First Past the Post electoral system: Difference between revisions

From electowiki
Content added Content deleted
VisualWikitext
(Removed "winner-take-all" because that describes *all* single-member methods. Moved plurality voting to the top of the list because it is used more often than the others.)
 
(28 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Wikipedia|First-past-the-post voting}}A '''first-past-the-post''' ('''FPTP'''; sometimes '''FPP''')<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Resource-material-STV-Information-More-about-FPP?OpenDocument|title=More about FPP|author=The Department of Internal Affairs, Government of New Zealand|website=dia.govt.nz|language=en-NZ|access-date=2019-02-17}}</ref> [[electoral system]] is one in which voters indicate on a ballot the candidate of their choice (their 1st choice), and the candidate who receives the most votes wins.
The '''first-past-the-post electoral system''' is a [[voting system]] for single-member districts, variously called '''first-past-the-post (FPTP or FPP)''', '''winner-take-all''', '''[[plurality]] voting''', or '''relative majority'''. In political science, it is known as '''Single-Member District Plurality''' or '''SMDP'''. This system is in use at all levels of politics; it is very common in former British colonies. A thorough list is given below.


First-past-the-post is often referred to with the following terms:
Wales, Scotland, both North and South Ireland, and New Zealand have fairly recently implemented different election systems.
The possible solution for UK was handled by the Jenkins Committee in the late 1980s but no final solution has been reached yet.


* '''plurality voting'''
In 2005, the Candian province of British Columbia held a referendum on changing their FPTP to [[STV]]; it was narrowly defeated.
* '''most votes wins'''
* '''relative majority'''
* '''choose-one voting'''
* '''single-member plurality (SMP)'''


The term "first past the post" is borrowed from the sport of [[wikipedia:horse racing|horse racing]].
Recent examples of nations which have not adopted the FPTP system includes South Africa, almost all of the former east block nations, Russia and Afghanistan as well as Iraq.


== Background ==
The term "first past the post" refers to a now seldom-used analogy with horse racing, where the winner is the first to pass a particular point (in this case a plurality of votes), upon which all other runners automatically and completely lose ("winner take all").
{{see also|choose-one ballot}}
[[File:Muybridge_race_horse_animated.gif|thumb|The term "first past the post" comes from horse racing. The winner of a horse race is the horse whose nose (or other body part) crosses in front of the post before all of the other horse noses.]]


FPTP is generally done with a [[choose-one ballot]]. Note that the FPTP-relevant information can also be captured with a [[ranked ballot]] (by only looking at a voter's 1st choice candidate; if the voter has several first choices, it is recommended to split their vote equally between each of those candidates, similar to [[cumulative voting]]), or with a [[rated ballot]] (by identifying the candidates given the highest rating on the ballot as the voter's 1st choice(s)). By extension, [[runoff voting]] and other [[:Category:FPTP-based voting methods]] can also be done using more expressive ballot types.


==Procedures==
=== History ===
{{Wikipedia|horse racing}}
Each voter in a given [[electoral district]] selects one candidate. All votes are counted and the candidate with more votes than any of the other candidates is the winner. The winner represents the entire electoral district.
The term "first past the post" refers to a now seldom-used analogy with horse racing, where the winner is the first to pass a particular point (in this case a plurality of votes), upon which all other runners automatically and completely lose ("winner take all"). It is a useful term in advocacy opposed to it because the term "first" implies that there is some temporal aspect to who win when in fact the ballots all counted before a winner is determine.


==Examples==
== Plurality ==
{{Wikipedia|Plurality}}
===Simple example===
{{main|Plurality}}
The election of a Member of Parliament in the UK is a well known example of First-Past-The-Post. But the system is also used on a smaller scale.


First-past-the-post elections only require winning candidates to receive a [[plurality]] of the total number of votes. FPTP is a common feature of [[Regional system | regional systems]] for electing parliaments with [[Single-member district | Single-member districts]], and is practised in close to one third of countries. Notable examples include the [[w:United States|United States]], the [[w:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]], as well as some of the latter's former [[w:colony|colonies]] and [[w:protectorate|protectorate]]s, such as [[w:Canada|Canada]] or [[w:India|India]].
This example is an election for the president of a school class. Each class has a president who sits on a school council.


