Articles, Blog

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained

August 13, 2019

Welcome to the problem with first past the
post voting explained by me, C. G. P. Grey The royal family has a problem. But this isn’t
just any royal family, these are the lions — rulers of the jungle since time immemorial. There are protests over the monarchy’s absolute
power and the citizens of the Animal Kingdom want a say in how they are governed. Bending to the pressure, Lion has abdicated
his crown and king is to be an elected office. To ensure a smooth transition — and because
she is craftier than her husband — the queen lioness is remaining on the throne with the
power to set the rules for all elections in her kingdom. She has declared that all citizens get one
and only one vote and that the candidate with the most votes wins the crown. This method of voting is most often called
First Past the Post (awkwardly abbreviated as FPTP) or Winner Take All. This system is simple, fair and logical. Right? Actually, no. It’s a terrible, terrible idea. Why? Well, to see the problems with first past
the post, lets watch the first election unfold in the Animal Kingdom It’s an exciting time for the burgeoning democracy
and seven hopeful candidates come forward to run and represent their parties. They put
on their best campaigns, citizens head out to the polls and the votes are counted. The
results come in as follows: Turtle gets 9% of the vote. Monkey gets 18%. Gorilla gets 19%. Owl gets 13%. Leopard gets 20%. Tiger gets 15%. Snake gets 6%. Under the rules of First Past the Post, Leopard
is Crowned the winner and she gets to rule for the length of her term. But take another look at the results, and
you see the first problem with this system: minority rule. The vast majority of citizens
— 80% — wanted someone else as king, but Leopard still won. There were only seven candidates
in this race but if you imagine that had been twenty, she might only gotten 5% of the vote,
but still been elected. This problem with minority rule is only the
beginning. The second problem with first past the post
is that, given enough time, it results in an inevitable, unavoidable two-party system. Why? To see, lets watch what happens over several
election cycles… Leopard has had her term in office and it’s
election time in the young democracy. Only now, all the citizens of the Animal Kingdom
remember the results from last time. This information changes how they will behave.
Particularly Snake and Turtle voters — who must face the reality that they backed unappealing,
extremist candidates who don’t have a chance of winning. Turtle voters, who were unhappy under Leopard
rule, decided to back the candidate who has the best chance winning, Gorilla. Now snake voters want to vote for Tiger — who
is the candidate they have the most in common with, but they are afraid to because Leopard
is running a negative campaign against her competitors. Snake voters, not liking the idea of Gorilla
rule, vote strategically for Leopard. The final results look like this, with Leopard
getting 26% of the vote and Gorilla getting 28, making him the new king. Snake and Turtle, seeing their dismal results
and the cost of their campaigns decide to drop out of future races. What started out as a seven party system is
now down to five. Fast-Forward to the next election: Only five candidates run, and again the voters
remember what happened last time. In this election, it’s Owl voters who recognize
that their candidate cannot win. They are centrist voters and less ideological than
the rest of the Animal Kingdom — as such they don’t really like either Gorilla or Leopard. Both Gorilla and Leopard know this, so they
each negative campaigns to capitalize on the fears of the centrists. Owl voters split their vote, and are mostly
voting against the candidate they dislike, rather than supporting the candidate they
do like. After this election, Gorilla gets 33% of the
vote and leopard gets 34% making her the winner. Owl, as did Turtle and Snake before her, drops
out of the race. In the last election we will look at, Monkey
