First past the post

{{politics}}
'''First past the post''' (FPTP) is a system used in elections, in which the candidate with the most votes wins the election, even if they fail to win an absolute majority, and is the least effective democratic system.
Nations with FPTP are usually either one-party systems, dominant-party systems, or ''de facto'' two/three-party systems.
While it is easy to understand, the absurdity of this method can be highlighted in areas where parties can win an election, despite receiving fewer votes than their opponents.
In the US, this is due to the [[electoral college]] system for [[President of the United States|presidential elections]]; in the UK, it's from voters voting for local constituency MPs (Members of Parliament).
For presidential elections in the US, the candidate with the most electoral college votes (that is, votes are measured in how many states won rather than how many voters voted for the president) becomes the president; in the UK, the party with the most MPs forms the government.
In both cases, the 'winner' may have received fewer votes than the 'loser'.
This has happened in, for example, the [[United States]] in {{wpl|United States presidential election, 1824|1824|,}} {{wpl|United States presidential election, 1876|1876|,}} {{wpl|United States presidential election, 1888|1888|,}} [[2000 U.S. Presidential Election|2000]], and [[2016 U.S. Presidential Election|2016]], and in the [[United Kingdom|UK]] in {{wpl|United Kingdom general election, 1951|1951}} and {{wpl|United Kingdom general election, February 1974|1974|.}}<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/06/tories-could-win-vote-lose-election "Tories could win the vote, but lose election"] ''[[The Guardian]]'', April 6, 2010</ref>

A special note should be made for the 1860 US election.
The election was 4 ways, and Abraham Lincoln only received 39.9% of the vote, but the Republican Party was non-existent in the South, so he wasn't even on the ballot in every state, and the number of slave counties won was in single digits.
It's possible that if the other three candidates united together, then a different man could've been elected 16th President of the US.
Anger at the election results was the catalyst for the American Civil War, the deadliest war the US ever fought.
That war also had many other contributing factors that may have made it inevitable.

It promotes [[Margaret Thatcher|strong]] [[George W. Bush|government]] (ha!), generally with 2 major parties, an observation called {{wpl|Duverger's law||.}} This is because unlike [[mixed member proportional voting]] (MMPV) or [[instant runoff voting]] (IRV), all the losing votes are discarded.
Third parties tend to do very badly in first past the post,<ref>[http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf official Federal Election Commission report]</ref> as they not only are effectively discarded votes, but they actually help the major party the voter dislikes more than the other major party due to the '''spoiler effect'''.
A common argument in favor of this method is that it's very difficult for a political extremist to win a national election or gain power in general since they require most of the vote, thus promoting more [[centrist]] politics, though this argument is questionable given some [[GOP|far from centrist]] parties in countries with this voting system.
Furthermore, in elections without two clear favorites,<ref group=note>This can often occur in non-partisan elections without much polling, or American primary elections.</ref>
FPTP is biased towards extremists compared to other single-winner voting methods, since centrists face vote splitting from multiple sides, whereas extreme candidates only face vote splitting from one side, and because vote splitting makes it possible to win without having a large amount of support.<ref>https://www.rangevoting.org/Extremism.html</ref>

Third parties that do emerge in FPTP tend to have a rather strong regional base, as evidenced by the [[Bloc Québécois]] or the [[Scottish National Party]], neither of whom run candidates outside of their regional base.
Another issue is the disparity of voter support to political power.
For example, in the [[2010 United Kingdom general election|2010 UK election]], the [[Liberal Democrats]] secured 23% of the vote, but didn't even get 9% of the [[House of Commons]].
In fact, even though they went from 22% in 2005, they actually ''lost'' five seats from 2005.

==See also==
*[[Instant runoff voting]]
*[[Two-round voting]]
*[[Approval Voting]]
*[[Proportional representation]]
*[[Mixed member proportional voting]]
*[[Single transferable vote]]

==External links==
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo A video detailing the problems of first past the post] on [[YouTube]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{stub|politics}}
[[category:Political terms]]
[[Category:Voting systems]]

Categories: Political terms, Voting systems