== Activism around FPTP ==
====The election for class president====
Much electoral activism has centered around providing alternatives to FPTP voting.
There are three candidates, Amy, Brian and Chloe. Each class member gets a ballot paper, with these three names on it. The class member must put an "X" against one of the names.


== As a multi-winner method ==
After the election finishes, the papers are sorted into three piles. One pile contains all the papers where there is an "X" against Amy (that is, votes for Amy). The other two piles contain votes for Brian and for Chloe.
The system itself can directly be used as a multi-winner method when implemented as a [[Regional system]] with [[Single-member district | Single-member districts]]. In this scenario it is often referred to as '''single member plurality'''. However, there are extensions to [[Multi-Member Districts]].


The two most common extentions to the multi-winner case are [[Single non-transferable vote]] and [[Plurality-at-large voting]]. An intermediate form is limited voting, which gives a voter the ability to choose fewer candidates than the number of seats to be filled, but usually lets voters pick more than one candidate. The general principle in any multi-winner extension of FPTP is that a voter can support at most as many candidates as there are seats to be filled.
The largest pile decides the winner. For instance, if Amy's pile has 11 votes, Brian's pile has 16 votes, and Chloe's pile has 13 votes, then the winner is Brian.


While the [[single non-transferable vote]] is not in itself a proportional method, coordinated strategy by parties can make it behave like party list, which is proportional. However, the strategy needs to be carefully executed, and thus SNTV may encourage patron-client relationships in which a powerful legislator can apportion votes to his or her supporters.
Notice that there were a total of 11 + 16 + 13 = 40 votes, and the winner had only 16 of them - only 40%. But that is only the result for this one class.


== Preferences ==
We have created an imaginary school where the girl and boy students disagree with each other on most issues, and that girls vote for girls, while boys vote for boys.


FPTP is notable among voting methods for offering a voter no way to express a preference for more than one candidate; see the [[ballot]] article for examples of other ballot types. It passes [[monotonicity]], meaning that a candidate can never be hurt if voters vote for that candidate, which is a notable property. In terms of voter behavior, it has been widely observed that FPTP tends to result in elections with at most two sharply opposed major candidates. [[Duverger's law]] and the [[center squeeze effect]] offer insight into this; essentially, voters are encouraged to group up to ensure their candidate can get the most votes, yet this prevents some voters from supporting their favorite candidate. [[Runoff voting]] and [[Instant runoff voting]] are two voting methods highly based on FPTP-like principles; see [[:Category:FPTP-based voting methods|Category:FPTP-based voting methods]].
====The election to the school council====


== Criteria ==
Note that the class members (the "electors") only vote once, and their votes help to choose both a class president and a member of the school council (the same person).
In the single-winner context, Approval is almost a [[Pareto criterion|Pareto]] improvement (pun) over FPTP; it preserves its simplicity and good qualities while adding in others, such as passing [[Favorite Betrayal]]. In the multiwinner context, [[SNTV]] is more proportional than [[Bloc vote|Bloc Approval voting]], so a [[Cardinal PR]] method using Approval ballots may work better.


One of the biggest complaints against FPTP is that it has a [[spoiler effect]]. This is most easily visualized by observing that FPTP passes the [[majority criterion]] but not the [[mutual majority criterion]]:
Now, let's suppose that across all the classes, 8 of the class presidents that were elected were girls, and 9 were boys. That makes the boys the overall winner. The only influence that the pupils in this class had was to vote for Amy, Brian or Chloe. Some might argue that a boy won for this class because there were two girls, who "split the vote". Perhaps if Amy had not been a candidate, then Chloe would have won this class, and the girls would be the winners of the whole council.


