Written by Classical Liberal
~~oOo~~
In a first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, voters cast their vote for a candidate of their choice, and the candidate who receives the most votes wins irrespective of vote share. FPTP is a plurality voting method primarily used in systems that use single-member electoral divisions. Plurality voting is an electoral system in which each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate. The candidate who polls more than any other counterpart (a plurality) is elected. FPTP is the primary form of allocating seats for legislative elections in about a third of the world’s countries, mainly in the English-speaking world, including general and local elections in the UK.
The highest polling candidate under an FPTP voting method is elected. In the 2011 Singaporean presidential election, presidential candidate Tony Tan obtained a greater number of votes than any other candidate. 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 Tan.
The effect of a system based on plurality voting spread over several separate districts is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats. In contrast, smaller parties with more evenly distributed support gain a disproportionately small share. It is more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats. In the United Kingdom, 19 of the 24 general elections since 1922 have produced a single-party majority government. For example, the election results were as follows. 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.
Supporters of FPTP argue that its concept is easy to understand, and ballots can more easily be counted and processed than those in preferential voting systems. FPTP often produces governments with legislative voting majorities, thus providing such governments with the legislative power necessary to implement their electoral manifesto commitments during their term in office. FPTP 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 benefits society as a whole. However, handing a legislative voting majority to a government that lacks popular support can be problematic. The government’s policies favour only that fraction of the electorate that supported it – mainly if the electorate divides into 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 wouldn’t otherwise enjoy. They argue that FPTP generally reduces this possibility, except where parties have a strong regional basis.
A failure to reflect the popular vote in the number of parliamentary seats awarded to competing parties is the most common criticism of FPTP. Critics argue that an election system’s fundamental requirement is to represent voters’ views accurately, but FPTP often fails in this respect. It often creates ‘false majorities’ by over-representing larger parties – giving a majority of the parliamentary seats to a party that did not receive a majority of the votes – while under-representing smaller ones.
A party that nationally wins the most votes is not certain it will win a plurality of seats. Famous examples of the second-placed party (in votes nationally) winning a majority of seats include the elections in Canada in 2019, in Ghana in 2012, in New Zealand in 1978 and 1981 and the UK in 1951.
That a party that nationally wins the most votes is not sure to win a plurality of seats needs not to 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.
Generally, FPTP favours parties who can concentrate their vote into certain voting districts, or in specific geographic areas. This is because they win many seats and don’t ‘waste’ many votes in other areas. The 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.’
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. The ERS also says that in FPTP elections using many separate districts, ‘small parties without a geographical base find it hard to win seats’.
Make Votes Matter said that in the 2017 UK general election, ‘the Green Party, Liberal Democrats and UKIP (all minor, non-regional parties) received 11% of votes between them, yet they shared just 2% of seats’, and in the 2015 UK general election, ‘the same three parties received almost a quarter of all the votes cast, yet these parties shared just 1.5% of seats’.
According to Make Votes Matter, in the 2015 UK general election, UKIP came in third in terms of the 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.
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. 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.
To a greater extent than many others, the FPTP 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 would be wasted. Thus ‘all votes for anyone other than the runner-up are votes for the winner’. Votes for these other candidates deny potential support from the second-placed candidate, who might otherwise have won.
Because voters have to predict who the top two candidates will be, results can be significantly distorted. First, some voters will vote based on how others will vote and change their initially intended vote. Second, substantial power is given to the media because some voters believe its assertions about who the leading contenders are likely to be. Even voters who distrust the media will know that others believe the press, and therefore those who receive the most media attention will probably be the most popular. Third, a new candidate with no track record, who most voters might otherwise support, may be considered unlikely to be one of the top two, thus losing votes to tactical voting. Fourth, the method may promote votes against as opposed to votes for, which we have seen in campaigns to vote against the Conservative Party.
Duverger’s law is an idea in political science that says that constituencies that use FPTP methods will lead to two-party systems, given enough time. There is a counter-argument to Duverger’s Law. At the same time, supermajorities may lead to the vote fracturing in the individual constituencies.
[to be continued tomorrow]
Well Classical Liberal, I wonder where you are going with this. Originally our system was designed to elect an individual from each constituency, not a Party.
