Talk:First-past-the-post voting

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First-past-the-post voting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Archives

Archive 1

Criticisms Unrepresentative numbers are wrong and don't match

Unlike what it says, Liberals were over-represented by 50 seats. they should have received 134 seats not 133 as written. Greens were unrepresented by 10. they should have received 11 seats, not 12 as written. Currently we have Liberals over-represented by 51 and other parties under-represented by 49 seats, which does not match and can be seen to be wrong if you look at the math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.203.119 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Effects" section

I propose editing this sentence: "The effect of a system based on plurality voting spread over a number of separate districts 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 gain a disproportionately small share.", my proposed edit is as follows:

I propose deleting ".. and parties with more geographically concentrated support.." because in reality a party with too great a geographic concentration of voters could lose out because because of waster "surplus" votes. Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inviting consensus on a difficult topic. So long as you can provide a supporting citation, no reason why not. It does strike me as a bit too 'purist' though, the article is about FPTP, not about proportionality.

But I notice that the current text is uncited, which is a problem in itself! I wonder if you have misread what it is trying to say because it doesn't say it very well. I believe that what it is trying to say is that a party with geographically concentrated support (PQ, SNP) get a "disproportionate" representation but only when set against their share of the total national (Canada, UK) vote. They would say that they got a fair share of their "nations'" vote, Quebec and Scotland. (Arguably, FPTP gave the SNP far more than their fair share).

So I guess I am saying that

the para needs a copyedit for clarity.
your reason for the change is valid but too far off topic / too subtle for this article.
citations needed!

I hope that helps. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)€

Thinking about this a bit more, the phrase you propose to delete is quite important. The 'test case' it describes is the 2017 United Kingdom general election, where the Liberal Democrats got 1.8% of the seats with 7.5% of the vote but the SNP got 5.4% of the seats with 3% of the UK vote. It seems to me to be really important not to lose that perspective. As I said above, the paragraph as it exists badly needs a rewrite so perhaps you could accommodate you concern by doing so? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mentioning of "election inversion" - why?

Election inversion is a standard term; and a phenomenon mainly occurring with FPTP (albeit not only: Rounding procedures can produce them also in proportional systems). Why isn't this even mentioned here, let alone discussed - see of course 2000 and 2016 in the US (Michael Geruso, Dean Spears, Ishaana Talesara. 2019. "Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016." NBER paper, slides by Nicholas R. Miller). --User:Haraldmmueller 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Haraldmmueller: I think this is the same as "majority reversal"? I added a note with these sources to First-past-the-post voting#Majority reversal. Thanks for the tip! -- Beland (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality reversals - other examples of 2nd party (in votes) winning majority of seats

Newfoundland and Labrador 1989, New Brunswick 1974 & 2006, Quebec 1966 & 1998, Saskatchewan 1986, British Columbia 1996.----Bancki (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choose-one voting

The folks at FairVote and the folks at the Center for Election Science have both been referring to this method as "choose-one voting".^[1]^[2]. It would appear that there's now a redirect from "Choose-one voting" to this article. Should we put something to the effect of "also called 'Choose-one voting" in the introduction to this voting method? -- RobLa (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RobLa: Added to the article; thanks for the suggestion and the citations! -- Beland (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Follow encyclopedia-article rules, please - what does Compensatory mean

The phrases "non-compensatory" and "compensatory" are used in a technical sense but nowhere defined, and neither is hot-linked to another Wikipedia article where we can learn what those words mean. "Compensating" FOR WHAT?2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Etymology

Why is this called 'first past the post'? What post? The winner is the one with the most votes, not the one with more than 50% of the votes. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem unhealthily attached to bad metaphors! —Tamfang (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we're up, is the term used anywhere outside the Commonwealth? —Tamfang (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on Reddit said it's in normal usage in the USA; I happen not to have consumed any domestic media that use it. —Tamfang (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why Japan is not in this ?

First past the post is the primary selection method in both lower and upper houses, although there is a system for preferential voting as well for certain block seats.

For lower house 289 out of 435 members are elected by first past post system, so good enough to mention that in the article, right ? 240B:10:2D83:2200:7D25:6B9E:E777:4915 (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be for legislatures that are 100% elected via FPTP. Several MMP, parallel voting, and party-list systems also incorporate FPTP mechanisms (such as the aforementioned Japan, Germany and New Zealand) but are not added here. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a different article from Plurality?

Shouldn't the Plurality article be merged into FPTP? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from FPTP, plurality voting also includes the multiple winner version of FPTP, Plurality block voting. Single non-transferable vote can also be described as plurality voting. The voting systems in the Multiple non-transferable vote can also be described as plurality voting. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of those can also be described as variants on FPTP. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 17:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not really. FPTP is specifically the single winner plurality. if it wasn't a more common name than SMP (single-member plurality), this article should still exist under that name, they have very different implications. Also, first-past-the-post is a misleading name, but it still is "first" past the post. Not first and second and third..

Plurality voting article is the place to show plurality voting in general (FPTP/BV/LV/SNTV etc) with a wide array of similarities and differences, and terminology related to plurality specifically (like that even TRS and IRV are often classified as variants of plurality). FPTP article is to focus on FPTP/SMP which is very widely used. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for IRV being classified as a variant of plurality? And why would we need to have an article that describes FPTP, BV, LV, and SNTV (instead of just having separate ones for each)? –Sincerely, A Lime 20:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split portions into article on single-member districts

In general, this article conflates two different aspects of an electoral system:

Single-member districts, and
First-preference plurality (choose-one) voting.

...but a country can use any method with single-member districts, or it can use block plurality voting or SNTV. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"SMDP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SMDP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § SMDP until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.fairvote.org/how_ranked_choice_voting_survives_the_one_person_one_vote_challenge

[2] ttps://electionscience.org/voting-methods/an-assessment-of-six-single-winner-voting-methods/

[1]

[2]