26 A>B
Arguments exactly like this, but on a larger scale, are common wherever there are first-past-the-post elections.


25 B>A
===More complex example===
{{Tenn_voting_example}}
If voting follows sincere preferences, Memphis is selected with the most votes. Note that this system does not require that the winner have a [[Simple majority|majority]], but only a [[plurality]]. That is, Memphis wins because it has the most votes, even though more than half of the voters preferred another option.


49 C
==Disadvantages==
==="Unfairness"===
The most commonly expressed disadvantage &ndash; perhaps because it is easiest to express and explain &ndash; of first-past-the-post is that it is "unfair", i.e. that substantial bodies of opinion are not represented at all in the final result, and that a party may obtain a clear majority without popular support at that level.


C has the most 1st choices and wins here with 49 votes. Yet if one of A or B drops out, then the remaining candidate of the two will be a [[majority]]'s 1st choice and thus win with 51 votes. [[IRV]]/[[RCV]] guarantees such scenarios don't occur, with [[Smith-efficient]][[Condorcet methods]] giving an even stronger guarantee: if C's voters had a preference between A or B, they'd have the power to ensure their preference between the majority's candidates wins. This is also an example of FPTP failing the [[Majority loser criterion|majority loser criterion]].
===Tactical voting===
First-past-the-post encourages the [[tactical voting]] technique known as "compromising": voters are encouraged to vote for one of the two options most likely to win, even if it is not their most preferred option. In the above example, voters from Chattanooga and Knoxville may "compromise" by voting for Nashville, which they prefer to Memphis.


FPTP can be done by allowing each voter to cross out the names of all of the candidates they don't support. In this formulation, a voter must cross out all but one candidate's name or have their ballot thrown out. [[Approval voting]] is where a voter may cross out only as many names as they desire.
If enough voters vote using this tactic, the first-past-the-post system becomes a form of [[runoff voting]] where the first round is held in the court of public opinion. This can give substantial power to the media as voters will tend to believe their viewpoint on who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election and use that viewpoint to decide where a "tactical" vote would be (in the voter's opinion) best used. This can also become a system promoting votes ''against'' more so than votes ''for''.


== Comparison ==
One consequence of the system is that many FPTP elections can be considered won before all votes are tallied, once there are no longer enough uncounted votes to override an established plurality count. Though not necessarily a disadvantage, this can produce a feeling of disenfranchisement among voters when running tallies are reported through the media.


=== Notes ===
Some political forums use the term ''black hat syndrome'', rather than ''tactical voting syndrome'', since this allows for more convenient definitions. It is more convenient to simply refer to strongly desired candidates as ''white hats'', merely acceptable candidates as ''gray hats'', and strongly undesired candidates as ''black hats''. Of course, these terms are significant only in relation to individual voters, since one voter's ''white hat'' will undoubtedly be another voter's ''black hat'', etc. When a voter, faced with with ''gray hat'' and ''black hat'' candidates that are perceived strong contenders, and also with ''white hat'' candidates that are perceived weak contenders feels compelled to vote in some manner that favors perceived strong ''gray hat'' contenders, that would be an instance of the ''black hat syndrome''. With approval voting, there is the possibility that the presence of a perceived strong ''black hat'' contender could cause a voter to grant one approval vote to a ''gray hat'', as well as to a ''white hat'', but such a vote would not actually favor the ''gray hat'' with respect to the ''white hat'', so this could be deemed merely a ''gray hat syndrome''.
[[Cumulative voting]] is an extension of FPTP in the sense that it also restricts a voter to putting their maximal vote weight or support behind at most one candidate, but also allows a voter to distribute their vote weight to multiple candidates.


FPTP can be thought of as a [[Condorcet method]] where only a voter's 1st choice candidate among all candidates can receive votes in [[Head-to-head matchup|head-to-head matchups]]; in this formulation, the [[Smith set]] always contains the candidates who are tied for having the most votes.
===Anomalous results===
An interesting anomaly in the results of this system arose in the Canadian federal election of 1926 for the province of Manitoba. The province was entitled to 17 seats in that election. The result was very different from how people voted.


