Advantages and Disadvantages of Fptp System

first Past The Post, like some other plurality/majoriAdvantages and disadvantages of FPTP systemty electoral systems, is defended primarily on the grounds of simplicity and its trend to produce winners who atomic event 18 representatives beholden to specify geographic beas and governability. The most oft quantifys cited advantages are that It provides a trim choice for ballotingrs among ii main take aparties. The constituent(a) disadvantages faced by third and fragmented nonage parties under FPTP in m whatsoever a(prenominal) cases cause the semipolitical fellowship system to gravitate towards a political companionship of the left(a) and a party of the right, alternating in power.Third parties often wither away and almost neer reach a level of public abet above which their national vote yields a alike(p) per pennyimeage of female genital organs in the legislative assembly. It gives rise to single-party governments. The seat bonuses for the bountifulst par ty common under FPTP (e. g. where unmatched party wins 45 per cent of the national vote be human faces 55 per cent of the seats) mean that coalition governments are the exception rather than the rule.This state of affairs is praised for providing cabinets which are non shackled by the restraints of having to bargain with a minority coalition partner. It gives rise to a recollective opposition in the legislature. In theory, the flip side of a dependable single-party government is that the opposition is overly condition enough seats to perform a critical checking role and present itself as a realistic alternative to the government of the day. It advantages in general-establish political parties.In badly ethnically or theatrical roleally divided societies, FPTP is commended for advance political parties to be broad churches, encompassing m whatever elements of society, oddly when there are only cardinal major parties and many different societal groups. These parties bottom land then field a diverse force of hindquartersdidates for election. In Malaysia, for example, the Barisan Nasional government is do up of a broadly-based umbrella movement which fields Malay, Chinese, and Indian standdidates in areas of various ethnic complexions.It excludes extremist parties from authority in the legislature. Unless an extremist minority partys electoral support is geographically concentrated, it is unlikely to win any seats under FPTP. (By contrast, under a proclivity PR system with a single national-level soil and a large number of seats, a section of 1 per cent of the national vote bed ensure standard in the legislature. ) It promotes a relate between constituents and their representatives, as it produces a legislature made up of representatives of geographical areas.Elected members represent defined areas of cities, towns, or regions rather than on the andton party labels. Some analysts set out argued that this geographic accountability is partic ularly important in agrarian societies and in developing countries. It allows voters to choose between heap rather than just between parties. Voters can assess the performance of individual campaigners rather than just having to accept a list of vistas presented by a party, as can happen under just about List PR electoral systems. It gives a rule for popular in leechlike candidates to be elected.This may be particularly important in developing party systems, where politics still revolves more around elongated ties of family, clan, or kinship and is not based on strong party political organizations. Finally, FPTP systems are particularly praised for being simple to use and understand. A reasoned vote requires only one mark beside the call up or symbol of one candidate. Even if the number of candidates on the ballot paper is large, the count is at large(p) for electoral officials to conduct. Disadvantages of FPTPHowever, FPTP is frequently criticized for a number of reasons. T hese embarrass It excludes smaller parties from fair representation, in the sense that a party which wins just about, say, 10 per cent of the votes should win approximately 10 per cent of the legislative seats. In the 1993 federal official election in Canada, the Progressive Conservatives won 16 per cent of the votes notwithstanding only 0. 7 per cent of the seats, and in the 1998 general election in Lesotho, the Basotho bailiwick Party won 24 per cent of the votes but only 1 per cent of the seats.This is a contour which is repeated time and time again under FPTP. It excludes minorities from fair representation. As a rule, under FPTP, parties edit up the most broadly acceptable candidate in a particular zone so as to avoid alienating the majority of electors. thereof it is rare, for example, for a black candidate to be given a major partys nomination in a majority white district in the UK or the USA, and there is strong cause that ethnic and racial minorities across the wo rld are far less likely to be delineated in legislatures elected by FPTP.In consequence, if voting behaviour does dovetail with ethnic divisions, then the exclusion from representation of members of ethnic minority groups can be destabilizing for the political system as a whole. It excludes women from the legislature. The most broadly acceptable candidate syndrome also affects the ability of women to be elected to legislative office because they are often less likely to be selected as candidates by male-dominated party structures. Evidence across the world suggests that women are less likely to be elected to the legislature under plurality/majority systems than under PR ones.It can encourage the development of political parties based on clan, ethnicity or region, which may base their campaigns and indemnity platforms on conceptions that are attractive to the majority of people in their district or region but exclude or are hostile to others. This has been an current problem in A frican countries like Malawi and Kenya, where large communal groups tend to be regionally concentrated. The inelegant is and then divided into geographically separate party strongholds, with little incentive for parties to make appeals outside their national region and culturalpolitical base.It exaggerates the phenomenon of regional fiefdoms where one party wins all the seats in a province or area. If a party has strong support in a particular part of a country, taking a plurality of votes, it pull up stakes win all, or nearly all, of the seats in the legislature for that area. This both excludes minorities in that area from representation and reinforces the perception that politics is a battleground defined by who you are and where you live rather than what you intend in.This has long been put forward as an course against FPTP in Canada. It leaves a large number of drawn votes which do not go towards the election of any candidate. This can be particularly dangerous if comb ine with regional fiefdoms, because minority party supporters in the region may begin to feel that they have no realistic hope of ever electing a candidate of their choice. It can also be dangerous where monomania from the political system increases the likelihood that extremists will be able to mobilize anti-system movements.It can cause vote-splitting. Where two similar parties or candidates compete under FPTP, the vote of their potential supporters is often split between them, thus allowing a less popular party or candidate to win the seat. Papua New Guinea provides a particularly clear example. It may be unresponsive to changes in public opinion. A pattern of geographically concentrated electoral support in a country means that one party can maintain exclusive executive control in the face of a substantial drop in overall popular support.In some democracies under FPTP, a fall from 60 per cent to 40 per cent of a partys share of the popular vote nationally can result in a fall f rom 80 per cent to 60 per cent in the number of seats held, which does not affect its overall dominant position. Unless sufficient seats are highly competitive, the system can be insensitive to swings in public opinion. Finally, FPTP systems are dependent on the drawing of electoral boundaries. All electoral boundaries have political consequences there is no proficient process to produce a single go down answer independently of political or other considerations.Boundary delimitation may require substantial time and resources if the results are to be accepted as legitimate. on that point may also be pressure to interpolate boundaries by gerrymandering or malapportionment. This was particularly apparent in the Kenyan elections of 1993 when huge disparities between the sizes of electoral districtsthe largest had 23 times the number of voters the smallest hadcontributed to the ruling Kenyan African National Union partys winning a large majority in the legislature with only 30 per ce nt of the popular vote.