First-past-the-post voting

In a first-past-the-post electoral system (FPTP or FPP;[1]

formally called single-member plurality voting (SMP) when used
in single-member districts, or (informally) choose-one voting in
contrast to ranked voting[2] or score voting[3]), voters cast their vote
for a candidate of their choice, and the candidate who receives the
most votes wins (even if the top candidate gets less than 50%,
which can happen when there are more than two popular
candidates).

As a winner-take-all method, FPTP often produces disproportional

results (when electing members of an assembly, such as a
parliament) in the sense that political parties do not get
representation according to their share of the popular vote. This
usually favours the largest party and parties with strong regional
support to the detriment of smaller parties without a geographically
concentrated base. Supporters of electoral reform are generally
A first-past-the-post ballot for a
highly critical of FPTP because of this and point out other flaws,
single-member district. The voter
such as FPTP's vulnerability to gerrymandering, the high amount of
must mark one (and only one).
wasted votes and the chance of a majority reversal (when the party
that wins the most votes gets fewer seats than the second largest
party, and so loses the election). For these reasons, many countries
have abandoned FPTP in favour of other electoral system, but
FPTP is used as the primary form of allocating seats for legislative
elections in about a third of the world's countries, mostly in the
English-speaking world.

Some countries use FPTP alongside proportional representation in

a parallel voting system, the PR element not compensating for but Countries that primarily use a first-
added to the disproportionality of FPTP. Others use it in so-called past-the-post voting system for
national legislative elections
compensatory mixed systems, such as part of mixed-member
proportional representation or mixed single vote systems, which
aim to counterbalance these. In some countries that elect their
legislatures by proportional representation, FPTP is used to elect their head of state.

Contents
Terminology
Illustration
Effects
Arguments in support
Arguments against
Unrepresentative
Wasted votes
 Majority reversal
Geographical problems
Geographical favouritism
Distorted geographical representation
Safe seats
Tactical voting
Effect on political parties and society
Smaller parties may reduce the success of the largest similar party
Suppression of political diversity
May abet extreme politics
Likelihood of involvement in war
Manipulation
Gerrymandering
Manipulation charges
Campaigns to replace FPTP
Voting method criteria
FPTP as a single-winner system
FPTP used in single-member constituencies to elect assemblies (SMP)
Countries using FPTP/SMP
Heads of state elected by FPTP
Legislatures elected exclusively by FPTP/SMP
Use of FPTP/SMP in mixed systems for electing legislatures
Former use
See also
References
External links

Terminology
The phrase first-past-the-post is a metaphor from British horse racing, where there is a post at the finish
line[4] (though there is no specific percentage "finish line" required to win in this voting system, only being
furthest ahead in the race).

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

Even though FPTP is a type of plurality voting, it is categorised as majoritarian system, even though it is
not "majority voting" (like a two-round system is). This is because majoritarian representation (one of the 3
major types of electoral systems alongside proportional representation and mixed systems) is defined by the
winner (of an electoral district) getting all the seats, and therefore all single-winner systems (such as FPTP)
are majoritarian.
FPTP is primarily used in systems that use single-member electoral divisions. The multiple-member version
of plurality voting is when each voter casts (up to) the same number of votes as there are positions to be
filled, and those elected are the highest-placed candidates; this system is called the multiple non-transferable
vote (MNTV) and is also known as Plurality block voting.

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

Illustration
Under a first-past-the-post voting method, the highest-polling candidate is elected. In this real-life
illustration from the 2011 Singaporean presidential election, presidential candidate Tony Tan obtained a
greater number of votes than any of the other candidates. Therefore, he was declared the winner, although
the second-placed candidate had an inferior margin of only 0.35% and a majority of voters (64.8%) did not
vote for Tony Tan:
It is not clear that Tan would have won if the votes against him had not been split
among the other three candidates.

Candidate Votes %
Tony Tan 745,693 35.20
Tan Cheng Bock 738,311 34.85
Tan Jee Say 530,441 25.04
Tan Kin Lian 104,095 4.91
Total 2,118,540 100.00

Valid votes 2,118,540 98.24

Invalid/blank votes 37,849 1.76
Total votes 2,156,389 100.00
Registered voters/turnout 2,274,773 94.80
Source: Singapore Elections (http://www.singapore-elections.com/presidential-election/2011/)

Effects
The effect of a system based on plurality voting spread over a number of 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. 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 FPTP than happens in a proportional system, and under FPTP it is rare to
elect a majority government that actually had the support of a majority of voters.