Many voting reform advocates would prefer to replace FPTP with a [[Proportional representation]] voting method.
<TABLE BORDER=1 style="empty-cells: show">
<TR>
<TH>Political party</TH>
<TH>Percentage of votes</TH>
<TH>Number of seats</TH>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>Conservatives</TD>
<TD>42.2%</TD>
<TD>0</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>Labour Progressives</TD>
<TD>19.5%</TD>
<TD>7</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>Liberals</TD>
<TD>18.4%</TD>
<TD>4</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>Progressives</TD>
<TD>11.2%</TD>
<TD>4</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>Labour</TD>
<TD>8.7%</TD>
<TD>2</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

The Conservatives clearly had the largest number of votes across the province, but received no seats at all. The other parties were able to have success by having concentrated support in particular constituencies, and by not running candidates in others.

This presents a problem because the parties tend to narrowly focus on the needs and well-beings of specific electoral districts where they can be sure to win seats, rather than be sensitive to the sentiments of voters everywhere. In order to secure election results, some also choose to use [[redistricting]] to distort election results by enclosing party voters together in one electoral district (i.e., [[gerrymandering]].)

===Duverger's law===
Because of these anomalies and the tactical-voting tendencies, [[Duverger's law]] predicts that constituencies that use first-past-the-post systems will become [[two-party system]]s.

===Strong government===
Because first-past-the-post is held to produce strong government (see below), it follows that those who prefer weak government (government unable to effectively introduce social change or legislative progress) might see strong government as a disadvantage of that system. Preference for weak government is likely to be found in people who favour the status quo, who favour curtailing the power of government, or do not favour the direction any majority party is likely to take.

===Wipe out and clean sweep results===

Since FPTP combined with single member constituencies generate a winner's bonus, if not winner takes all, the loyal opposition can be left with few if any seats.

An opposition that is weak or absent, because of an [[Wipe-out results (elections)|electoral wipeout]], is not good for good governance. Provincal elections in several Canadian provinces provide suitable [[Wipe-out results (elections)|examples]].

This is the missing corollary of strong-government argument for FPTP.

==Advantages==
===Strong government===
It is argued that, because first-past-the-post is more likely to produce a simple majority for one party, this produces a stronger government. When difficult decisions or strong leadership are required for the good of the voters, a government is not distracted by the constant need to negotiate within the legislature. In addition, the need to govern leads to coalitions, which may give disproportionate power to a party with limited popular support, simply because the largest party sees them as "enemies of their enemies". In the UK, arguments for first-past-the-post often look to [[Politics of Italy|Italy]] where the frequent government changeovers are presented as undesirable.

===Simplicity===
First-past-the-post may well be the simplest of all voting systems. This implies specific advantages. It is likely to be quicker, and easier to adminster; this may also imply that an election costs less to run. It may also have an effect on voters, because it is easy to explain and understand. Alternative voting systems may alienate some voters who find the systems hard to understand, and who therefore feel detached from the direct effect of their own vote.

===Each representative must be a winner===
Sometimes, the voters are in favour of a political party, but do not like specific candidates. An example was the premier of Alberta, Donald Getty. His government was re-elected in 1989, but because of voter dissatisfaction with the way the government was led, Getty, the leader of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, was not re-elected by voters from his electoral district.

Similarly, in the 1999 Ontario provincial election, Mike Harris and his Progressive-Conservative party was re-elected to a majority government, but symbolic of the growing discontent among voters about cuts to education, his education minister and strong ally was resoundingly defeated by the opposition candidate.

It is often claimed that because each electoral district votes for its own representative, the elected candidate is held accountable to his own voters, thereby helping to prevent incompetent, fraudulent or corrupt behaviour by elected candidates. The voters in the electoral district can easily replace him since they have full power over who they want to represent them. In the absence of effective recall legislation, however, the electors must wait until the end of the representative's term.

== No system can guarantee a clear result ==

* A close election is one where the winner's majority is very small, or where third parties or independents hold the balance of power.

