![]() | This article has an unclear citation style. (July 2024) |
![]() | It has been suggested that some portions of this article should be split into a new article titled single-member districts. (discuss) (August 2024) |
Part of the Politics and Economics series |
Electoral systems |
---|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
First-preference plurality (FPP)—often shortened simply to plurality—is a single-winner system of positional voting. Voters mark one candidate as their favorite, and the candidate with the largest number of marks (a plurality) is elected, even if they do not have more than half of the marks. When used in single-member districts, the method is often called first-past-the-post (FPTP), based on a metaphor from horse racing.[1][2]
In social choice theory, FPP is generally thought of as a degenerate form of ranked voting, where voters "rank" candidates, but only the first preference matters. As a result, FPP is usually implemented with a choose-one ballot, where voters mark a single bubble next to their favorite candidate.
FPP has been used to elect the British House of Commons since the Middle Ages. (But for most of that time some at least of the members were elected in multi-member ridings using Plurality block voting, Limited voting or STV.)[3] The same applies to some degree to elections in former British colonies, most notably the United States, Canada, and India.[4] [5]
FPP is used as the primary form of allocating seats for legislative elections in about a third of the world's countries, mostly in the English-speaking world. It is also used to directly elect heads of states in some, although less often than the two-round system.[citation needed]
Notwithstanding its simplicity and antiquity, there are several major drawbacks to FPTP. As a winner-take-all method, it often produces disproportional results or results where a candidate who is the choice of just a minority takes the seat, especially when more than two candidates are in the running and particularly when electing members of a legislature, in the sense that political parties do not get representation according to their share of the popular vote. This usually favors the largest party and parties with strong regional support to the detriment of smaller parties with a widely dispersed base.
Supporters of electoral reform are generally highly critical of FPTP because of this and point out other flaws, such as FPTP's vulnerability to gerrymandering which can create districts distorting representation in the legislature, the high number of wasted votes, and the chance of a majority reversal (i.e. the party winning the most votes getting fewer seats than the second-largest party and losing the election). Throughout the 20th century many countries that previously used FPTP have abandoned it in favor of other electoral systems, including the former British colonies Australia, and New Zealand (these nations now use IRV + STV and MMP, respectively).
Some countries use FPTP alongside proportional representation (PR) in a parallel voting system, or in compensatory mixed systems, e.g. as part of mixed-member proportional representation.