Constituency link[ edit ] It has been argued by proponents of single-member constituencies that it encourages a stronger connection between the representative and constituents and increases accountability and is a check on incompetence and corruption. In countries that have multi-member constituencies, it is argued that the constituency link is lost. For example, in Israel the whole country is a single constituency and representatives are selected by party-lists. On the other hand, today most voters tend to vote for a candidate because they are endorsed by a particular political party or because they are in favour of who would become or remain the leader of the government, more than their feelings for or against the actual candidate standing.
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.
The difficulty is sometimes summed up, in an extreme form, as "All votes for anyone other than the second place are votes for the winner", because by voting for other candidates, they have denied those votes to the second place candidate who could have won had they received them.
Historically, there has been a tendency for Independentista voters to elect Popular candidates and policies. This phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the Estadistas have the most voters on the island.
It is so widely recognised that the Puerto Ricans sometimes call the Independentistas who vote for the Populares "melons", because the fruit is green on the outside but red on the inside in reference to the party colors. Because voters have to predict in advance who the top two candidates will be, this can cause significant perturbation to the system: Substantial power is given to the media.
Some voters will tend to believe the media's assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election. Even voters who distrust the media will know that other voters do believe the media, and therefore those candidates who receive the most media attention will nonetheless be the most popular and thus most likely to be in one of the top two.
A newly appointed candidate, who is in fact supported by the majority of voters, may be considered due to the lack of a track record to not be likely to become one of the top two candidates; thus, they will receive a reduced number of votes, which will then give them a reputation as a low poller in future elections, compounding the problem.
The system may promote votes against more so than votes for.
In the UK, entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting against the Conservative party by voting either Labour or Liberal Democrat.
If enough voters use this tactic, the first-past-the-post system becomes, effectively, runoff voting —a completely different system—where the first round is held in the court of public opinion; a good example of this is the Winchester by-election, Proponents of other single-winner electoral systems argue that their proposals would reduce the need for tactical voting and reduce the spoiler effect.
Examples include the commonly used two-round system of runoffs and instant runoff votingalong with less tested systems such as approval votingscore voting and Condorcet methods.
Fewer political parties[ edit ] This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. October Learn how and when to remove this template message A graph showing the difference between the popular vote and the number of seats won by major political parties at the United Kingdom general election, Duverger's law is a theory that constituencies that use first-past-the-post systems will have a two-party systemgiven enough time.
In the United Kingdom21 out of 24 General Elections since have produced a single-party majority government. FPTP's tendency toward fewer parties and more frequent one-party rules can also produce government that may not consider as wide a range of perspectives and concerns.In New Zealand, we vote using the MMP voting system - Mixed Member Proportional.
Voters have two votes: the first for their preferred party and the second for an electorate MP. The single member plurality system (SMP), which Canada employs to fabricate a democratic election, can cause representatives to . The single member plurality voting system (SMP) is the most commonly used voting system in the United States.
SMP works with single-member districts, meaning geographically-defined districts that send one representative to a legislature. A single-member district or single-member constituency is an electoral district that returns one officeholder to a body with multiple members such as a urbanagricultureinitiative.com is also sometimes called single-winner voting or winner takes urbanagricultureinitiative.com alternative are multi-member districts, or the election of a body by the whole electorate voting as one constituency.
The plurality electoral system is the oldest and the most frequently used voting system. It is used for legislative elections in the United States and India--the world's two largest liberal democracies--as well as the United Kingdom and many former British colonies.
An Electoral System for All Why Canada should adopt proportional representation. Democracy in Canada is at a critical juncture. The Liberal government has committed to moving beyond our first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system and replacing it with .