==Where First Past the Post systems are used==
Countries that use this system to elect the lower or only house of their legislature include:
* Bahamas
* Bangladesh
* Barbados
* Belize
* Botswana
* Canada
* Dominica
* The Gambia
* Grenada
* India
* Jamaica
* Malaysia
* Federated States of Micronesia
* Nepal
* Papua New Guinea
* Saint Kitts and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Samoa
* Solomon Islands
* Trinidad and Tobago
* United Kingdom (Parliamentary and local government elections only)
* United States
* Zambia
:See [[Table of voting systems by nation]]

The first past the post election system is used in the [[Republic of China]] on [[Taiwan]] for executive offices such as county magistrates, mayors, and the president, but not for legislative seats which used the [[single non-transferable vote]] system. This has produced an interesting [[politics of Taiwan|party structure]] in which there are two broad coalitions of parties which cooperate in executive elections but which compete internally in legislative elections.
''Source: ''Making Votes Count'', Gary Cox (1997)''

India is using a [[proportional representation]] system for its upper house.

==Ballot types==
Ballots can be of two forms. The simplest form is a blank ballot where the name of a candidate is written in by hand. A more structured ballot will list all the candidates and allow a mark to be made by a single candidate. (A ballot with a candidate list can include space for a write-in candidate as well)

[[Image:Onevoteballotname.gif]]
[[Image:Onevoteballotmark.gif]]

== External links ==
* [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.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform says the new proportional electoral system it proposes for B.C. will improve the practice of democracy in the province.]
* [http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/learning_resources/learning_materials/av 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 (England), Elizabeth McLeay of Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.
*[http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/voting.htm Voting methods resource page] Includes a critique of FPTP and a very wide range of possible alternatives.


Note that [[Asset voting]] can be thought of as a way to modify FPTP to better reflect voters' wishes, because it allows voters who are unrepresented by the FPTP winner to form majority coalitions for their preferred candidate among the losers. In effect, instead of voters being forced to group behind only two candidates whatsoever, Asset allows voters to do this, and then if they dislike the winner of the top two, they can recombine behind other candidates in new [[Head-to-head matchup]]<nowiki/>s.


==References==
<references/>


{{fromwikipedia}}
{{fromwikipedia}}


[[Category:Single-winner voting systems]]
[[Category:Single-winner voting methods]]
[[Category:Binary voting methods]]
[[Category:Single-mark ballot voting methods]]
[[Category:FPTP-based voting methods]]
[[Category:Monotonic electoral systems]]

Latest revision as of 18:51, 2 March 2023

Wikipedia has an article on:

A first-past-the-post (FPTP; sometimes FPP)[1] electoral system is one in which voters indicate on a ballot the candidate of their choice (their 1st choice), and the candidate who receives the most votes wins.

First-past-the-post is often referred to with the following terms:

  • plurality voting
  • most votes wins
  • relative majority
  • choose-one voting
  • single-member plurality (SMP)

The term "first past the post" is borrowed from the sport of horse racing.

Background

See also: choose-one ballot
The term "first past the post" comes from horse racing. The winner of a horse race is the horse whose nose (or other body part) crosses in front of the post before all of the other horse noses.

FPTP is generally done with a choose-one ballot. Note that the FPTP-relevant information can also be captured with a ranked ballot (by only looking at a voter's 1st choice candidate; if the voter has several first choices, it is recommended to split their vote equally between each of those candidates, similar to cumulative voting), or with a rated ballot (by identifying the candidates given the highest rating on the ballot as the voter's 1st choice(s)). By extension, runoff voting and other Category:FPTP-based voting methods can also be done using more expressive ballot types.

History

Wikipedia has an article on:

The term "first past the post" refers to a now seldom-used analogy with horse racing, where the winner is the first to pass a particular point (in this case a plurality of votes), upon which all other runners automatically and completely lose ("winner take all"). It is a useful term in advocacy opposed to it because the term "first" implies that there is some temporal aspect to who win when in fact the ballots all counted before a winner is determine.

Plurality

Wikipedia has an article on:
Main article: Plurality

First-past-the-post elections only require winning candidates to receive a plurality of the total number of votes. FPTP is a common feature of regional systems for electing parliaments with Single-member districts, and is practised in close to one third of countries. Notable examples include the United States, the United Kingdom, as well as some of the latter's former colonies and protectorates, such as Canada or India.

