the difference between proportional representation and first-past-the-post voting systems

225 views

With examples, thanks.

In: 9

5 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

First Past the Post is used in the UK and Canada in General Elections. The country is divided into constituencies (Ridings in Canada) of roughly equal population, each of which returns (elects) one Member of Parliament (MP). All electors have a chance to vote and most votes wins, so if candidate A gets 10,000 votes, candidate B 9,999 and candidate C 9,999 then candidate A wins. An advantage of this system is that there is a clear link between the people and the representative (everyone knows who their MP is and had the chance to vote for their preferred candidate). A disadvantage is that many people feel their vote is ‘wasted’ or they can’t vote for their preferred candidate or party because they have no chance of winning, so vote for what they perceive as the least-worst option.

In Proportional Representation, much larger populations and geographic areas are grouped together and elect multiple representatives, roughly in line with the share of the vote that the party receives. This is its main advantage; every vote cast is important as it goes towards your favourite party’s total and helps them to get members elected. The disadvantage is that you’re not voting for a specific person and that the parties will typically have a “closed list”; i.e. if the area elects seven people then they will have a list of seven candidates and, because you vote for a party not a person, the candidates simply get elected from top to bottom on the list so the party chooses the order based on who they, no necessarily the electors, want to see returned.

You are viewing 1 out of 5 answers, click here to view all answers.