In Canada only twice since 1921 has a majority government been elected with a majority of the votes.
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 and 1935) the leading party did not take a majority of the votes.

For example, the 2005 general election results were as follows:

Summary of the 5 May 2005 House of Commons of the United

Kingdom election results

(parties with more than one seat; not including N. Ireland)

Party Seats Seats % Votes % Votes
Labour Party 355 56.5 36.1 9,552,436
Conservative Party 198 31.5 33.2 8,782,192
Liberal Democrats 62 9.9 22.6 5,985,454
Scottish National Party 6 1.0 1.6 412,267
Plaid Cymru 3 0.5 0.7 174,838
Others 4 0.6 5.7 1,523,716
Total 628 26,430,908

In this example, Labour took a majority of the seats with only 36% of the vote. The largest two parties took
69% of the vote and 88% of the seats. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats took more than 20% of the vote
but only about 10% of the seats.

FPTP 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 FPTP and only two of the last six federal
Canadian elections produced single-party majority governments. In none of them did the leading party
receive a majority of the votes

Arguments in support
Supporters of FPTP argue that it is easy to understand, and ballots can be counted and processed more
easily than those in preferential voting systems. FPTP often produces governments which have legislative
voting majorities,[5] 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 favour only that fraction of the electorate that supported it, particularly if the electorate divides on
tribal, religious, or urban–rural lines.

Supporters of FPTP also argue that 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 FPTP 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";[6][7] Tony Blair, defending FPTP, argued that
other systems give small parties the balance of power, and influence disproportionate to their votes.[8]
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."[9] Winston Churchill criticized the alternative vote system as "determined by the most worthless
votes given for the most worthless candidates."[10]

Arguments against

Unrepresentative

First past the post is most often criticized for its failure to reflect the popular vote in the number of
parliamentary/legislative seats awarded to competing parties. Critics argue that a fundamental requirement
of an election system is to accurately represent the views of voters, but FPTP often fails in this respect. It
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. The diagram here, summarizing Canada's 2015 federal election, demonstrates
how FPTP can misrepresent the popular vote.

Wasted votes

Wasted votes are seen as those cast for losing candidates, and for winning candidates in excess of the
number required for victory. For example, in the UK general election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for
losing candidates and 18% were excess votes—a total of 70% "wasted" votes. 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 FPTP than elsewhere."[11]

Majority reversal

A majority reversal or election inversion[12][13] is a situation where the party that gets an overall majority
of votes loses the election or does not get a plurality of seats. Famous examples of the second placed party
(in votes nationally) winning a majority of seats include the elections in Ghana in 2012, in New Zealand in
1978 and in 1981 and in the United Kingdom in 1951. Famous examples of the second placed party (in
votes nationally) winning a plurality of seats include the election in Canada in 2019 and 2021.

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,
1998 and 2020 and in Belize in 1993.

This need not be a result of malapportionment. Even if all seats represent the same number of votes, the
second placed party (in votes nationally) can win a majority of seats by efficient vote distribution. Winning
seats narrowly and losing elsewhere by big margins is more efficient than winning seats by big margins and
losing elsewhere narrowly. For a majority in seats, it is enough to win a plurality of votes in a majority of
constituencies. Even with only two parties and equal constituencies, this means just over a quarter of the
votes of the whole.

Geographical problems

Regional Parties achieve proportionally more seats than their vote share. Votes (left) v Seats (right)
2019 UK general election with Conservative and Labour removed.

Geographical favouritism

Generally FPTP favours parties who can concentrate their vote into certain voting districts (or in a wider
sense in specific geographic areas). This is because in doing this they win many seats and don't 'waste'
many votes in other areas.

