Debate: First past the post voting

[]

[]

[]

[]

Is first past the post voting a good idea?

Background and context

First past the post voting is a system in which elections are won by the highest polling candidate, not necessarily the one (if any) that secures a majority.

[]

[]

[]

[]

Argument 1:

[]

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

Con

• First-past-the-post voting elects "false majorities." Andrew Coyne. "The Case Against First Past the Post." September 26, 2007: "Consider some of the results of recent elections. In Ontario, an NDP government was elected in 2000 with 37% of the vote. In British Columbia, the NDP won a majority of the seats in the 1996 election though it received less than 40% of the vote -- not merely fewer than a majority, but fewer than its nearest rivals, the Liberals. [...] In 26 federal elections since 1921, there have been 16 majority governments elected, but only two that actually commanded a majority of the vote. The rest were minorities posing as majorities, wielding undivided power though as many as five voters in eight voted against them. Supporters of the status quo cite its tendency to produce stable majority governments. But these aren’t majority governments. They’re legalized coup d’etats [...] False majorities."

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Argument 2:

[]

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

Con

• First-past-the-post voting disenfranchises minority parties Andrew Coyne. "The Case Against First Past the Post." BC-STV. September 26, 2007: "False majorities are but one of the distortions to which the present system gives rise. It is not unknown in this country for one party to take all or nearly all of the seats in the house, with 60% or less of the popular vote -- as happened in B.C. in 2001, and New Brunswick in 1987. The 40% of the public or more who voted for other parties, with other philosophies, were effectively disenfranchised: entitled to vote, but not to representation, which alone gives votes meaning."

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Argument 3:

[]

Pro

[]

Con

• In first-past-the-post voting, some votes count more. Andrew Coyne. "The Case Against First Past the Post." BC-STV. September 26, 2007: "Most striking of all [in first-past-the-post voting is] we do not give every citizen equal say at election time. Everyone may get one vote, that is true. But some votes count more than others. Some -- most, in fact -- do not count at all. [...] When 2.6 million federal NDP votes equal 19 seats, as in 2006, but 1.6 million Bloc votes equal 51 seats, it means that each Bloc vote was worth more than four NDP votes."

[]

[]

[]

[]

Pro/con sources

[]

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

Con

• Andrew Coyne. "The Case Against First Past the Post." September 26, 2007

External links