and Tiger voters are unhappy. They both really like the candidates they have supported, but
they have to compromise. Monkey voters, agree with Gorilla on a few issues but they really
don’t like Leopard. Tiger voters agree with leopard on some issues, but really don’t like
Gorilla. They strategically abandon their preferred
candidate out of fear of the one they disagree with the most becoming king. The final results are Leopard 49% and Gorilla
51% with him being crowned king. Monkey and Tiger are the last candidates to
drop out and now the Animal Kingdom is left with a two party system. Because of the centrist and sway-able Owl
voters, in future elections Leopard might take the crown, then Gorilla wins it back,
only to lose it two Leopard again, but the two parties never change. The citizens of animal kingdom ended up with
this system, not because they are lazy voters or because its what they really wanted, but
because of the mathematics of how the system is set up. Inevitably, given enough time, all first past
the post systems trend towards two main parties. But the choices of the voters still hasn’t
changed since that first election. Only two-fifths of them want either Leopard or Gorilla as
their first choice and 3/5ths of them want someone else as their first choice. It’s this majority of the voters that become
disinterested in the democratic process because they feel they have no meaningful way to express
their real preferences. But it only gets worse from here. If the citizens
of Animal Kingdom are divided into groups before they vote, they are susceptible to
gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a bit tricky, but imagine
a block of ten homes each with one voter inside. Three are Leopard voters, three are Gorilla
voters and four are Owl voters. If the voters are divided up into groups before
they vote, whoever decides where the lines are drawn has enormous influence on who will
win the election. For example, if you group the three Leopard
voters with two Owl voters and do the same with the three gorilla voters. You can illuminate
owl from the election, even though owl voters have the largest minority and should win under
a straight first-past-the post vote. If the leopard and gorilla parties are in
charge when the voting boundaries are drawn, they have enormous incentive to carve out
safe seats for themselves. But more on Gerrymandering in another video. Bah! You say, Vote 3rd party and change the
system! This brings us to the final, and possibly
worst, problem of First Past the Post: the Spoiler Effect Imagine now its been years and years of Gorilla
and Leopard rule. Tiger decides it’s time to enter the race.
He thinks that the voters are tired of the status-quo and he has a shot at winning. He sets up his campaign office, gets a surprising
amount of gold in donations and gets on the Animal News Network to debate with the main
candidates. Election night comes around, but alas, Tiger
gets only 15% of the vote — mostly from Leopard voters, who are closest to him on the political
spectrum. Gorilla easily beats Leopard and gets to be king. The first past the post system at its worst:
the better a 3rd party candidate does, the more it hurts its own voters by guaranteeing
a loss for the party they most agree with and a win for the party they disagree with. And don’t forget, Gorilla is no fool: he knows
how the system works. Where do you think some of those gold donations came from? Meanwhile, The Queen Lioness is displeased. She’s been observing the elections and sees
that the system is bad for her subjects. And she’s been thinking, what makes a good voting
system? Well… You should be able to vote for the candidate
you like the most, without worrying. More choice in representatives is better. The system shouldn’t be susceptible to gerrymandering. And it should be open to new political parties. Luckily for the queen, there are several different
voting systems to choose from — including the alternative vote. But that will have to
be discussed in detail at another time. Thank you very much for watching.