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".[14]

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.[15]

The ERS also says that in FPTP elections using many separate districts "small parties without a
geographical base find it hard to win seats".[14]

Make Votes Matter said that in the 2017 UK 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 UK 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."[16]

According to Make Votes Matter, and shown in the chart below,[17] in the 2015 UK general election 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.[16]

Distorted geographical representation

The winner-takes-all nature of FPTP leads to distorted patterns of representation, since it exaggerates the
correlation between party support and geography.
For example, in the UK the Conservative Party represents most of
the rural seats in England, and most of the south of England, while
the Labour Party represents most of the English cities and most of
the north of England.[18] 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 Conservatives won 98% of

the seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan with only 68% of the vote. A graph showing the difference
The lack of non-Conservative representation gives the appearance between the popular vote (inner
of greater Conservative support than actually exists.[19] Similarly, circle) and the seats won by parties
in Canada's 2021 elections, the Conservative Party won 88% of the (outer circle) at the 2015 UK general
seats in Alberta with only 55% of the vote, and won 100% of the election
seats in Saskatchewan with only 59% of the vote.[20]

Safe seats

First-past-the-post within geographical areas tends to deliver (particularly to larger parties) a significant
number of safe seats, where a representative is sheltered from any but the most dramatic change in voting
behaviour. In the UK, the Electoral Reform Society estimates that more than half the seats can be
considered as safe.[21] It has been claimed that members involved in the 2009 expenses scandal were
significantly more likely to hold a safe seat.[22][23]

However, other voting systems, notably the party-list system, can also create politicians who are relatively
immune from electoral pressure (especially when using a closed-list).

Tactical 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.

The position is sometimes summarised, in an extreme form, as "all votes for anyone other than the runner-
up are votes for the winner."[24] 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
U.S. presidential election, some supporters of Democratic candidate Al Gore believed one reason he lost to
Republican George W. Bush is that a portion of the electorate (2.7%) voted for Ralph Nader of the Green
Party, and exit polls indicated that more of them would have preferred Gore (45%) to Bush (27%).[25] This
election was ultimately determined by the 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 Independentista voters to support Populares candidates. This
phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the 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 by voting Labour, Liberal Democrat in England and
Wales, and since 2015 the SNP in Scotland, depending on which is seen as best placed to
win in each locality. Such behaviour is difficult to measure objectively.

Proponents of other voting methods in single-member districts 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, as well as the two-round system of runoffs and less tested methods such as approval voting
and Condorcet methods.

Effect on political parties and society

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 systems, given enough time. Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains:

The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress.
Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-
post" (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[26]

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.[27]

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.[28]

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 seats where there is a prospect of a change in
representation, leaving safer areas excluded from participation in an active campaign.[29] 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.[30][31][15]
Smaller parties may reduce the success of the largest similar party

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
than his opponent, leading to accusations that Nader was a "spoiler" for the Democrats.

Suppression of political diversity

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 incentivised to coalesce around similar policies.[32] The
ACE Electoral Knowledge Network describes India's use of FPTP as a "legacy of British colonialism".[33]

May abet extreme politics

The Constitution Society published a report in April 2019 stating that, "[in certain circumstances] FPTP can
... abet extreme politics, since should a radical faction gain control of one of the major political parties,
FPTP 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,
FPTP today empowers the (relatively) extreme voices of the Labour and Conservative party
memberships."[34][35]

Electoral reform campaigners have argued that the use of FPTP in South Africa was a contributory factor in
the country adopting the apartheid system after the 1948 general election in that country.[36][37]

Likelihood of involvement in war

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.[38][39]

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.[39][40][41]

The British human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, and others, have argued that Britain entered the Iraq
War primarily because of the political effects of FPTP and that proportional representation would have
prevented Britain's involvement in the war.[42][43][44]

Manipulation

Gerrymandering

Because FPTP permits many wasted votes, an election under FPTP 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 favour one party, or
other reasons), and many districts where it is at a smaller disadvantage.

Manipulation charges

The presence of spoilers often gives rise to suspicions that manipulation of the slate has taken place. A
spoiler may have received incentives to run. A spoiler may also drop out at the last moment, inducing
charges that dropping out had been intended from the beginning.

Campaigns to replace FPTP

Many countries which use FPTP have active campaigns to switch to proportional representation (e.g.
UK[45] and Canada[46]). Most modern democracies use forms of proportional representation (PR).[47] In
the case of the UK, the campaign to scrap FPTP has been ongoing since at least the 1970s.[48] However, in
both these countries, reform campaigners face the obstacle of large incumbent parties who control the
legislature and who are incentivised to resist any attempts to replace the FPTP system that elected them on a
minority vote.

