Voters are pressured to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if their true preference is neither, because a vote for any other candidate will likely have no impact on the final result. Any other party will typically need to build up its votes and credibility over a series of elections before it is seen as electable.
In a representative body actually deliberating, the minority must of course be overruled; and in an equal democracy, the majority of the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over the minority and their representatives.
But does it follow that the minority should have no representatives at all? Is it necessary that the minority should not even be heard? Nothing but habit and old Advantage and disadvantages of fptp voting can reconcile any reasonable being to the needless injustice.
In a really equal democracy, every or any section would be represented, not disproportionately, but proportionately. A majority of the electors would always have a majority of the representatives, but a minority of the electors would always have a minority of the representatives.
Man for man, they would be as fully represented as the majority.
Unless they are, there is not equal government Fairness PR tries to resolve the unfairness of majoritarian and plurality voting systems where the largest parties receive an "unfair" "seat bonus" and smaller parties are disadvantaged and have difficulty winning any representation at all Duverger's law.
In the UK electionfor example, the Labour Party under Tony Blair won a comfortable parliamentary majority with the votes of only The more representatives per district and the lower the minimum threshold of votes required for election, the more minor parties can gain representation.
It has been argued that in emerging democracies, inclusion of minorities in the legislature can be essential for social stability and to consolidate the democratic process.
With very low thresholds, very small parties can act as "king-makers",  holding larger parties to ransom during coalition discussions. The example of Israel is often quoted, : Israel, again, and Brazil and Italy are examples.
In Ireland, on average, about six independent candidates have been elected each parliament. Opponents counter that with many policies compromise is not possible for example funding a new stealth bomberor leaving the EU.
Neither can many policies be easily positioned on the left-right spectrum for example, the environment. So policies are horse-traded during coalition formation, with the consequence that voters have no way of knowing which policies will be pursued by the government they elect; voters have less influence on governments.
Most importantly, the ability of voters to vote a party in disfavour out of power is curtailed. Coalitions are rare; the two dominant parties necessarily compete at the centre for votes, so that governments are more reliably moderate; the strong opposition necessary for proper scrutiny of government is assured; and governments remain sensitive to public sentiment because they can be, and are, regularly voted out of power.
Italy is an often-cited example with many governments composed of many different coalition partners.
Nevertheless, some studies have found that on average, compared to countries using plurality systems, governments elected with PR accord more closely with the median voter and the citizens are more content with democracy.
More partisan districts remain invulnerable to swings of political mood. This fact in turn encourages parties to be more responsive to voters, producing a more "balanced" ticket by nominating more women and minority candidates. Compared to countries with plurality electoral systems, voter turnout improves and the population is more involved in the political process.
To compound the problem, boundaries have to be periodically re-drawn to accommodate population changes. Even apolitically drawn boundaries can unintentionally produce the effect of gerrymandering, reflecting naturally occurring concentrations. For example, Professor Mollison in his plan for STV for the UK set an upper limit ofelectors per MP so that a constituency ofelectors would have five seats 1: His district boundaries follow historical county and local authority boundaries, yet he achieves more uniform representation than does the Boundary Commissionthe body responsible for balancing the UK's first-past-the-post constituency sizes.
Under parallel votinga semi-proportional systemthere is no compensation for the effects that such gerrymandering might have. Under MMP, the use of compensatory list seats makes gerrymandering less of an issue.
However, its effectiveness in this regard depends upon the features of the system, including the size of the regional districts, the relative share of list seats in the total, and opportunities for collusion that might exist.
Link between constituent and representative It is generally accepted that a particular advantage of plurality electoral systems such as first past the postor majoritarian electoral systems such as the alternative voteis the geographic link between representatives and their constituents.
Yet with relatively small multiple-member districts, in particular with STV, there are counter-arguments: In such cases it is sometimes argued that constituents and representatives have a closer link;  : There is less likely to be a strong incentive to parachute them into constituencies in which they are strangers and thus less than ideal representatives.
Proportionality improves as the magnitude increases. As this system can be expected to result in the election of one candidate from each of the two dominant political blocks in most districts, it is not generally considered proportional. The lower the threshold, the higher the proportion of votes contributing to the election of representatives and the lower the proportion of votes wasted.
However, well regarded candidates who attract good second and third, etc.Simple plurality voting has very little in its favor in any election with more than two candidates, but the top disadvantage is vote timberdesignmag.com only allows voters to vote for a single person, and since the vote can't be transferred, if that person doesn't win that means the voter might as well have not voted at all.
Proportional representation (PR) characterizes electoral systems in which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. If n% of the electorate support a particular political party, then roughly n% of seats will be won by that party.
The essence of such systems is that all votes contribute to the result: not just a plurality, or a bare majority, of them. What are the advantages/disadvantages of a mandatory voting system? Ask Question. What are the disadvantages of first-past-the-post electoral systems? 4. What are the advantages of the French two-round voting system against a one round alternative?
4. Many of the advantages and disadvantages of FPTP are common to the other plurality-majority electoral systems as well and need not be repeated seriatim when each of these systems is examined.
Two considerations should be borne in mind in any review of electoral systems, the first relating to parties and the second to voters. Advantages and disadvantages of FPTP system Advantages of FPTP First Past The Post, like other plurality/majority electoral systems, is defended primarily on the grounds of simplicity and its tendency to produce winners who are representatives beholden to defined geographic areas and governability.
Advantages and disadvantages of FPTP system Advantages of FPTP First Past The Post, like other plurality/majority electoral systems, is defended primarily on the grounds of simplicity and its tendency to produce winners who are representatives beholden to defined geographic areas and governability.