  • Reply SuperStar Swadloon January 29, 2019 at 4:28 pm

    What if they can only have a set ammunt of terms, will that help the system at all?

  • Reply Some Guy January 30, 2019 at 11:52 pm

    Howard Schultz seriously needs to watch this video.

  • Reply Saumitra Chakravarty January 31, 2019 at 3:53 pm

    George Orwell must be turning in his grave.

  • Reply cantbeleveitsnotnaru February 2, 2019 at 6:57 pm

    I am thoroughly pissed that the BC elections chose to keep this stupid fucking system. AGAIN!!!!

  • Reply Azar K. February 5, 2019 at 12:01 pm

    Ingenius, indeed…

  • Reply Podcast na hÉireann February 7, 2019 at 5:54 pm

    So happy I live in Ireland???

  • Reply Li February 8, 2019 at 6:23 pm

    He really did solve the problem of talking abt politics without sounding biased to a party ??????

  • Reply Nishita Bhowmik February 10, 2019 at 11:47 am

    My my its been 8 years!!

  • Reply ManPig Zepeda February 12, 2019 at 2:36 am

    So many assumptions. Firstly all voters change party's and why doesn't another candidate come forward for that party that originally lost I mean come on.

  • Reply Joël Mentor February 14, 2019 at 6:04 am

    Literally the US election.

  • Reply Jiminy Cricket February 15, 2019 at 1:47 am

    This is like TierZoo

  • Reply Henry Gaming February 15, 2019 at 5:47 pm

    This was made on my 1st birthday!

  • Reply drmadjdsadjadi February 16, 2019 at 3:53 am

    It does NOT "inevitably" result in a two-party system. Just look at Canada for proof. In 1993, the Progressive Conservative Party was in power but they lost an election where they went from majority government to losing official party status. They would never again hold power until they combined with the Canadian Alliance (which had been founded in 2000 and it, in turn, had been formed out of the former Reform Party of Canada that was founded in 1987). Then, in 2011, the Liberal Party of Canada, went from Official Opposition to third party, not just in seats but also in votes, only to once again form the government following the 2015 election. Two-party systems may tend to dominate but they are by no means monolithic as your video would suggest in first past the post systems and it is quite possible for third parties to supplant major parties from time to time (especially when major parties self-destruct, such as the Liberals did in the UK – after forming the government up until 1922 (they foolishly split themselves into two factions, a National Liberal group headed by David Lloyd George, the-then PM and the former PM, H. H. Asquith), they then compounded their foolishness by recklessly supporting a Labour government in 1923 because of their deep hatred for the Conservatives, which actually held the most seats in Parliament in that election. This effectively ended the Liberal reign as one of the two major parties in the UK. They MIGHT have been able to recover from their initial 1922 election blunder but they definitely could not survive the 1923 election fiasco.

    The key is that the whole purpose for third parties (and why we still vote for them) in a FPTP system is so that someone can pick up the pieces when one of the two major parties inevitably self-destruct and that is what stops us from having one-party dictatorships. The second purpose of third parties is for the two major parties to steal all their good ideas from the third parties just so that the two major parties DON'T self-destruct!

  • Reply sujeet tiwary February 18, 2019 at 6:53 pm

    Amazing work

  • Reply silvia romano February 18, 2019 at 8:03 pm

    Cough America Cough

  • Reply Jez I AM February 20, 2019 at 8:33 am

    For fucks sake sloooooooo down your EXPLANATION !!!! We're trying to LEARN something.

  • Reply Jez I AM February 20, 2019 at 8:38 am

    This explains the current system in the UK with the emergence of the new The Independent Group….. I refuse to vote for either of the two main parties, so for me, UK Politics is indeed broken.

  • Reply Polar GrizBear February 20, 2019 at 2:15 pm

    Turtle for 2020

  • Reply Hayden Dunstan February 20, 2019 at 11:09 pm

    In Canada the Green Party is growing

  • Reply I just wanna have fun February 25, 2019 at 1:43 am

    1:22. Well, ITS PacMan dating eating a piece of pie or cake

  • Reply EVERETT KLING February 26, 2019 at 1:11 am

    so grey i love your vids and all, but you could have just said popular vote when you were describing fptp

  • Reply wp r February 26, 2019 at 1:11 am

    It should be called First Past the Others, since there is no 'post' or objective threshold in place.

  • Reply DaBurntToaster February 26, 2019 at 1:24 am

    isnt the whole point of the electoral college to allow minorities to have a voice?
    I agree that first past the post sucks, but I'd still like to preserve the ability for the small minority to win when they are right and the majority is wrong.
    isnt that one of the founding principles of our nation? our ancestors were the minority and they fought for their freedom and won against the odds.

  • Reply Pen BFDI February 26, 2019 at 8:13 am

    666 dislikes lol
    btw someone copied your video

  • Reply gil February 28, 2019 at 8:53 pm

    Well… fuck fptp

  • Reply James Gutman March 6, 2019 at 2:03 am


  • Reply Videotology March 6, 2019 at 4:00 am

    Would it still count as voting if the candidate pulls a shotgun to my head and says, "Vote for me or you and your family will die"?

