Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 17 December 2019

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the English-speaking world and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (December 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A joint Politics and Economics series
Social choice and electoral systems
Social choice Mechanism design Comparative politics Comparison List (By country)
Single-winner methodsSingle vote - plurality methods First preference plurality (FPP) Two-round (US: Jungle primary) Partisan primary Instant-runoff UK: Alternative vote (AV) US: Ranked-choice (RCV) Condorcet methods Condorcet-IRV Round-robin voting Minimax Schulze Ranked pairs Maximal lottery Positional voting Plurality (el. IRV) Borda count (el. Baldwin) Antiplurality (el. Coombs) Cardinal voting Score voting Approval voting Majority judgment STAR voting
Proportional representationParty-list Apportionment Highest averages Largest remainders National remnant Biproportional List type Closed list Open list Panachage List-free PR Localized list Quota-remainder methods Hare STV Schulze STV CPO-STV Quota Borda Approval-based committees Thiele's method Phragmen's method Expanding approvals rule Method of equal shares Fractional social choice Direct representation Interactive representation Liquid democracy Fractional approval voting Maximal lottery Random ballot Semi-proportional representation Cumulative SNTV Limited voting
Mixed systemsBy results of combination Mixed-member majoritarian Mixed-member proportional By mechanism of combination Non-compensatory Parallel (superposition) Coexistence Conditional Fusion (majority bonus) Compensatory Seat linkage system UK: 'AMS' NZ: 'MMP' Vote linkage system Negative vote transfer Mixed ballot Supermixed systems Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional Majority jackpot By ballot type Single vote Double simultaneous vote Dual-vote
Paradoxes and pathologiesSpoiler effects Spoiler effect Cloning paradox Frustrated majorities paradox Center squeeze Pathological response Perverse response Best-is-worst paradox No-show paradox Multiple districts paradox Strategic voting Lesser evil voting Exaggeration Truncation Turkey-raising Paradoxes of majority rule Tyranny of the majority Discursive dilemma Conflicting majorities paradox
Social and collective choiceImpossibility theorems Arrow's theorem Majority impossibility Moulin's impossibility theorem McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem Gibbard's theorem Positive results Median voter theorem Condorcet's jury theorem May's theorem Condorcet dominance theorems Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem
Politics portal Economics portal Mathematics portal
v t e

A first-past-the-post (FPTP; sometimes FPP, or winner takes all) electoral system is one in which voters indicate on a ballot the candidate of their choice, and the candidate who receives the most votes wins. First-past-the-post voting is a plurality voting method. FPTP is a common, but not universal, feature of electoral systems with single-member electoral divisions, and is practised in close to one third of countries. Notable examples include the United States and the United Kingdom as well as some of the former colonies and protectorates of UK such as India and Canada.

Overview

First-past-the-post voting methods can be used for single- and multiple-member electoral divisions. In a single-member election, the candidate with the highest number (but not necessarily a majority) of votes is elected. In a multiple-member election (or multiple-selection ballot), 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 corresponding to that number of positions. For example, if there are three vacancies, then the three candidates with the greatest numbers of votes are elected.

The Electoral Reform Society is a political pressure group based in the United Kingdom that advocates abolishing the first-past-the-post method (FPTP) for all elections. It argues FPTP is "bad for voters, bad for government and bad for democracy". It is the oldest organisation concerned with electoral methods in the world.

In the U.S., 48 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia use a winner-take-all form of simple plurality, first-past-the-post voting, to appoint the electors of the Electoral College; Maine and Nebraska use a variation where the electoral vote of each congressional district is awarded by first-past-the-post, in addition to the statewide winner taking two votes. In winner-take-all, the presidential candidate gaining the greatest number of votes wins all the state's available electors, regardless of the number or share of votes won, or the difference separating the leading candidate and the first runner-up.

The multiple-round election (runoff) voting method uses first-past-the-post voting method in each of two rounds. The first round determines which candidates will progress to the second and final round.

Illustration

Under a first-past-the-post voting method, the highest polling candidate is elected. In this real-life illustration from 2011, 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 the declared winner: Template:Singaporean presidential election, 2011

Effects

The effect of a system based on plurality voting 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 are left with a disproportionately small share. It is more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats. In the United Kingdom, 18 of the 23 general elections since 1922 have produced a single-party majority government; for example, the 2005 general election results were as follows:

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.

Benefits

The benefits of FPTP are that its concept is easy to understand, and ballots can more easily be counted and processed than in preferential voting systems.

