First-past-the-post

How it works, precisely

Each voter picks exactly one option. Votes are counted and ranked; the highest total wins. That is all: nothing is asked about what the voter thinks of the other options.

Mind the vocabulary: this method delivers a PLURALITY (the most votes), not a MAJORITY (more than half). The two coincide only with two options. With three, a winner on 34 % against 66 % of scattered opponents is entirely possible.

On an exact tie, no internal rule settles it: you need an external tie-break (a draw, a casting vote, seniority). Placet shows the tie rather than inventing a winner.

A worked example

A hundred people pick the venue for an offsite. Three options, one round.

Option	Votes	Share
Lyon	40	40 %
Bordeaux	35	35 %
Lille	25	25 %

Lyon leads with 40 votes and wins.
But 60 people out of 100 voted against Lyon.
If Lille's supporters preferred Bordeaux to Lyon, Bordeaux would win a head-to-head 60 to 40.

The winner is whoever collects the most first choices, not the option the group actually prefers. This is exactly what Condorcet held against the method back in 1785.

Where it comes from

First-past-the-post has no inventor: it grew out of practice in medieval English assemblies, where each county sent one representative. The name is a horse-racing metaphor — first past the post, with nobody asking by how many lengths.

The British Empire exported it almost everywhere: the United Kingdom, India, Canada, the United States, Nigeria. It still governs a considerable share of the world's population, largely through colonial inheritance rather than theoretical choice.

In 1951 the jurist Maurice Duverger stated the regularity that bears his name: single-round plurality voting tends to produce a two-party system, because voting for a third option wastes your vote. It is not a law in the physical sense, but the correlation has held up well since.

Where it is used

General elections in the United Kingdom, India and Canada.
The US presidential election within each state, where the winner takes the electors.
Fast group decisions, when speed matters more than nuance.
Quick polls and binary choices, where plurality and majority coincide.

Limits and pitfalls

✓ PROS

Very easy to grasp
Instant result
Just one trip to the ballot box

✕ CONS

A winner rejected by 60% of voters
Pushes people to vote tactically
Crushes smaller options

Minority winner

With three or more options you can win without ever convincing half the group.

Spoiler effect

An option close to another splits its camp and hands victory to a third. Hence tactical voting, which pushes people to abandon their true first choice.

Duverger's law

Enough tactical voting and the field narrows to two camps. The nuances disappear before the vote even happens.

Sensitive to boundaries

When voting by district, where you draw the lines matters as much as the votes — the open door to gerrymandering.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between plurality and majority?

A plurality is the most votes; a majority is more than half. A winner on 40 % has a plurality but no majority. If your decision must be legitimate to a group that has to live with it, that difference is anything but a detail.

Why is it still so widespread?

Because it is instantly understandable, can be counted by hand, and always produces a clear result. Its flaws have been documented since 1785, but its simplicity is a real political asset.

When should it be avoided?

As soon as there are more than two options and the group must live with the outcome. Approval voting costs the voter the same effort and solves most of the problem.