 and 1882, and between 1892 and 1919) * [[Japan]] (replaced by [[parallel voting]] in [[1993 Japanese general election|1993]]) * [[Lebanon]] (replaced by [[proportional representation]] in June 2017) * [[Lesotho]] (replaced by [[Mixed-member proportional representation|MMP]] [[Party-list proportional representation|Party list]] in 2002) * [[Malta]] (replaced by [[Single transferable vote|STV]] in 1921) * [[Mexico]] (replaced by [[parallel voting]] in 1977) * [[Nepal]] (replaced by [[parallel voting]])<ref name="Upreti2010">{{Cite book |last=Bhuwan Chandra Upreti |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TEq3D4evrO0C&pg=PA69 |title=Nepal: Transition to Democratic Republican State : 2008 Constituent Assembly |publisher=Gyan Publishing House |year=2010 |isbn=978-81-7835-774-4 |pages=69– |access-date=11 October 2016 |archive-date=22 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240522102013/https://books.google.com/books?id=TEq3D4evrO0C&pg=PA69#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}</ref> * [[Netherlands]] (replaced by [[Party-list proportional representation|party list PR]] in 1917)<ref>Encarta-encyclopedie Winkler Prins (1993–2002) s.v. "Kiesstelsel. §1.1 Geschiedenis". Microsoft Corporation/Het Spectrum.</ref> * [[New Zealand]] (replaced by [[Mixed-member proportional representation|MMP]] in 1996) * [[Papua New Guinea]] (replaced by [[Instant-runoff voting|IRV]] in 2002)<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 December 2003 |title=PNG voting system praised by new MP |url=http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_1015553.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050104074304/http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_1015553.htm |archive-date=4 January 2005 |access-date=19 May 2015 |publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]}}</ref> *[[Philippines]] (replaced by [[parallel voting]] in 1998 for House of Representatives elections, and by [[multiple non-transferable vote]] in 1941 for Senate elections) * [[Portugal]] (replaced by [[Party-list proportional representation|party list PR]])<ref>{{Cite web|title=Which European countries use proportional representation?|url=https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/|access-date=2019-12-01|website=electoral-reform.org.uk|language=en-US|archive-date=27 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191227222723/https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/|url-status=live}}</ref> * [[Serbia]] (adopted in 1990, replaced by [[Party-list proportional representation|party list PR]] in 1992)<ref>{{Cite web |last1=MrdaljPolitikolog |first1=Mladen |last2=Univerzitetu |first2=Predavač na Webster |date=2020-10-08 |title=Sedam zabluda o uvođenju većinskog izbornog sistema |url=https://talas.rs/2020/10/08/sedam-zabluda-o-uvodenju-vecinskog-izbornog-sistema/ |access-date=2024-01-13 |website=Talas.rs |language=en-US |archive-date=13 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240113164807/https://talas.rs/2020/10/08/sedam-zabluda-o-uvodenju-vecinskog-izbornog-sistema/ |url-status=live }}</ref> *[[South Africa]] (replaced by [[Party-list proportional representation|party list PR]] in 1994) * [[Tanzania]] (replaced by [[parallel voting]] in 1995) ==See also== {{Portal|Politics}} * [[Cube rule]] * [[Deviation from proportionality]] * [[Plurality block voting|Plurality-at-large voting]] * [[Approval voting]] * [[Single non-transferable vote]] * [[Single transferable vote]] ==References== {{Reflist}} {{reflist|group=footnote}} ==External links== {{commons category}} * [https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/electoral-system-design-new-international-idea-handbook A handbook of Electoral System Design] from [http://www.idea.int International IDEA] * [https://aceproject.org/epic-en/es#ES05 ACE Project: What is the electoral system for Chamber{{nbsp}}1 of the national legislature?] * [http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd01.htm ACE Project: First Past The Post]—detailed explanation of first-past-the-post voting * [http://www.aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/ese/ese01/ese01a/ ACE Project: Electing a President using FPTP] * [http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090521142509/http://aceproject.org//ace%2Den//topics//es//esy//esy_in ACE Project: FPTP on a grand scale in India] * [http://citizensassembly.arts.ubc.ca/ 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.] * [https://nobcprorep.ca Vote No to Proportional Representation BC] * [http://citizensassembly.arts.ubc.ca/public/extra/factsheet_intro.xml.htm Fact Sheets on Electoral Systems provided to members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, British Columbia.] * [http://www.game-point.net/misc/election2005/ The Problem With First-Past-The-Post Electing (data from UK general election 2005)] * {{YouTube|s7tWHJfhiyo|The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained (video)}} * [http://www.prsa.org.au/pluralit.htm The fatal flaws of First-past-the-post electoral systems] {{Voting systems}} {{2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum}} {{Parliament of NZ}} {{DEFAULTSORT:First-Past-The-Post}} [[Category:Single-winner electoral systems]] [[Category:Electoral systems]]'