First past the post's tendency to produce majority rule allows a government to pursue a consistent strategy for its term in office and to make decisions that, though potentially unpopular (as majority of voters did not select those positions), may have socially beneficial outcomes.

Tony Blair, defending FPTP, argued that other systems give small parties the balance of power, and influence disproportionate to their votes. Allowing people into the UK Parliament who did not finish first in their constituency 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." Winston Churchill criticised the electoral outcomes of the alternative vote as "determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates."

Supporters also argue that electoral systems using proportional representation (PR) often enable smaller parties to become decisive in Parliament, thus gaining disproportionate leverage. First past the post generally reduces this likelihood, 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."

Criticisms

Unrepresentative

FPTP is most often criticized for its failure to reflect the popular vote in the number of 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 while under-representing smaller ones.The diagram here, summarizing Canada's 2015 federal election, demonstrates how FPTP can misrepresent the popular vote.

One counter argument posits that the use of FPTP may be to determine the preference of voters in any singular elected district/constituency, rather than for the collection of districts. Under such a structure, the above criticism, while valid, would have no relevance.

Geographical problems

Geographical favouritism

Generally FPTP favours parties who can concentrate their vote into certain geographical areas. This is because in doing this they win most of the seats in those areas, and don't 'waste' so many votes in other areas. On the flip side, 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' a lot of votes.

The Electoral Reform Society say that in First Past the Post "small parties without a geographical base find it hard to win seats". They also say that regional parties benefit from this system, "With a geographical base, parties that are small UK-wide can still do very well".

Make votes matter say 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".

According to make votes matter, and shown in the chart below, in the 2015 UK general election UKIP came in third in terms of number of votes (3.9 million), but gained only one seat in Parliament, resulting in 1 seats per 3.9 million votes. The Conservatives on the other hand received 1 seat per 34 000 votes.

Distorted Geographical Representation

The winner-takes-all nature of FPTP leads to distorted patterns of representation, since party support is commonly correlated with geography. For example, in the UK the Conservative Party represents most of the rural seats, and most of the south of the country, and the Labour Party most of the cities, and most of the north. This means even popular parties can find themselves without elected politicians in significant parts of the country, leaving their supporters (who may nevertheless be a significant minority) unrepresented.

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, 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." 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 because 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%). 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 for Nader.

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 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 (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

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

However, most countries with first-past-the-post elections have multiparty legislatures, the United States being the major exception.

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.

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. 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.

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."

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, 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.

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.

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. It has been claimed that members involved in the 2009 expenses scandal were significantly more likely to hold a safe seat.

However, other voting systems, notably the party-list system, can also create politicians who are relatively immune from electoral pressure.

Wrong winner elections

Under First Past the Post it is possible for the party with the most votes not to win the election, called a 'wrong winner election'. The UK, Canada & New Zealand have all had 2 wrong winner elections.

Note, however, that the term "wrong winner election,' while technically accurate to describe how a larger body such as a national legislature reflects national vote totals, the constituent parts of that body elect a "correct" winner to represent the views of that smaller area regardless of national sentiment.

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.

Majority criterion

Y

The majority criterion states that "if one candidate is preferred by a majority (more than 50%) of voters, then that candidate must win". First-past-the-post meets this criterion (though not the converse: a candidate does not need 50% of the votes in order to win). Although the criterion is met for each constituency vote, it is not met when adding up the total votes for a winning party in a parliament.

Condorcet winner criterion

N

The Condorcet winner criterion states that "if a candidate would win a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must win the overall election". First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion.

Condorcet loser criterion

N

The Condorcet loser criterion states that "if a candidate would lose a head-to-head competition against every other candidate, then that candidate must not win the overall election". First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion.

Independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion

N

The independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion states that "the election outcome remains the same even if a candidate who cannot win decides to run." First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion.

Independence of clones criterion

N

The independence of clones criterion states that "the election outcome remains the same even if an identical candidate who is equally-preferred decides to run." First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion.

