Advantages and Disadvantages of Fptp System

First Past The Post, like other mass/majoriAdvantages and disadvantages of FPTP systemty electoral systems, is defended primarily on the grounds of simplicity and its tendency to green goods winners who are representatives beholden to defined geographic areas and governability. The near ofttimes cited advantages are that It provides a clear-cut choice for choosers betwixt two main parties. The constitutional disadvantages faced by third and fragmented minority parties downstairs FPTP in legion(predicate) cases cause the fellowship system to gravitate towards a fellowship of the left and a company of the right, alternating in power.Third parties often wither away and almost never reach a direct of touristy take for above which their national voting yields a parallel perpennyage of seats in the legislature. It gives rise to integrity-party governments. The seat bonuses for the capaciousst party parking lot below FPTP (e. g. where one party wins 45 per cent of the n ational vote but 55 per cent of the seats) mean that coalition governments are the excommunication alternatively than the rule.This state of affairs is praised for providing cabinets which are not 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 blotto single-party government is that the opposition is also given enough seats to actualize a critical checking role and present itself as a possible alternative to the government of the day. It advantages by and large-establish governmental parties.In severely ethnically or surface areaally divided societies, FPTP is commended for encouraging political parties to be broad churches, encompassing many a(prenominal) elements of society, particularly when in that respect are barely two major parties and many different societal groups. These parties potty then field a various array of arousedidates for e lection. In Malaysia, for example, the Barisan Nasional government is do up of a broadly-based umbrella movement which fields Malay, Chinese, and Indian lavdidates in areas of various ethnic complexions.It excludes radical parties from representation in the legislature. Un slight an extremist minority partys electoral reassert is geographically concentrated, it is unlikely to win any seats low FPTP. (By contrast, under a List PR system with a single national-level soil and a large number of seats, a fraction of 1 per cent of the national vote shag ensure representation in the legislature. ) It promotes a link 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 ripe party labels. Some analysts have argued that this geographic accountability is particularly Coperni arouse in agrarian societies and in developing countries. It allows voters to choose between population rather than just between parties. Voters can assess the performance of various(prenominal) candidates rather than just having to accept a list of candidates presented by a party, as can happen under some List PR electoral systems. It gives a chance for popular independent candidates to be elected.This whitethorn be particularly important in developing party systems, where political science still revolves more around extended 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 valid vote requires only one mark beside the name or symbol of one candidate. eventide if the number of candidates on the ballot paper is large, the count is easy for electoral officials to conduct. Disadvantages of FPTPHowever, FPTP is frequently criticized for a number of reasons. These include It excludes smaller parties from fair repr esentation, in the sense that a party which wins near, say, 10 per cent of the votes should win approximately 10 per cent of the legislative seats. In the 1993 federal election in Canada, the Progressive Conservatives won 16 per cent of the votes but only 0. 7 per cent of the seats, and in the 1998 general election in Lesotho, the Basotho National troupe won 24 per cent of the votes but only 1 per cent of the seats.This is a pattern which is repeated time and time again under FPTP. It excludes minorities from fair representation. As a rule, under FPTP, parties put up the most broadly acceptable candidate in a particular dominion so as to avoid alienating the absolute majority of electors. Thus 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 evidence that ethnic and racial minorities across the world are far little likely to be represented in legislatures elected by FPTP.I n consequence, if voting behaviour does dovetail joint 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 whitethorn base their campaigns and policy 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 ongoing worry in African countries like Malawi and Kenya, where large communal groups t end to be regionally concentrated. The country is thus divided into geographically separate party strongholds, with little incentive for parties to make appeals outside their home 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, winning a plurality of votes, it will 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 government activity is a battleground defined by who you are and where you live rather than what you believe in.This has long been put forward as an argument against FPTP in Canada. It leaves a large number of wasted votes which do not go towards the election of any candidate. This can be particularly dangerous if have with regional fiefdoms, because minority party supporters in the region may g et under ones skin to feel that they have no realistic hope of ever electing a candidate of their choice. It can also be dangerous where alienation 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 ginzo 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 boilersuit 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 from 80 per cent to 60 per cent in the number of seats held, whic h 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 technical process to produce a single shed light on answer independently of political or other considerations.Boundary delimitation may require substantial time and resources if the results are to be accepted as legitimate. There may also be pressure to manipulate 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 cent of the popular vote.