Voting method criteria

Scholars rate voting methods using mathematically derived voting method criteria, which describe desirable
features of a method. No ranked preference method can meet all the criteria, because some of them are
mutually exclusive, as shown by results such as Arrow's impossibility theorem and the Gibbard–
Satterthwaite theorem.[49]

FPTP as a single-winner system

 Name of
Explanation/details
criterion
The majority criterion states that "if one candidate is preferred by a majority
Majority (more than 50%) of voters, then that candidate must win".[50] First-past-the-post
criterion meets this criterion (though not the converse: a candidate does not need 50% of
the votes in order to win)

Mutual The mutual majority criterion states that "if a majority (more than 50%) of voters
majority top-rank some k candidates, then one of those k candidates must win". First-past-
criterion the-post does not meet this criterion.[51]

Condorcet The Condorcet winner criterion states that "if a candidate would win a head-to-
winner head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must win the
criterion overall election". First-past-the-post does not[52] meet this criterion.
The Condorcet loser criterion states that "if a candidate would lose a head-to-
Condorcet
head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must not win
loser criterion
the overall election". First-past-the-post does not[52] meet this criterion.
Independence
The independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion states that "the election
of irrelevant
outcome remains the same even if a candidate who cannot win decides to run."
alternatives
First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion.
criterion
The independence of clones criterion states that "the election outcome remains
Independence
the same even if an identical candidate who is equally-preferred decides to run."
of clones
First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion. This makes it vulnerable to
criterion
spoilers.
Mono­tonicity
criterion
Consis­tency
criterion
Partic­ipation
criterion
Rever­sal
symmetry
Since plurality does not allow marking later preferences on the ballot at all, it is
Not impossible to either harm or help a favorite candidate by marking later preferences,
Later-no-harm
applicable and so it trivially passes both Later-No-Harm and Later-No-Help. However, because
it forces truncation, it shares some problems with methods that merely encourage
truncation by failing Later-No-Harm. Similarly, though to a lesser degree, because
Not it doesn't allow voters to distinguish between all but one of the candidates, it
Later-no-help shares some problems with methods which fail Later-No-Help, which encourage
applicable
voters to make such distinctions dishonestly.

FPTP used in single-member constituencies to elect assemblies (SMP)

 Name of
Explanation/details
criterion
No majority Although the majority criterion is met for each constituency vote, it is not met when
reversal adding up the total votes for a winning party in a parliament.
Proportional in
theory
Proportional in
practice
Provides local
Standard implementation of single-member plurality is based on local districts
representation

Countries using FPTP/SMP

Heads of state elected by FPTP

Angola
Bosnia and Herzegovina (one for each main ethnic group)
Cameroon
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Equatorial Guinea
The Gambia
Honduras
Iceland
Kiribati
Malawi
Mexico
Nicaragua
Palestine
Panama
Paraguay
Philippines
Rwanda
Singapore
South Korea
Republic of China (Taiwan) - constitutional amendment, from 1996
Tanzania
Venezuela

Legislatures elected exclusively by FPTP/SMP

The following is a list of countries currently following the first-past-the-post voting system for their national
legislatures.[53][54]

Antigua and Barbuda

Azerbaijan
 Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Bhutan (both houses)
Botswana
Canada (for the lower house only)
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Eritrea
Eswatini
Ethiopia
The Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
India (for the lower house only)
Jamaica
Kenya
Liberia
Malaysia
Malawi
Maldives
Micronesia
Myanmar (both houses)
Nigeria (both houses)
Palau (both houses)
Poland (for upper house only)
Qatar
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Sierra Leone
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States (both houses) - see footnote
Yemen
Zambia

Subnational legislatures
 Cook Islands (New Zealand)
US Virgin Islands
Bermuda
Cayman Islands
British Virgin Islands

Footnote: Prior to the 2020 election, the US states of Alaska and Maine completely abandoned FPTP in
favor of ranked-choice voting or RCV. In the US, 48 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia use
FPTP to choose the electors of the 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, and
the statewide winner is awarded an additional two electoral votes. In states that employ FPTP, 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, or the difference separating the leading candidate and the
first runner-up.[55]

Use of FPTP/SMP in mixed systems for electing legislatures

The following countries use FPTP/SMP 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)

