First past the post system

Lockstep

I have a vague idea of how it works given that it's simple enough (Winner takes all), but came across the claims that in a system with say, electoral colleges, it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but still lose the election.

WOuld someone be able to explain this to me?

turgon

In an electoral college, there are a number of districts each with a number of electors. For example, in Wyoming there are 3 electors. If you win a majority number of votes in Wyoming you get 3 electors.

So supposing you have 3 equal districts with 5 electors for each and 2 candidates A and B. A wins 60% of the vote in the first 2 districts but does not compete in the second district. So A gets the electors from the two districts he won, so 10 electors. B gets the electors from the district he won; that is the district A didnt compete in.

So A has 10 electors; B 5 so A wins. But if we count the popular vote we get:

|District 1|District 2| District 3|Total
A|60%|60%|0%|120%
B|40%|40%|100%|180%

So in this case B won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college. A similar case happened in the 2000 US Pres. Elections - Al Gore won the the Popular vote but Bush won the electoral college.

Asfaik theres a movement in the US to convert the election to a popular vote.

Lockstep

Thanks a million Turgon, very well explained.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MG

We've had two referendums on this issue in Ireland in 58 and 68. Both were defeated - for what reasons I'm not sure, probably a mixture of affinity to the PRSTV, local political interests and factors unrelated to the actual issue.

Riskymove

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

that really depends on what kind of election you are talking about. FPTP in a national contest (e.g. Irish Presidential election or referendum) would certainly result in that scenario.

FPTP in relation to constituencies would be different

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's also the problem with more than two candidates where the person/party with the most votes might have the minority of them. The British lib dems blame the first past the post system for gaining only 9.6% of the seats despite winning 22.1% of the vote in the 2005 General election.

Riskymove

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

yes but its also the case that many areas do get ignored under the current electoral system in the US too (e.g. a state with few electoral votes)

Almost every system has certain flaws. Even here boundary design can leave certain areas without a "voice"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Riskymove

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

absolutely...but given the prevelance of the two-party system its inevitable

in many elections (senate, congress etc) the votes to elect the candidate for a particular party are more important than the actual election, its such a foregone conclusion

Leonid

MG wrote: »

We've had two referendums on this issue in Ireland in 58 and 68. Both were defeated - for what reasons I'm not sure, probably a mixture of affinity to the PRSTV, local political interests and factors unrelated to the actual issue.

FF were worried that they would not be able to form majority governments without the leadership of DeValera. So they tried to get rid of PRSTV, by replacing it with first past the post. It was an unscrupulous attempt to further impose their tyranny on this fair land.:pac:

PR-STV was first implemented in Ireland by the British, it was used first for local Council elections in Sligo If I recall correctly.

Capt'n Midnight

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There's also the problem with more than two candidates where the person/party with the most votes might have the minority of them. The British lib dems blame the first past the post system for gaining only 9.6% of the seats despite winning 22.1% of the vote in the 2005 General election.

If your vote is spread evenly accross the whole country you will do very poorly in a first past the post system.

When you concentrate the vote in constituencies you can do well. Sinn Fein and DU together got 15 seats on 1.5% of the vote.


UKIP and Greens in the UK have even fared worse. Together they got 3.2% of the vote and no seats. In the EU elections they got 25.2% between them.

Just to repeat that again, 25% in EU elections, 0 seats in National elections.




Roughly speaking in the UK in recent elections a 5% change in votes causes a 50% change in the number of seats you win.