  • Reply Dravus Royce March 7, 2019 at 2:18 pm

    I know! I figured it out, people need to be able to vote more than once but only once per candidate, if you vote for all the candidates you are okay with then the most people turn out happy. For instance, while Lincolns presidency was a blessing, if a system like mine was in place, the southern vote could show their distaste for the Republican candidate and the true winner (the southerner) would have come out. The system is just as stable and expresses the true values of the people under it’s rule

  • Reply Dohiya Novak March 8, 2019 at 7:14 pm

    I've been thinking for a while about types of voting, trying to come up with a system that would be fair. During this endeavor, I have realized the importance of abstinence which modern voting systems seem to ignore. I think that one should always have the choice to abstain, and that whoever counts the votes can understand what it means, why people abstain. An important reason one may abstain was brought up recently by the amazing atheist, he said that he refused to vote because none of the options were good enough. But our voting system doesn't count abstinence, so really that was pointless. I think a good voting system would have the option to abstain on the ticket, and also the option to abstain against. That is, there are many reasons one may abstain, like a lack of interest or understanding, but when someone is trying to say that none of the options are good enough, they should have the option to abstain against, to let the counters know.

  • Reply Shubham Shetty March 9, 2019 at 11:14 am

    but this is assuming leopard voters will always vote for leopard in all elections

  • Reply Banananan March 9, 2019 at 3:52 pm

    got shown this at school. Accidentally shouted "THAT'S CGP GREY"

  • Reply MLDKF March 14, 2019 at 4:56 am

    I immediately thought of this video with an election that happened yesterday in the town of Fall River, Mass. There, the citizens had a special election asking if they wanted to recall the current mayor and who they wanted as their new mayor. Despite 60% of all votes saying they wanted the mayor to be recalled, he still won the election as he was on the ballot of "who do you want to be the new mayor" with a vote of 35% because no one else got as much

  • Reply Jakethehoff March 14, 2019 at 11:40 pm

    this was proportional representation

  • Reply Ali Lalani March 18, 2019 at 7:58 am

    This is why there are checks and balances within the country, why the Congress and the Senate exist. They cancel out the FPTP system by allowing for greater representation within government and limiting the president's power. By electing a representative more tailored towards a county's needs they get the representation THEY deserve, while still keeping the political system nice and simple. Lion voted representatives in Congress can vote against Gorilla legislation forcing a compromise between parties and ensuring equal representation.

  • Reply Muhammad Badhon March 20, 2019 at 1:00 pm

    I may be biased, but Australian voting system solves all these problems mentioned in the video. #auspol #australia #IRV

  • Reply Josu Carte García March 20, 2019 at 9:46 pm

    However, in a system where citizens don't drectly elect their King and, instead, elect representatives that choose kings, in the last scenario, Tiger and Leopard could reach an agreement and form a Government of coallition, naming a Tiger representative king, who will have to compromise some of his policy to please Leopard party.

  • Reply echelon anglo March 22, 2019 at 1:22 pm

    What about Ballotage?

  • Reply Gariel2007 March 27, 2019 at 1:01 am

    Solo I'm realy starting to like this singularity idea…

  • Reply Tracey Gonzalez March 28, 2019 at 7:09 pm

    vote for owl, he's a centrist

  • Reply trollbreeder March 29, 2019 at 12:44 pm

    Watch Politics in the Animal Kingdom for information on better solutions to this political mess.

  • Reply A Nonny Mouse April 3, 2019 at 12:20 am

    Without gerrymandering, FPTP elects the most popular candidate, while single transferable vote elects the least unpopular. In a two party system this gives the same result, but with many competing parties the leader is selected by a small minority of traditionalist voters when using FPTP. While this limits the power of minority extremists, it disenfranchises the majority of the voters, leading to electoral apathy.

    Popularity may be a good way to select a prom queen, but it has never been a good basis for selecting a leader. The normal result is the election of the party with the most talented liars, and the gradual decline in honesty and integrity in all parties, as they are forced to compete in the morass of political deception.