Brazil – in the Federal Senate, alongside plurality block voting (alternating elections)
Cote d'Ivoire – in single-member electoral districts, alongside party block voting
Iran – in single-member electoral districts for Khobregan, alongside plurality block
voting
Marshall Islands – in single-member electoral districts, alongside plurality block voting
Oman – in single-member electoral districts, alongside plurality block voting
Pakistan – alongside seats distributed proportional to seats already won
Singapore – in single-member electoral districts, alongside plurality block voting
South Korea – as part is a mixed system (AMS and parallel voting)
Republic of China (Taiwan) – as part is a mixed system (parallel voting)

As part of mixed-member proportional (MMP) or additional member systems (AMS)

Bolivia
Germany
Lesotho
New Zealand

Subnational legislatures

Scotland (United Kingdom)

Wales (United Kingdom)

Local elections

Greater London (United Kingdom; not a legislature)

 Certain municipalities in South Africa

Former use
Argentina (The Chamber of Deputies uses party list PR. Only twice used FPTP, first
between 1902 and 1905 used only in the elections of 1904,[56] and the second time between
1951 and 1957 used only in the elections of 1951 and 1954.)[57]
Australia (replaced by IRV in 1918 for both the House of Representatives and the Senate,
with STV being introduced to the Senate in 1948)
Belgium (adopted in 1831, replaced by party list PR in 1899)—[58] the Member of the
European Parliament for the German-speaking electoral college is still elected by FPTP[59]
Cyprus (replaced by proportional representation in 1981)
Denmark (replaced by proportional representation in 1920)
Hong Kong (adopted in 1995, replaced by party list PR in 1998)
Japan (replaced by parallel voting in 1993)
Lebanon (replaced by proportional representation in June 2017)
Lesotho (replaced by MMP Party list in 2002)
Malta (replaced by STV in 1921)
Mexico (replaced by parallel voting in 1977)
Nepal (replaced by parallel voting)[60]
Netherlands (replaced by party list PR in 1917)[61]
New Zealand (replaced by MMP in 1996)
Papua New Guinea (replaced by IRV in 2002)[62]
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 PR)[63]
South Africa (replaced by party list PR in 1994)
Tanzania (replaced by parallel voting in 1995)

See also
Cube rule
Deviation from proportionality
Plurality-at-large voting
Approval voting
Single non-transferable vote
Single transferable vote

