Question

The United States currently uses a voting system called "first past the post" in elections, meaning that the candidate with the most votes wins. What are some of the problems with a "first past the post" system?

Short answer

Some problems with the "first past the post" system in the United States include the spoiler effect, lack of proportional representation, voters not feeling represented, encouragement of tactical voting, and geographical concentration. The spoiler effect leads to a two-party system and prevents smaller parties from gaining support. Lack of proportional representation can result in a party with fewer votes securing more legislative seats. Voters may feel unrepresented if their preferred candidate loses, leading to decreased trust in the political system. Tactical voting prevents genuine expression of voter preferences and limits the validity of election results. Geographical concentration can lead to the underrepresentation of parties with dispersed support and no regional strongholds.

Step-by-step solution

Problem 1: Spoiler Effect

One problem with the first past the post system is the spoiler effect. This occurs when a third party candidate gains enough votes to prevent the most popular candidate from receiving a majority, causing the second most popular candidate to win. As a result, some voters might hesitate to vote for third party candidates, considering it as a "waste" of their vote. This could lead to a two-party system where smaller parties struggle to gain support.

Problem 2: Lack of Proportional Representation

Another issue with the first past the post system is the lack of proportional representation. The winner-take-all system means that a party with a plurality of votes receives all electoral seats in a district, even if the majority of voters did not support the winning party. This can result in a situation where a party that received fewer votes nationally may secure more seats in the legislature due to the distribution of their votes across districts.

Problem 3: Voters not represented

First past the post systems can result in many voters who supported losing candidates feeling unrepresented, as their vote did not contribute to the elected representative. This can reduce voter satisfaction and may lead to decreased trust in the political system.

Problem 4: Encouragement of Tactical Voting

Voters in first past the post systems might feel pressured to vote tactically, which means voting for a candidate other than their preferred choice for strategic reasons, such as preventing the victory of a candidate they strongly dislike. This can prevent voters from genuinely expressing their preferences, limiting the validity of the election's result.

Problem 5: Geographical Concentration

First past the post tends to favor parties with strong geographic concentrations of supporters. If a party has dispersed support across multiple electoral districts but fails to receive a plurality in any specific district, it will not gain any seats. This can lead to underrepresentation of political parties with widespread support but no regional strongholds.

Key concepts

Spoiler Effect

Imagine a race where a lesser-known runner draws enough supporters away from the crowd favorite, leading to an unexpected victory for another contender—that's the 'spoiler effect' in the context of electoral systems. The first past the post (FPTP) system is particularly susceptible to this issue, which arises when a third-party or less popular candidate splits the vote of the electorate, often leading to the election of a candidate who does not have the majority's backing. This not only discourages voters from choosing third-party candidates, fearing their vote might inadvertently lead to the success of their least preferred option, but it also inadvertently perpetuates a two-party dominance, as voters are pushed towards 'safer' bets to avoid vote splitting.

Lack of Proportional Representation

The ideal of 'one person, one vote' is foundational to democracy, but the first past the post system often overlooks this ideal by failing to ensure proportional representation. This system awards victory to the candidate who secures the most votes in a district, regardless of whether those votes constitute a majority or a mere plurality. Consequently, a party might receive a significant percentage of the national vote without winning many—or any—seats. This lack of proportionality means that smaller parties or those with evenly distributed support nationwide might be left without a voice in the legislature, thereby distorting the reflected will of the populace in the elected body.

Voter Representation

When casting a ballot, each voter anticipates that their vote holds power. However, under the first past the post system, the votes cast for any losing candidate are essentially disregarded, leaving those voters without representation. This can foster sentiments of disenfranchisement and diminish trust and satisfaction in the political process. It essentially creates a 'winner takes all' scenario, where only the majority's choice—or in some cases, the plurality's choice—is deemed relevant, ignoring the diverse political perspectives of the electorate.

Tactical Voting

The dilemma of 'voting with your heart or your head' is a distinct characteristic of the first past the post system. Voters may feel compelled to engage in tactical voting—supporting a less preferred but more viable candidate over their genuine first choice—to prevent an undesirable candidate from winning. This strategic maneuver can distort the authentic preferences of the electorate, potentially delivering an outcome that does not accurately reflect the true will of the voters and paving the way for dominant parties to benefit from strategic vote allocations.

Geographical Concentration of Votes

In a room full of diverse voices, imagine only those from the loudest corner are heard—that's akin to the effect of geographical vote concentration in first past the post elections. Parties with concentrated support in certain regions might sweep all available seats in those areas, while parties with broader but less concentrated support across regions might not win any representation at all. This system can drastically skew the legislative representation, favoring regional parties and penalizing those with a more evenly dispersed voter base, thereby creating imbalances in the political landscape.