Talk:First-past-the-post 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)

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

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

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)

You are entirely right about "what post"!! There is no post! The proper name is "Single Member Plurality". If the "post" was taken to be the "first person to get the most votes", then the first polling station to report in would determine the winner, regardless of how many votes someone else got in other, larger polling stations! If the "post" is supposed to be a certain threshold of votes (percentage or quantity), again, just because one candidate reached that value first does not mean (s)he cannot be overtaken as results continue to come in. If the "post" is supposed to be a majority, then nobody reaches it, much of the time in jurisdictions where three parties are contending for many of the electoral districts. In the 2015 Canadian federal election, only a quarter of the winners had a majority, and some 25-30 candidates had less than 30 percent. In some close races, the lead keeps changing as results come in for that district.

Single Member Plurality captures the exact nature: whoever has the plurality in a district that elects one member, that candidate becomes the member to represent that district. GBC (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

1. Single-member districts, and
2. 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)

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. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It is said that the term "first past the post" comes from horse racing, where the horse that is first past the winning post is declared the winner. That's all fine. The problem in the electoral context is that there is no post, at all. Whichever candidate gets more votes than any other is the winner. None of the candidates have been required to pass any fixed winning post (e.g. 50% of the total votes cast). It's like a horse race where a bell is sounded at a certain point during the running, and whichever horse is ahead at that moment is deemed the winner. That is nothing like first past the post.

Can anyone explain to me how this misnomer became entrenched in political language? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right that it's illogical! Still, the etymology comes via betting, where a first-past-the-post bet involves betting on just one horse (who you think will come in first), rather than providing a complete order for how you think they'll finish. I think this is mentioned in the lead, but I'd love it if you could make this clearer! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing. In many ways full preferential voting is more worthy of being called first past the post... the post is 50%, and if one candidate gets 50.0001% of 1st preferences plus last choice on all other votes, they win, even if another candidate gets the other 49.9999% of 1st preferences as well as being 2nd choice on the 50.0001% of votes they were not first choice. At least I try (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly my point. (I guess it's in the same group of Useless and Misleading Metaphors as "back-to-back wins" in some sporting context. Back-to-back means the first one is looking backwards, the second one forward. That's nothing like the image they're trying to convey.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

They only behave like a "top two" system in competetive elections. The vast majority of elections in the United States are not competetive. Primary winners can garner less than 50% routinely in the primary and win general elections in landslides. 2601:408:700:C460:F9BF:8B3C:B9A:F881 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)