FPTP full form

Overview of the First Past the Post System (FPTP)

In a first-past-the-post electoral system (FPTP), voters vote for a candidate of their choice. The candidate with the most votes wins even if the top candidate receives less than 50%, which can happen when there are more than two popular candidates. Countries use a primary voting system based on first-past-the-post for national legislative elections. As a winner-take-all process, FPTP frequently yields disproportional outcomes (when choosing members of an assembly, such as a parliament), in that political parties are not represented in proportion to their share of the public vote. This generally benefits the largest party and parties with significant regional support at the expense of smaller parties with a geographically dispersed base.

Benefits of the First Past the Post System (FPTP) System

• It gives voters a clear option between two major parties. The inherent disadvantages experienced by third and divided minority parties under FPTP cause the party system to lean towards a 'left' and a 'right' party, alternating in power. Third parties frequently wither and practically never achieve a threshold of public support above which their national vote delivers a similar percentage of legislative seats.

• It results in one-party governments. Because of the FPTP's' seat bonuses' for the largest party (e.g., one party gets 45% of the national vote but 55% of the seats), coalition administrations are the exception rather than the rule. This condition of affairs is lauded for generating cabinets that are not constrained by the constraints of bargaining with a minority coalition partner.

• It gives birth to a cohesive legislative opposition. The flip side of a strong single-party administration is that the opposition is granted enough seats to play a crucial checking function and promote itself as a viable alternative to the current government.

• It benefits broad-based political parties. In severely ethnically or geographically divided cultures, FPTP is praised for pushing political parties to be "wide churches," incorporating various aspects of society, mainly when only two main parties and many distinct sociological groupings exist. These parties can then run a diversified slate of candidates for office.

• It bars radical parties from being represented in the legislature. Under FPTP, an extremist minority party is unlikely to obtain any seats unless its electoral support is geographically concentrated.

• It fosters a connection between residents and their representatives by producing a legislature made up of regional representatives. Elected members represent distinct areas of cities, towns, or regions rather than merely party designations. Some experts suggest that 'geographic responsibility' is crucial in agricultural communities and developing nations.

• It allows voters to select between persons rather than simply parties. Voters can evaluate the performance of individual candidates rather than needing to approve a list of candidates given by a party, as specific List PR electoral systems require.

• It provides an opportunity for popular independent candidates to be elected. This may be especially relevant in emerging party systems, where politics still centres more on extended ties.

• FPTP systems are highly regarded for their ease of use and comprehension. A legitimate vote requires only one mark alongside one candidate's name or symbol. Even if many candidates are on the ballot, the count is simple for election authorities to complete.

Drawbacks of the First Past the Post System (FPTP) System

• The FPTP system is not a genuine representative since a candidate receiving fewer than half of the votes can win the election.

• In the FPTP system, smaller parties have a worse probability of winning. Furthermore, smaller parties are pushed to align with national party goals, which defeats the aim of local self-government and federalism.

• Because of the nature of the FPTP voting method, a communal split of votes may occur. The FPTP system generally results in a two-party system, but India's FPTP experience is slightly different. Following India's independence, one-party dominance arose, and after 1989, India saw the operation of multi-party coalitions. However, a significant element of India's party structure is that the growth of mergers has allowed new and smaller parties to compete in elections despite the FPTP system.