  • Reply shona beggs April 3, 2019 at 9:53 am

    Even worse when people realise the two parties are one & the same, despite their faux outrage against the other!

  • Reply Chris McElroy April 3, 2019 at 6:20 pm

    I wonder in political theory if we made like a pentacameral legislative branch as opposed to a bicameral one. Chamber 1 being small districts with first past the post representatives, chamber 2 being a senate with equal amount of distributed representatives, chamber 3 being a parliament style equal party distribution, chamber 4 being proportionate representation based on ethnicity, chamber 5 being equal representation based on income

  • Reply Doreen Savoie April 10, 2019 at 3:50 pm

    Suck it up sweethearts

  • Reply da yo boi April 13, 2019 at 9:23 am

    Seriously what is BG music name?

  • Reply Eric Perdomo April 13, 2019 at 8:33 pm

    The us gov needs 2 be reformEd

  • Reply Alayne Sims April 15, 2019 at 2:19 am

    So, if this is a bad voting system, why is the world continuously using it, are we getting fooled?

  • Reply Marechal Zolotoy April 21, 2019 at 9:47 pm

    Solution: Guild votes
    I thought abouut this just now and I wanna know if there is any problem on it for you guys:
    1- Every working class is now its own guild. No cooperation is mandatory between their members, though, this is just a name for simplifying the process
    2- The guilds are divided into local state divisions (e.g.: State Division of the Miners of California)
    3- The state divisions are divided into even smaller outposts, called district divisions (e.g.: District Division of the Miners of Santa Fe Within the Miner's Guild of California [is Santa Fe even in California? I don't know, I'm not American)
    4- In these districtal divisions, the candidates for the election are voted. An approval of 51% or more in the general scheme allows for a candidate to run
    5- The real vote is taken, this time with an approval rating of 55% needed for a candidate to win. If there is no candidate with such a percentage of votes, the two most voted candidates shall be voted again
    6- You have a democratic Soviet Union

  • Reply Greg Glasgow April 25, 2019 at 1:43 am

    Super analogy and presentation
    . Thanks

  • Reply NegatingSilence May 1, 2019 at 6:10 am

    Between many decisions, only one decision can be made. The collapse from many opinions to one decision comes at some point regardless of what you do–it's just that with FPTP some of that collapse happens earlier and more visibly. Believing there are no pros and cons to the system is simplistic thinking.

  • Reply Christine H May 2, 2019 at 12:55 am

    Canadian politics explain with animals

  • Reply Mitchell Short May 3, 2019 at 8:45 pm

    Deliver the BREXIT that all the animal kingdom wants

  • Reply Ninja Playz YT May 10, 2019 at 7:36 pm

    Leapord in the first part:YO SHUT UP IN KING NOW

  • Reply Louie B. Torres May 11, 2019 at 2:45 am

    I'm pretty sure we use FPTP in the Philippines, but I guess we're not too far though because we still have many candidates running.

  • Reply Marcus James May 20, 2019 at 11:52 am

    It's a flawed analogy in some ways – What we see today are preferential systems that are open to bias and corruption- an example being Clive Palmer in the Australian 2019 election who spent 60m dollars of his own money to buy votes only to give them to another party – he had no interest in winning or serving the people. He needed a coal mine approved and thus he a ran a campaign to make sure the party he wanted to win won! The two party preferred system in Australia needs to change!

  • Reply Joeinc 123 May 22, 2019 at 8:22 pm

    Mr. Bishop American Gov. WYA?

  • Reply Betsy Kerr May 23, 2019 at 4:40 pm

    You talked so fast I missed many of your words, so I stopped listening. Be more deliberate and articulate.

  • Reply Sunita Lekkala May 24, 2019 at 4:12 pm

    She is the king

  • Reply The Ranger May 27, 2019 at 10:10 am

    Youre too fast to catch all your lines for non english speakers. I wish you have it in writings. (Not caption but blog or something like that)

  • Reply Jordan Read May 28, 2019 at 4:27 am

    This is why I like Australia. We don't use first past the post.