References
1. "First past the post" (https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/fpp-to-mmp/first-past-the-post).
nzhistory.govt.nz. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. 13 January 2016. Retrieved 25 May
2022.
2. Shawn Griffiths (5 December 2018). "How ranked choice voting survives the 'one person,
one vote' challenge" (https://www.fairvote.org/how_ranked_choice_voting_survives_the_on
e_person_one_vote_challenge). FairVote.
 3. "Comparing Voting Methods: A Report Card" (https://www.starvoting.us/report_card).
Retrieved 11 January 2022.
4. origin of ‘first past the post’ (as applied to a voting system) (https://wordhistories.net/2019/05/
11/first-past-post/)
5. Andy Williams (1998). UK Government & Politics (https://books.google.com/books?id=6keD
JpK0xL8C&pg=PA24). Heinemann. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-435-33158-0.
6. Ilan, Shahar. "Major Reforms Are Unlikely, but Electoral Threshold Could Be Raised" (http
s://www.haaretz.com/1.5074292). Haaretz. Haaretz.com. Retrieved 8 May 2010.
7. Dr.Mihaela Macavei, University of Alba Iulia, Romania. "Advantages and disadvantages of
the uninominal voting system" (http://www.uab.ro/reviste_recunoscute/reviste_drept/annales
_10_2007/macavei_en.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 8 May 2010.
8. P. Dorey (17 June 2008). The Labour Party and Constitutional Reform: A History of
Constitutional Conservatism (https://books.google.com/books?id=JsaHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA
400). Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 400–. ISBN 978-0-230-59415-9.
9. "David Cameron. "David Cameron: why keeping first past the post is vital for democracy (htt
p://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8485118/David-Cameron-why-keepin
g-first-past-the-post-is-vital-for-democracy.html)." Daily Telegraph. 30 Apr 2011
10. Larry Johnston (13 December 2011). Politics: An Introduction to the Modern Democratic
State (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZcpZ1eADwSMC&pg=PA231). University of
Toronto Press. pp. 231–. ISBN 978-1-4426-0533-6.
11. Drogus, Carol Ann (2008). Introducing comparative politics: concepts and cases in context
(https://archive.org/details/introducingcompa00drog/page/257). CQ Press. pp. 257 (https://ar
chive.org/details/introducingcompa00drog/page/257). ISBN 978-0-87289-343-6.
12. Michael Geruso, Dean Spears, Ishaana Talesara. 2019. "Inversions in US Presidential
Elections: 1836-2016." NBER paper (https://www.nber.org/papers/w26247)
13. slides by Nicholas R. Miller (https://slide-finder.com/view/ELECTION-INVERSIONS-BY-VAR
IANTS.214192.html)
14. "First Past the Post" (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-syst
em/first-past-the-post/). www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
15. "First Past the Post" (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-syst
em/first-past-the-post/). www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
16. "Make Votes Matter—Everything wrong with First Past the Post—Proportional
Representation" (https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/first-past-the-post). Make Votes Matter.
Retrieved 16 December 2019.
17. "File:First-past-the-post 2015.svg" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First-past-the-post_201
5.svg), Wikipedia, retrieved 14 December 2019
18. Beech, Matt; Hickson, Kevin (3 July 2020). "Divided by Values: Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour
Party and England's 'North-South Divide' " (https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/5456).
Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique. XXV (2). doi:10.4000/rfcb.5456 (https://doi.org/
10.4000%2Frfcb.5456). S2CID 198655613 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:19865
5613).
19. "First Past the Post" (https://web.archive.org/web/20171115214736/http://www.conservative
electoralreform.org/support-reform/first-past-the-post/). www.conservativeelectoralreform.org.
Conservative Action for Electoral Reform. Archived from the original (http://www.conservativ
eelectoralreform.org/support-reform/first-past-the-post/) on 15 November 2017. Retrieved
15 November 2017.
20. "Elections Canada - Results by Province(s)" (https://enr.elections.ca/Provinces.aspx). 2021
Elections Canada - Provinces. Elections Canada. 21 September 2020. Retrieved
4 November 2021.
21. "General Election 2010: Safe and marginal seats" (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datab
log/2010/apr/07/election-safe-seats-electoral-reform). www.theguardian.com. Guardian
Newspapers. 7 April 2010. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
22. Wickham, Alex. " "Safe seats" almost guarantee corruption" (http://www.thecommentator.co
m/article/3678/_safe_seats_almost_guarantee_corruption). www.thecommentator.com.
Retrieved 15 November 2017.
23. "FactCheck: expenses and safe seats" (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/factcheck
+expenses+and+safe+seats/3388597.html). www.channel4.com. Channel 4. Retrieved
15 November 2017.
24. Begany, Brent (30 June 2016). "The 2016 Election Proves The Need For Voting Reform" (htt
ps://policyinterns.com/2016/06/30/the-2016-election-proves-the-need-for-voting-reform/).
Policy Interns. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
25. Rosenbaum, David E. (24 February 2004). "THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE INDEPENDENT;
Relax, Nader Advises Alarmed Democrats, but the 2000 Math Counsels Otherwise" (https://
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E4D6173CF937A15751C0A9629C8B63).
The New York Times.
26. Sachs, Jeffrey (2011). The Price of Civilization. New York: Random House. p. 107.
ISBN 978-1-4000-6841-8.
27. Dunleavy, Patrick; Diwakar, Rekha (2013). "Analysing multiparty competition in plurality rule
elections" (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/38452/1/Dunleavy_Analysing%20multiparty_2014_author.
pdf) (PDF). Party Politics. 19 (6): 855–886. doi:10.1177/1354068811411026 (https://doi.org/
10.1177%2F1354068811411026). S2CID 18840573 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpus
ID:18840573).
28. Dickson, Eric S.; Scheve, Kenneth (2010). "Social Identity, Electoral Institutions and the
Number of Candidates". British Journal of Political Science. 40 (2): 349–375.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.75.155 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?
doi=10.1.1.75.155). doi:10.1017/s0007123409990354 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0007123
409990354). JSTOR 40649446 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40649446). S2CID 7107526 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7107526).
29. "First Past the Post is a 'broken voting system' " (https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-
releases/first-past-the-post-is-a-broken-voting-system). www.ippr.org. Institute for Public
Policy Research. 4 January 2011. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
30. Terry, Chris (28 August 2013). "In Britain's first past the post electoral system, some votes
are worth 22 times more than others" (http://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/08/28/in-britains
