It can also be used in multiple member constituency elections. In a single member election the candidate with the highest number, not necessarily a majority, of votes is elected.
Of the smaller parties, the SNP received a greater share of seats than votes, whereas UKIP and the Liberal Democrats gained very little representation compared to the share of the vote they received.
Benefits[ edit ] The benefits of FPTP are that its concept is easy to understand, and ballots can more easily be pr vs fptp essay help and processed than in preferential voting systems.
Its tendency to produce majority rule  allows a government to pursue a consistent strategy for its term in office and to make decisions that may be both correct and unpopular.
Tony Blairdefending FPTP, argued that other systems give small parties the balance of power, and influence disproportionate to their votes. FPTP generally reduces this likelihood, except where parties have a strong regional basis.
Voters have an incentive to vote for a candidate whom they predict is more likely to win, in preference 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. Following the extremely close U. Bush is because a portion of the electorate 2. In Puerto Ricothere 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 in advance 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, entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting against the Conservative Party by voting either Labour or Liberal Democratdepending 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 votingas well as the two-round system of runoffs and less tested methods such as approval voting and Condorcet methods.
Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains: 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. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections.
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.
Through gerrymanderingelectoral 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, and a large number of districts where it is at a smaller disadvantage.Advantages of FPTP.
First Past The Post, like other plurality/majority electoral systems, is defended primarily on the grounds of simplicity and its tendency to produce winners who are representatives beholden to defined geographic areas and governability. as can happen under some List PR electoral systems.
It gives a chance for popular. Voting directly for the party is a feature of PR systems such as MMP/AMS, List PR and DPR Voting. The advantages of FPTP are • Simple Voting - voting is simple to understand and simple for the voter to take part.
“There are many very stupid ideas about free speech in academia. Perhaps the stupidest is this: free speech is a legal norm used to protect the powerful at the expense of the powerless, but exceptions to free speech will benefit the powerless.
The best opinions, comments and analysis from The Telegraph. With a PR Voting system if a party wins 30% of the votes in the country it should win approximately 30% of the votes in the Parliament. (Systems that combine PR with FPTP) In Hybrid PR systems such as MMP Rural–urban proportional representation.
An examination of the advantages of using a Proportional Representation (PR) voting system over the first-past-the-post method used in countries such as the United States and Canada. Proportional Representation vs.
First-Past-The-Post. Search the site GO. Social Sciences. Economics Basics U.S. Economy Employment.