  • Reply TechPriest Magos AdeonE-409 May 28, 2019 at 11:14 am

    "Rulers of the jungle"

  • Reply RigityRigity RektSun May 30, 2019 at 9:07 pm

    A two-party system creates stability.

  • Reply KingHalbatorix May 31, 2019 at 4:45 pm

    meanwhile, in america:
    aBoLiSH tHe eLEcToRaL cOllEGe

  • Reply meghna sankhla June 8, 2019 at 8:41 am

    5:43 describes the Indian elections

  • Reply Anouar Chamu June 8, 2019 at 3:08 pm

    1:20 ummm actualy its 6 v 1. Other animals average around 13% and the lepeord 20% so its fair

  • Reply shakir johnson June 11, 2019 at 7:27 pm

    "Slow and steady wins the race" -the wise turtle

  • Reply Christian Petersen June 13, 2019 at 2:21 pm

    The threshold for gaining representation is effectively 50% in FPTP countries. The elite of such a country will shamelessly exploit that threshold to the limit. If 48% of the voters want to blow up the Moon, their response is: "meh, fuck em, let's game the system until 49.999% of the voters are batshit insane! Donald Trump will never be president HAHAHAHA!!!!" Well, how did that hopey changey stuff work out for ya!?

    In my country, a party only needs 2% of the votes to gain representation. That means the elite will push the envelope until 1.9999% of the population are screaming for muslims to be deported, obviously. In the current election, the party of death and destruction did not manage to clear the 2% threshold… The elites made their calculations correctly this time. This is why FPTP is inferior.

    You can remember it with this allegory: In both voting systems, there is about 50% risk that a clown will appear in your house. If you have proportional representation, he will live in the attic for 4 years. But with FPTP… you will live in the attic.

  • Reply imyoume1-IG imyoume1-IG June 14, 2019 at 3:38 am

    But the "Dingo" didn't eat his baby

  • Reply imyoume1-IG imyoume1-IG June 14, 2019 at 3:39 am

    We not monkeying around in the Animal Kingdom

  • Reply imyoume1-IG imyoume1-IG June 14, 2019 at 3:40 am

    What the hell did youtube take me

  • Reply imyoume1-IG imyoume1-IG June 14, 2019 at 3:42 am

    Am I high right now WTF

  • Reply Carl Kirchhoff June 18, 2019 at 6:14 pm

    But lions don't even live in the jungle!

  • Reply AwesomeMan1000 and crew June 21, 2019 at 12:28 am

    If you’re wondering what the two parties for the us are they’re the democrats and republicans

  • Reply Emre GUNAY June 21, 2019 at 11:57 am


  • Reply super star 64 June 22, 2019 at 6:04 am

    Twist: this was all a conspiracy to make people prefer a monarchy instead

  • Reply Candy Neige June 22, 2019 at 10:05 am

    France uses first past the post (FPTP) voting, however, even with that, France still has 11 parties, how it's that even possible ?

  • Reply Jackninja5 June 23, 2019 at 2:57 pm

    1:59 I don't know. Extremists seem to be winning elections more nowadays.

  • Reply Ali Talha Değirmenci June 25, 2019 at 1:33 pm

    18 +15 =33 lol they were idiots they could have made 3 party system

  • Reply Brian Jensvold June 29, 2019 at 12:05 am

    What happened at the end didn't it used to list other systems?

  • Reply caolan feely June 29, 2019 at 4:28 pm

    I always knew turtles were fascist

  • Reply Piotr Dudała July 6, 2019 at 3:45 pm

    Simple and straightforward: 0. in case multiple candidates (e.g. parliment is elected), number of places is adjusted for participation in election. 1. any number of political parties can run – votes are spread proportionally among number of available seats (after participation collection), with parties winning less than single seat are awared single seat and free to settle among themselves who will hold it 2. parties who won more than one seat, have to spread them among candidates in order of number of votes they received.

