First Past the Post the true title of the system is ‘plurality within single-member constituencies’, and the term ‘first past the post’ really refers to the characteristic that it grants power to the first party which achieves a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.

Some basic facts: • In the UK it is used for general elections and for local elections in England and Wales. • It is a very unusual system in the democratic world. The other main examples are elections to the US Senate and House of Representatives. • It has been in existence in the UK in its basic form since 1832. Candidate Votes won % of vote won A 25,000 45.5 B 20,000 36.3 C 10,000 18.2

How does it work? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKAAq_8Poqo&safe=active Write your own ‘story’ of FPTP in the UK (explain how it works) Keywords to use: Constituency, constituent, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Prime Minister, party, electorate, electoral system, candidate.

How does it work? • Each constituency returns one member. • There is only one candidate nominated by each party (plus some independents). • Voters can only vote for one candidate. • The winner in each constituency is the one who wins the most votes, even if this is not an absolute majority. • Such a simple majority is known as a plurality.

Effects No party has won an overall majority of the votes in a general election. The system almost always produces an outright winner in term of a Commons majority. February 1974 was the first occasion when no single party won an overall majority since 1945 (Labour forming a short- lived minority administration), then again in 2010. Small parties are discriminated against In four of the seven elections since 1979 the government won an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons. The value of a vote is determined by where you live and the concentration of votes in that area. In 2016 Half of all votes (50% exactly) went to losing candidates, representing some 15 million people who did not see their choice reflected in the outcome. This is a similar figure to 2010, when 52.8% of votes went to losing candidates. The number of MPs elected on less than 40% of votes doubled between 2005 and 2010 (55 to 111). This election that trend went into reverse with only 50 candidates elected on less than 40% of the vote. Yet some 331 of 650 MPs were elected without an absolute majority. Eight MPs won on less than 35% of votes cast, and one broke the record for the lowest winning share of the vote in UK electoral history, with 24.5% (Dr Alasdair McDonnell, South Belfast, SDLP) For the previous three elections, no MP has achieved the support of 50% of the total electorate in their constituency. This changed this year, with three MPs getting the support of over 50% of the electorate (Knowsley, Liverpool Walton and Liverpool West Derby). 191 MPs however were elected with the support of less than 30% of their whole electorate.

In 2010 the Conservative and Labour parties secured 65% of the vote and 87% of the seats. In 2016 they achieved just over 67% of the vote resulting in nearly 87% of the seats for these two parties. The Conservatives and Labour have even greater disproportional sway in England and Wales, with 98% of the available seats between them on 72.6% of the vote. The Conservative party is governing on less than 37% of the popular vote. Taking turnout into account, the current government commands the support of just a quarter (24.4%) of the registered electorate.

The SNP received 4. 7% per cent of the national vote share (up from 1 The SNP received 4.7% per cent of the national vote share (up from 1.7% in 2010) and 50% of the vote share in Scotland. This was an impressive result yet this result was magnified and translated from a landslide into a tsunami, resulting in 95% of Scottish seats. This leaves only three MPs (5% of the total) to reflect unionist support in Scotland – a body of opinion that received 55.3% of votes in the referendum in 2014. While the SNP have clearly gained support from ‘No’ voters as well as from the ‘Yes’ camp, that there is such a small unionist voice in Scotland is potentially a further reflection of a broken electoral system.

Why do these effects occur? • The system favours parties whose vote is concentrated (mainly Labour). • It therefore discriminates against parties whose support is dispersed (Conservatives to some extent, but mainly Liberal Democrats). • Voters who support parties which seem bound to lose, or who live in constituencies where the result is a foregone conclusion (so-called ‘safe seats’), feel that their votes are wasted and so may not vote. • Tactical voting— the practice whereby voters who know their votes will not affect the result vote for their second-choice party in order to have an influence on the result.

What are the dis/advantages of this system?