First Past the Post

• Where is FPTP used?

  England and Wales
• What is FPTP known as?

  A plurality system meaning that each voter can only vote for one candidate and the person with the largest number of votes in a constituency is elected
• What are the two types of seats that FPTP creates?

  Safe seats and marginal seats
• What are safe seats?

  Safe seats are electoral districts where a political party consistently wins by a large margin in election and there is little chance of the seat changing parties
• What is a marginal seat?

  Seats where the winning party won by a slim majority. These seats are very likely to change hands between elections
• Example of a marginal seat


  Fife North East was won by the SNP by 2 votes
• How many constituencies are there in the UK?

  650
• What is an advantage of FPTP?

  Speed and simplicity: FPTP is easy to use, with voters making a single cross and choosing one candidate. The result is usually known early in the morning after polling day and a new government is rapidly formed, allowing a swift and orderly transfer of power.
• After the 2010 general election in Belgium, which uses a proportional system, it took almost 18 months to form a government. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but the fact remains that proportional systems are far less decisive than FPTP.
• FPTP provides a strong and stable government: FPTP tends to promote a two-party system, which gives voters a clear choice. At general elections it usually gives a clear majority to one party, which then has a mandate to carry out its programme. The government can be removed at the next general election if the voters disapprove of its record.
• Proportional representation is far more likely than FPTP to produce a coalition government. This means that the government’s programme will be worked out behind closed doors in negotiations between the party leaders, without the voters having the opportunity to give their verdict on it. In addition coalitions are sometimes unstable and can break up if one of the coalition parties has a fundamental disagreement with its partner.
• FPTP can help exclude extremist parties
• FPTP establishes a strong link between MPs and their constituencies. MPs handle correspondence from their constituents and hold surgeries at which they make themselves available to those seeking help and advice.
• A disadvantage of FPTP is that MPs and governments can be elected on less than 50 per cent of the vote: More than half

  of MPs typically do not command majority support within their constituency. This is because they do not need an overall majority of the votes cast, but can win by gaining just one more vote than the second placed candidate. It is quite possible for more votes to be cast against rather than for the winning candidate.
• At national level: FPTP regularly produces governments elected on a minority of the popular vote. The lowest percentage was recorded in 2005, when Tony Blair was re-elected on 35.2 per cent of the vote. This weakens the mandate enjoyed by the winning party, especially as general elections since 2001 have been characterised by low voter turnout. This feature means that significant numbers of voters feel that the system lacks legitimacy
• Lack of proportionality: FPTP does not translate the number of votes into seats for each party with any real accuracy. The system favours parties whose vote is concentrated, rather than those whose support is spread across a large geographical area. A party may come second in a large number of seats, but FPTP does not reward this because only one candidate can win in each constituency. For example, UKIP won almost 3.9 million votes in 2015, but only one seat.
• The winner’s bonus:The winning party under FPTP enjoys a share of the seats in excess of the share of the vote it receives. This occurs if a large number of seats are marginal between the two main parties. In 2015, the Conservatives won 50.9% of the seats with 36.9% of the vote
• FPTP limits the choice for voters in several ways. Each party puts forward a single candidate, so there is no choice between individuals representing different shades of opinion within the party. The prevalence of safe seats means that many voters have little hope of seeing their favoured candidate win.
• In the run-up to the 2015 general election the Electoral Reform Society estimated that 364 seats – 56% of the total – were safe seats
• Under FPTP, people may resort to tactical voting