  • Reply Matthew J. July 10, 2019 at 8:56 pm


  • Reply Feita Jin July 12, 2019 at 12:07 pm

    The method counts votes for and against:

  • Reply Comrade Cake July 13, 2019 at 9:44 pm

    Who else wanted turtle to win?

  • Reply wakeup July 14, 2019 at 6:50 am

    OK DID I M9S SOMETHING?? I WAS JUST @ THE ZOO LAST WEEK I DIDNT SEE NOTHING LIKE THIS …VOTING ANIMALS WTF ? Everyone gets their own 100 Acres protection GUNS house barn tractor seed water well and Wi-Fi..all must police … small (( the way ))… neighbour helping each other… wait it's little house on the prairie….. .

  • Reply Woodstud66 July 14, 2019 at 10:06 pm

    Hey Ray,soy boy Ray,demorats are the problem,your a pathetic soy boy,go ride off a cliff and do the Patriots a favor

  • Reply DougtheDonkeyTV July 17, 2019 at 2:56 am

    I really thought turtle would be a good president, but after hearing that he was an extremist I think I’ll have to vote with gorilla- I would go with owl, but I’m still slightly inclined to vote on the upper-side of the spectrum

  • Reply Aleks Hunter July 19, 2019 at 1:31 pm

    Fast Forward to 2019 Welcome in Germany….Congrats

  • Reply Vinish July 21, 2019 at 2:26 am

    Lions don’t live in jungles

  • Reply Vinish July 21, 2019 at 2:36 am

    Okay so what you’re implying is that a 3rd party vote goes for a candidate most like the one you would vote for? Jill Stein was more politically similar to Hillary than Trump but I would not have casted my vote for Hillary if you put a gun to my head. So what you’re saying doesn’t make sense to me

  • Reply Dovahkiin King July 24, 2019 at 11:59 am

    But what if you don't get to vote for who your king is, but instead 538 retired senators and rich people vote for you instead? Damn you electoral college.

  • Reply Neurofied Yamato July 25, 2019 at 3:21 am

    US voting system in a nutshell, although a lot of nation use this system too. But from what i have found no one have devolved in to a two party system as severely as the US have… YET.

  • Reply Elijah Ford July 29, 2019 at 5:11 am

    Better than the stupid electoral collage

  • Reply Elijah Ford July 29, 2019 at 5:14 am

    Rank choice voting still ends up with basically a two party system.

  • Reply gokul balagopal August 2, 2019 at 11:22 am

    This one of the main reasons why India which has so many parties and different kinds of people end up with two main parties

  • Reply Lone Wanderer August 2, 2019 at 11:48 am

    You missed Canada's FPTP issues. Most of Canada's population is in the East, and Canada has several time zones, meaning that a FPTP election can be over before any province West of Ontario has closed polling.

  • Reply Tibor Seres August 3, 2019 at 10:56 am

    If you didnt live in america you eould know this is not true. You forget to count in that in every election new parties come in.

  • Reply Kiran Prasad August 6, 2019 at 3:34 pm is a petition I started. Sign if you believe in proportional representation

  • Reply Sephistius Reyus August 6, 2019 at 9:54 pm

    what about a 50% vote?

  • Reply dsws2 August 13, 2019 at 10:12 am

    I don't like the name "first past the post". The whole point is that there is no post. The "post" in the phrase refers to the object that marks the finish line of a horse-racing track. The winner of a horse race is whichever horse is first when they reach the finish line. If no horse reaches the finish line, there is no winner. In a "first past the post" election, by contrast, if no candidate makes it to 50% plus half a vote (or 50% plus one, if the number of voters is even), whichever candidate makes it the farthest is the winner.

    Why not just call it "plurality voting"? The complete description would be "winner-take-all plurality voting", but "plurality" gets the main point across while being accurate.

  • Leave a Reply