-first-past-the-post-electoral-system-some-votes-are-worth-22-times-more-than-others/).
www.democraticaudit.com. London School of Economics. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
31. Galvin, Ray. "What is a marginal seat?" (http://www.justsolutions.eu/marginals/startmarginal
s.html). www.justsolutions.eu. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
32. "First Past the Post" (https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/first-past-the-post). Make Votes
Matter. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
33. "India - First Past the Post on a Grand Scale" (https://aceproject.org/main/english/es/esy_in.
htm). ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
34. Peter Walker Political (22 April 2019). "First past the post abets extreme politics, says
thinktank" (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/23/first-past-the-post-abets-extrem
e-politics-says-thinktank). The Guardian.
35. "The Electoral System and British Politics" (https://consoc.org.uk/publications/the-electoral-s
ystem-and-british-politics/). consoc.org.uk.
36. Cowen, Doug. "The Graveyard of First Past the Post" (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/th
e-graveyard-of-first-past-the-post/). Electoral Reform Society. Retrieved 4 July 2020.
37. Winter, Owen (25 August 2016). "How a Broken Voting System Gave South Africa Apartheid
in 1948" (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/owen-winter/south-africa-apartheid_b_11662272.
html). Huffington Post. Retrieved 4 July 2020.
38. Leblang, D., & Chan, S. (2003). "Explaining Wars Fought By Established Democracies: Do
Institutional Constraints Matter?". Political Research Quarterly: 56-24: 385–400.
39. "PR and Conflict" (https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/conflict). Make Votes Matter.
Retrieved 27 June 2020.
40. "What the Evidence Says" (https://fairvotingbc.com/join-the-campaign-for-fair-voting/why-voti
ng-reform/what-the-evidence-says/). Fair Voting BC. 19 November 2017. Retrieved 27 June
2020.
41. "Democracy: we've never had it so bad" (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/
may/03/democracy-first-past-the-post). The Guardian. 3 May 2010. Retrieved 27 June 2020.
42. Tatchell, Peter (3 May 2010). "Democracy: we've never had it so bad" (https://www.theguardi
an.com/commentisfree/2010/may/03/democracy-first-past-the-post). The Guardian.
Retrieved 26 June 2020.
43. Barnett, Anthony. "Will Labour's next leader finally break with first-past-the-post?" (https://lab
ourlist.org/2020/01/will-labours-next-leader-finally-break-with-first-past-the-post/).
Labourlist.org. Retrieved 5 July 2020.
44. Root, Tim (30 September 2019). "Making government accountable to the people" (https://leftf
ootforward.org/2019/09/making-government-accountable-to-the-people/). Left Foot Forward.
Retrieved 5 July 2020.
45. "What We Stand For" (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/who-we-are/what-we-stand-for/).
electoral-reform.org.uk.
46. "Home" (https://www.fairvote.ca/). Fair Vote Canada.
47. "Electoral Systems around the World" (https://www.fairvote.org/research_electoralsystems_
world). FairVote.org. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
48. "Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform - About LCER" (https://www.labourcampaignforelect
oralreform.org.uk/About-LCER). labourcampaignforelectoralreform.org.uk.
49. David Austen-Smith and Jeffrey Banks, "Monotonicity in Electoral Systems", American
Political Science Review, Vol 85, No 2 (Jun. 1991)
50. Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart (http://www.fairvote.org/single-winner-votin
g-method-comparison-chart) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110228061650/http://
www.fairvote.org/single-winner-voting-method-comparison-chart) 28 February 2011 at the
Wayback Machine "Majority Favorite Criterion: If a majority (more than 50%) of voters
consider candidate A to be the best choice, then A should win."
51. Kondratev, Aleksei Y.; Nesterov, Alexander S. (2020). "Measuring Majority Power and Veto
Power of Voting Rules". Public Choice. 183 (1–2): 187–210. arXiv:1811.06739 (https://arxiv.
org/abs/1811.06739). doi:10.1007/s11127-019-00697-1 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11127-
019-00697-1). S2CID 53670198 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:53670198).
52. Felsenthal, Dan S. (2010) Review of paradoxes afflicting various voting procedures where
one out of m candidates (m ≥ 2) must be elected (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27685/1/Review_of_
Paradoxes_Afflicting_Various_Voting_Procedures_(LSERO).pdf). In: Assessing Alternative
Voting Procedures, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
53. "Countries using FPTP electoral system for national legislature" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20141006214357/http://www.idea.int/esd/type.cfm?electoralSystem=FPTP). idea.int.
Archived from the original (http://www.idea.int/esd/type.cfm?electoralSystem=FPTP) on 6
October 2014. Retrieved 3 December 2018.
54. "Electoral Systems" (https://archive.today/2014.08.26-220250/http://aceproject.org/epic-en/C
DTable?question=ES005). ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. Archived from the original (h
ttp://aceproject.org/epic-en/CDTable?question=ES005) on 26 August 2014. Retrieved
3 November 2015.
55. "U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions" (https://www.archives.gov/federal-reg
ister/electoral-college/faq.html). Retrieved 23 October 2015.
56. Milia, Juan Guillermo (2015). El Voto. Expresión del poder ciudadano (https://books.google.
com/books?id=NStcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA40). Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. pp. 40–41.
ISBN 978-987-02-8472-7.
57. "Law 14,032" (http://www.saij.gob.ar/legislacion/ley-nacional-14032.htm?bsrc=ci). Sistema
Argentino de Información Jurídica.
58. Encarta-encyclopedie Winkler Prins (1993–2002) s.v. "Kiesstelsel. §1.1 Federale
verkiezingen". Microsoft Corporation/Het Spectrum.
59. News, Flanders (17 April 2019). "Elections 2019: The European Parliament" (https://www.vr
t.be/vrtnws/en/2019/03/20/elections-2019-the-european-parliament/). vrtnws.be. {{cite
web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
60. Bhuwan Chandra Upreti (2010). Nepal: Transition to Democratic Republican State : 2008
Constituent Assembly (https://books.google.com/books?id=TEq3D4evrO0C&pg=PA69).
Gyan Publishing House. pp. 69–. ISBN 978-81-7835-774-4.
61. Encarta-encyclopedie Winkler Prins (1993–2002) s.v. "Kiesstelsel. §1.1 Geschiedenis".
Microsoft Corporation/Het Spectrum.
62. "PNG voting system praised by new MP" (https://web.archive.org/web/20050104074304/htt
p://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_1015553.htm). ABC. 12 December 2003.
Archived from the original (http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_1015553.ht
m) on 4 January 2005. Retrieved 19 May 2015.
63. "Which European countries use proportional representation?" (https://www.electoral-reform.
org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/). www.electoral-
reform.org.uk. Retrieved 1 December 2019.