Didn’t the Whigs hold on to power for many elections, until eventually that party split into several factions.
Mainly I still say the two main Parties have too much power and I’ve some ideas how that could be overcome.
The two main party’s are the same, puppets of the people who are Really in Control in Europe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI5Qhd3R8ik
The major problem must surely be “The Party System”
“The National Party” effectively chooses the candidates for each constituency, The Local activists have little say other than to endorse the least bad of those offered. This is made even worse by politically correct quota systems
There can be no meaningful debate in the HoC because the MPs will vote as directed by “The Party” Whips, regardless of the merits of the arguements put forward.
The electorate has no means of dismissing their MP should he/she/it fail to represent them fairly and in a fashion that benefits their particular constituency, rather than “The Party”
Give Constituencies the right to select their own candidates, without pressure or other interference from the “National Party”
Make party manifestos legally binding.
Abolish the Whips Office.
Give constituencies the right to recall their MP
What we have at the moment, however, is effectively a One Party System in which the candidates wear different coloured rosettes, and tell different lies at election times, then having been elected, revert to the one party.
Perhaps we have got what we deserved.
Good try Dick I’m sure you are right.
Only problem to introduce the measures you suggest, you will need an act of Parliament
Which Turkey is going to vote for Christmas?
A revolution/coup might be required, but not all of them have the reputation of immediately handing democracy back to the inmates of the madhouse ( or any house, for that matter)
Dickatbarn – You’ve pretty much said it all. Recently I exchanged views with my Conservative party representative in Parliament about some of his recent votes. Further digging produced info on ‘proxy’ voting whereby he and others grant a proxy for another MP to vote for them. In this case, two home counties MPs gave the proxy to a Yorkshire MP who just happened to be the party deputy whip, thus ensuring conformity and compliance with party preferences. How far removed from democracy is that?
MichaelD. Doesn’t that just prove what a scam the present system is? But Roger (above) is right when he says how could we change it when the strutting turkeys won’t ‘vote for Christmas’ because the current set-up suits them just fine and as far as they are concerned, the rest of us can just go to perdition!
dickatbarn. Correct in all your points.
Very accurately and succinctly put Dickatbarn!
unfortunately the Party system was introduced to prevent warfare between conflicting claims for money & Power, and wholesale sales of their vote etc. But as is always the case,anything can be corrupted. or adjusted to advantage some. Your ( I think ) best suggestion is to make the manifesto legally binding. But that probably means you can’t improve it, and smothers debate.. So nobody agrees it again. Another consideration is the appointment of the PM. etc and his powers or lack. I quite like tha Catholic system ( Lock em in till they decide Then set fire to something ). So I suppose we need parties in some form, ?
So we need a cohesive system that will work. This is the first test for those seeking reform. We need discipline of some kind. to get anything done at all. Tread thoughtfully thru that and there is an answer.
It is probablybetter if you can seperate these entities from money or power, and much more important, fromany form of executive powers. ‘Cause a way will be found. Seperate money and power.
Dickatbarn – Add ‘annual performance review’. Any other employee would expect an annual review and penalties for failure.
I agree but who would perform the revue., if it was the party, we are back where we started
Couldn’t afford to fall out with the boss!
It would have to be independent
I agree. Any other voting system seems to create the mediocre party as the votes get split down. Look at Germany where technically Merkel lost her last election and the AfD should have been in coalition, but because she chose not to create a coalition with any other party the lifelong President elected to keep her in power.
This often happens in countries where multiple choice votes occur. I think we should vote for local people to run our councils (no party affiliation) and then we vote for a representative to go to Parliament. Again no party affiliation. I think that health care, schooling, infrastructure etc could very easily be run by council cooperation. We have become far to used to large government demanding ever larger taxes and then wasting that money on vanity projects, foreign aid at crony contracts.
The civil service would then be a highly trained, experienced, small back up to the elected officials who would debate what each Council needs and how the funds would be created locally. Small taxation, friendly societies and private health care/education and policing. The country could then hold referenda on stuff that affects everyone, like the armed services, major infrastructure and distribution. If we just trust in ourselves, stop interfering in other countries politics, encourage our entrepreneurs and discourage globalist cartels, we would be a highly successful and healthy UK
Fullly agree there should be no political party affiliation at local government level.