List of current FPTP countries

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

• Antigua and Barbuda
• Azerbaijan
• Bahamas
• Barbados
• Bangladesh
• Belize
• Bermuda (United Kingdom)
• Bhutan
• Botswana
• Brazil (Federal Senate)
• Canada
• Cayman Islands (United Kingdom)
• Cote d'Ivoire
• Cook Islands (New Zealand)
• Democratic People's Republic of Korea
• Dominica
• Eritrea
• Eswatini
• Ethiopia
• Gabon
• Gambia
• Ghana
• Grenada
• India
• Jamaica
• Kenya
• Kuwait
• Lao People's Democratic Republic
• Liberia
• Marshall Islands
• Maldives
• Malawi
• Malaysia
• Mauritius
• Micronesia
• Myanmar
• Nigeria
• Niue (New Zealand)
• Oman
• Pakistan
• Palau
• Philippines
• Poland (Senate)
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Samoa
• Seychelles
• Singapore
• Sierra Leone
• Solomon Islands
• Taiwan (Republic of China)
• Tonga
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Tuvalu
• Uganda
• United Kingdom
• United States
• Virgin Islands (United Kingdom and United States)
• Yemen
• Zambia

List of former FPTP countries

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items. (July 2016)

• Argentina (The Chamber of Deputies uses Party list PR. Only twice used FPTP, first between 1902 and 1905 only used in the elections of 1904, and the second time between 1951 and 1957 only used in the elections of 1951 and 1954.)
• Australia (replaced by IRV in 1918, and for the Australian Senate with STV in 1948)
• Belgium (adopted in 1831, replaced by Party list PR in 1899) – the Member of the European Parliament for the German-speaking electoral college is still elected by FPTP
• Cyprus (replaced by proportional representation in 1981)
• Denmark (replaced by proportional representation in 1920)
• Hong Kong (adopted in 1995, replaced by List PR in 1998)
• 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)
• Netherlands (replaced by Party list PR in 1917)
• New Zealand (replaced by MMP in 1996)
• Papua New Guinea (replaced by IRV in 2002)
• South Africa (replaced by Party list PR in 1996)
• Tanzania (replaced by Parallel voting in 1995)
• Portugal (replaced by Party list PR in)

See also

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

References

1. The Department of Internal Affairs, Government of New Zealand. "More about FPP". dia.govt.nz. Retrieved 17 February 2019.
2. "U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions". Retrieved 23 October 2015.
3. Andy Williams (1998). UK Government & Politics. Heinemann. pp. 24–. ISBN 978-0-435-33158-0.
4. P. Dorey (17 June 2008). The Labour Party and Constitutional Reform: A History of Constitutional Conservatism. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 400–. ISBN 978-0-230-59415-9.
5. David Cameron. "Why keeping first past the post is vital for democracy." Daily Telegraph. 30 Apr 2011
6. Larry Johnston (13 December 2011). Politics: An Introduction to the Modern Democratic State. University of Toronto Press. pp. 231–. ISBN 978-1-4426-0533-6.
7. Ilan, Shahar. "Major Reforms Are Unlikely, but Electoral Threshold Could Be Raised". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 8 May 2010.
8. Dr.Mihaela Macavei, University of Alba Iulia, Romania. "ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE UNINOMINAL VOTING SYSTEM" (PDF). Retrieved 8 May 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
9. "First Past the Post". www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
10. "First Past the Post". www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
11. "Make Votes Matter - Everything wrong with First Past the Post - Proportional Representation". Make Votes Matter. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
12. "File:First-past-the-post 2015.svg", Misplaced Pages, retrieved 14 December 2019
13. "Make Votes Matter - Everything wrong with First Past the Post - Proportional Representation". Make Votes Matter. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
14. "First Past the Post". www.conservativeelectoralreform.org. Conservative Action for Electoral Reform. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
15. Begany, Brent (30 June 2016). "The 2016 Election Proves The Need For Voting Reform". Policy Interns. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
16. Rosenbaum, David E. (24 February 2004). "THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE INDEPENDENT; Relax, Nader Advises Alarmed Democrats, but the 2000 Math Counsels Otherwise". The New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 8 May 2010.
17. Sachs, Jeffrey (2011). The Price of Civilization. New York: Random House. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-4000-6841-8.
18. Dunleavy, Patrick (18 June 2012). "Duverger's Law is a dead parrot. Outside the USA, first-past-the-post voting has no tendency at all to produce two party politics". blogs.lse.ac.uk.
19. Dunleavy, Patrick; Diwakar, Rekha (2013). "Analysing multiparty competition in plurality rule elections" (PDF). Party Politics. 19 (6): 855–886. doi:10.1177/1354068811411026.
20. 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. doi:10.1017/s0007123409990354. JSTOR 40649446.
21. "First Past the Post is a 'broken voting system'". www.ippr.org. Institute for Public Policy Research. 4 January 2011. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
22. Terry, Chris (28 August 2013). "In Britain's 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.
23. Galvin, Ray. "What is a marginal seat?". www.justsolutions.eu. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
24. "First Past the Post". www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
25. Drogus, Carol Ann (2008). Introducing comparative politics: concepts and cases in context. CQ Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-87289-343-6.
26. The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained, retrieved 5 December 2019
27. "General Election 2010: Safe and marginal seats". www.theguardian.com. Guardian Newspapers. 7 April 2010. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
28. Wickham, Alex. ""Safe seats" almost guarantee corruption". www.thecommentator.com. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
29. "FactCheck: expenses and safe seats". www.channel4.com. Channel 4. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
30. "Make Votes Matter - Everything wrong with First Past the Post - Proportional Representation". Make Votes Matter. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
31. "Make Votes Matter - Everything wrong with First Past the Post - Proportional Representation". Make Votes Matter. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
32. David Austen-Smith and Jeffrey Banks, "Monotonicity in Electoral Systems", American Political Science Review, Vol 85, No 2 (Jun. 1991)
33. Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart Archived 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."
34. ^ Felsenthal, Dan S. (2010) Review of paradoxes afflicting various voting procedures where one out of m candidates (m ≥ 2) must be elected. In: Assessing Alternative Voting Procedures, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
35. "Countries using FPTP electoral system for national legislature". idea.int. Archived from the original on 6 October 2014. Retrieved 3 December 2018.
36. "Electoral Systems". ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. Archived from the original on 26 August 2014. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
37. Milia, Juan Guillermo (2015). El Voto. Expresión del poder ciudadano. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-987-02-8472-7.
38. "Law 14,032". Sistema Argentino de Información Jurídica.
39. Encarta-encyclopedie Winkler Prins (1993–2002) s.v. "Kiesstelsel. §1.1 Federale verkiezingen". Microsoft Corporation/Het Spectrum.
40. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2019/03/20/elections-2019-the-european-parliament/
41. Bhuwan Chandra Upreti (2010). Nepal: Transition to Democratic Republican State : 2008 Constituent Assembly. Gyan Publishing House. pp. 69–. ISBN 978-81-7835-774-4.
42. Encarta-encyclopedie Winkler Prins (1993–2002) s.v. "Kiesstelsel. §1.1 Geschiedenis". Microsoft Corporation/Het Spectrum.
43. "PNG voting system praised by new MP". ABC. 12 December 2003. Archived from the original on 4 January 2005. Retrieved 19 May 2015.
44. "Which European countries use proportional representation?". www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Retrieved 1 December 2019.