External links
A handbook of Electoral System Design (https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/elector
al-system-design-new-international-idea-handbook) from International IDEA (http://www.ide
a.int)
ACE Project: What is the electoral system for Chamber 1 of the national legislature? (https://
aceproject.org/epic-en/es#ES05)
ACE Project: First Past The Post (http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esd01.htm)—
detailed explanation of first-past-the-post voting
ACE Project: Electing a President using FPTP (http://www.aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/e
se/ese01/ese01a/)
ACE Project: FPTP on a grand scale in India (http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/2009052114250
9/http://aceproject.org//ace%2Den//topics//es//esy//esy_in)
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. (http://c
itizensassembly.arts.ubc.ca/)
Vote No to Proportional Representation BC (https://nobcprorep.ca)
Fact Sheets on Electoral Systems provided to members of the Citizens' Assembly on
Electoral Reform, British Columbia. (http://citizensassembly.arts.ubc.ca/public/extra/factshee
t_intro.xml.htm)
 The Problem With First-Past-The-Post Electing (data from UK general election 2005) (http://
www.game-point.net/misc/election2005/)
The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained (video) (https://www.youtube.com/w
atch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo) on YouTube
The fatal flaws of First-past-the-post electoral systems (http://www.prsa.org.au/pluralit.htm)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First-past-the-post_voting&oldid=1117434140"

This page was last edited on 21 October 2022, at 18:29 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.