Would warm to electing an independent local representative to send to Westminster but how is a government formed with no party politics? Is there an example somewhere in the world where this happens?
Having a archaic monarchy and honour system is undemocratic not having a written Constitution and an accountable federal system is undemocratic people need to wake up and remove this crooked government and compliant opposition
https://www.sdp.org.uk
Regardless of which party wins an election you always end up with a gang of self serving politicians.
Social Democrats..the two words that create unutterable fear in my heart. Anyone who calls themselves social or Democrat tend to be very left leaning, big government and high taxation. Not for me. We need to get away from standardised parties and we need true independently minded people who understand what this country needs. People who will be intelligent enough to know how to run a small, lean treasury. Individuals who know how to run an immigration system. Not people who have to hand important positions to someone in the Party, who may have no experience whatsoever.
Was FPTP a more agreeable system for the UK before we joined the EU? Is FPTP really broken ?
Joining the EU removed the British citizens direct link to the seat of power – Westminster.
Political manifestoes of the main political parties were no longer worth the paper they were written on because we were now subject to the principle of the EUs march toward ‘ever closer union’ resulting in the gradual erosion of elected MPs to deliver on manifesto promises.
Membership of political parties declined considerably in this period as power migrated upwards leaving people feeling politically disenfranchised. Career politics, corporatism, chumocracy, big government, cultural Marxism, PC and treason all prospered during these years.
There remains no doubt in my mind that the EU experience resulted in the Conservative Party abandoing conservatism and the Labour Party abandoing its traditional supporters.
Jake. Yes it did seem so until Heath took us in. I agree as far as I can remember.
Are we bovvered?
Unless Classical Liberal can show us a sure fire way to get rid of all the toxic legacy members in one fell swoop, then all the analysing of the entrails in the world is not going to indicate any sort of positive path further.
The only real alternative is a coup, I thought we had already got there, BJ and his cohorts rule by diktat supreme
The real question is how we mount a counter coup, and it won’t be FPTP or any fancy transferable vote system
And what’s worse is the majority of the population self styled elites and peasants are happy in their attitude of militant apathy of complete acceptance of a condition they approve and enjoy. .
Having experienced the odd coup and seen the benefits I agree. However I’m sure some of the evil ones in government thought of the possibility and trashed our military.
Covid is a bit like that daft game on telly,, where you push pennies down a waterfall of pennies and finally drop off. And Bingo, you’re a statistic. Of sorts !. or a ” political statistic “, a bit like a Civil srrvice statistic
Ouch, I had intended to add the words ” being economical with the truth “. and also make some corrections.
I have often wondered if these people have an in house dictionary for misleading words and phrases
Oh dear.. ! Not another”Drown ’em in nonsense” rubbish. As for Duverger. and his theory. Really ? Where d’you get this stuff Viv. Has he ever Laffed at himself ? And the idea of putting politics and science together leads us to a pretend Pandemic and a committee called SAGE. Another belief in Test and Trace which is one of the few theories that only works if everybody knows his place and obeys orders. What I would call the perfecr world theory of Nazism. If it doesn’t fit …. Kill it. Except … It doesnt.
TGS, this article is about the United Kingdom’s “First Past The Post” electoral system. Why are you writing in about SAGE and Test & Trace and Covid?
The last para of the article. Politics is not science by any stretch, and a law of political science beggars belief + the connection with sage and etc.. AnywayFPTP the path to proper democracy for us has been suggested satisfactoraily in bits put together from several of the above suggestions. We’ve got some clever ones here. Anyway
Residence qualification
Ban parachuting.
No second jobs, or moonlighting. MP or CS or PS
Committees for Advisory only. etc
Ministers. Secretaries etc by debate only. except
Treasurer ( Taken out of politics- maybe with BoE)
Tidy up Manifesto options.
Restore ‘ constitutional ‘ in the Monarch.
And cast an eye over the Privy counsel committees.
For starters.Repairing a fundamentally sound system will be easier.
? Lobbying ?