Activism around FPTP

Much electoral activism has centered around providing alternatives to FPTP voting.

As a multi-winner method

The system itself can directly be used as a multi-winner method when implemented as a Regional system with Single-member districts. In this scenario it is often referred to as single member plurality. However, there are extensions to Multi-Member Districts.

The two most common extentions to the multi-winner case are Single non-transferable vote and Plurality-at-large voting. An intermediate form is limited voting, which gives a voter the ability to choose fewer candidates than the number of seats to be filled, but usually lets voters pick more than one candidate. The general principle in any multi-winner extension of FPTP is that a voter can support at most as many candidates as there are seats to be filled.

While the single non-transferable vote is not in itself a proportional method, coordinated strategy by parties can make it behave like party list, which is proportional. However, the strategy needs to be carefully executed, and thus SNTV may encourage patron-client relationships in which a powerful legislator can apportion votes to his or her supporters.

Preferences

FPTP is notable among voting methods for offering a voter no way to express a preference for more than one candidate; see the ballot article for examples of other ballot types. It passes monotonicity, meaning that a candidate can never be hurt if voters vote for that candidate, which is a notable property. In terms of voter behavior, it has been widely observed that FPTP tends to result in elections with at most two sharply opposed major candidates. Duverger's law and the center squeeze effect offer insight into this; essentially, voters are encouraged to group up to ensure their candidate can get the most votes, yet this prevents some voters from supporting their favorite candidate. Runoff voting and Instant runoff voting are two voting methods highly based on FPTP-like principles; see Category:FPTP-based voting methods.

Criteria

In the single-winner context, Approval is almost a Pareto improvement (pun) over FPTP; it preserves its simplicity and good qualities while adding in others, such as passing Favorite Betrayal. In the multiwinner context, SNTV is more proportional than Bloc Approval voting, so a Cardinal PR method using Approval ballots may work better.

One of the biggest complaints against FPTP is that it has a spoiler effect. This is most easily visualized by observing that FPTP passes the majority criterion but not the mutual majority criterion:

26 A>B

25 B>A

49 C

C has the most 1st choices and wins here with 49 votes. Yet if one of A or B drops out, then the remaining candidate of the two will be a majority's 1st choice and thus win with 51 votes. IRV/RCV guarantees such scenarios don't occur, with Smith-efficientCondorcet methods giving an even stronger guarantee: if C's voters had a preference between A or B, they'd have the power to ensure their preference between the majority's candidates wins. This is also an example of FPTP failing the majority loser criterion.

FPTP can be done by allowing each voter to cross out the names of all of the candidates they don't support. In this formulation, a voter must cross out all but one candidate's name or have their ballot thrown out. Approval voting is where a voter may cross out only as many names as they desire.

Comparison

Notes

Cumulative voting is an extension of FPTP in the sense that it also restricts a voter to putting their maximal vote weight or support behind at most one candidate, but also allows a voter to distribute their vote weight to multiple candidates.

FPTP can be thought of as a Condorcet method where only a voter's 1st choice candidate among all candidates can receive votes in head-to-head matchups; in this formulation, the Smith set always contains the candidates who are tied for having the most votes.

Many voting reform advocates would prefer to replace FPTP with a Proportional representation voting method.

Note that Asset voting can be thought of as a way to modify FPTP to better reflect voters' wishes, because it allows voters who are unrepresented by the FPTP winner to form majority coalitions for their preferred candidate among the losers. In effect, instead of voters being forced to group behind only two candidates whatsoever, Asset allows voters to do this, and then if they dislike the winner of the top two, they can recombine behind other candidates in new Head-to-head matchups.

References

  1. ↑ The Department of Internal Affairs, Government of New Zealand. "More about FPP". dia.govt.nz. Retrieved 2019-02-17.
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).
Retrieved from "https://electowiki.org/wiki/First_Past_the_Post_electoral_system?oldid=17153"