External links

• A handbook of Electoral System Design from International IDEA
• ACE Project: What is the electoral system for Chamber 1 of the national legislature?
• ACE Project: First Past The Post – Detailed explanation of first-past-the-post voting
• ACE Project: Experiments with moving away from FPTP in the UK
• ACE Project: Electing a President using FPTP
• ACE Project: FPTP on a grand scale in India
• 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.
• Vote No to Proportional Representation BC
• Fact Sheets on Electoral Systems provided to members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, British Columbia.
• The Problem With First-Past-The-Post Electing (data from UK general election 2005)
• The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained (video) on YouTube
• The fatal flaws of First-past-the-post electoral systems

v t e Parliament of New Zealand
Components	Monarch (represented by the Governor-General) Legislative Council (1841–1853) Legislative Council (1853–1950) House of Representatives
Parliamentary officers	Legislative Council Speaker of the Legislative Council (defunct) Chairman of Committees (defunct) Leader of the Legislative Council (defunct) House of Representatives Speaker of the House of Representatives Chairman of Committees (defunct) Clerk Leader of the House Ministers Prime Minister Leader of the Opposition Shadow Ministry Shadow Leader of the House Whips
Members	Legislative Council Abolition of the Legislative Council Members of the Legislative Council House of Representatives Current (previous) 30+ years Father or Mother of the House Baby of the House
Procedure	Speech from the throne Question Time Readings of bills Members' bills Committees King's Consent Royal assent
Elections	Previous Next List Electoral system Mixed-member proportional (current) First-past-the-post (previously) Electorates By-elections Appointments Supplementary elections (defunct) Caretaker government
Locations	General Assembly House, Auckland (demolished) Parliament House, Wellington (current) Beehive (current executive wing) Parliamentary Library (current) Bowen House (current)
Miscellaneous	Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Legislature broadcasters in New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Waka-jumping

• Use dmy dates from May 2011
• Single-winner electoral systems