Elections play a crucial role in democracy, determining how governments are formed and policies are shaped. One common electoral method is the plurality voting system, also known as first-past-the-post (FPTP). While it is simple and widely used, especially in countries like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, this system has significant drawbacks.
Plurality-based elections often discourage fair representation, limit political diversity, and create imbalances in voter influence. In this topic, we will explore how plurality voting affects democracy, why it discourages fair elections, and what alternatives could improve the electoral process.
What Is a Plurality Voting System?
A plurality voting system is an electoral method in which the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they do not receive an absolute majority (more than 50%).
For example, in a three-candidate race:
- Candidate A gets 40% of the vote.
- Candidate B gets 35% of the vote.
- Candidate C gets 25% of the vote.
Since Candidate A has the highest percentage, they win the election, even though 60% of voters preferred other candidates.
How Plurality Elections Discourage Fair Representation
1. Encourages a Two-Party System
One of the biggest criticisms of plurality elections is that they often lead to a two-party dominance. Since only one winner is chosen per district, smaller parties struggle to gain representation.
This creates a “wasted vote” effect, where people feel pressured to vote for a major party instead of their actual preference. Over time, this discourages political diversity and limits voter choice.
2. Disadvantages Third-Party Candidates
In a plurality system, third-party candidates rarely win because:
- Voters fear splitting the vote, leading to an undesirable outcome (spoiler effect).
- Many assume that voting for a third party is a wasted vote.
- Campaign funding and media coverage favor the two dominant parties.
As a result, many alternative political voices never get a chance to influence policy, even if they have significant public support.
3. Allows Winners Without Majority Support
A key flaw of plurality elections is that a candidate can win without majority approval. If multiple candidates split the vote, the winner may have support from less than half the electorate.
This can lead to:
- Leaders who do not represent the true will of the people.
- Increased voter dissatisfaction and mistrust in the electoral system.
- Governments that fail to reflect the full political spectrum.
4. Reduces Voter Turnout
When people believe their vote will not impact the outcome, they are less likely to participate in elections. In plurality systems, many voters feel:
- Their preferred candidate has no real chance.
- The system is rigged in favor of the two dominant parties.
- Their voice does not matter in a system that does not require majority support.
This results in lower voter turnout, weakening the democratic process.
5. Reinforces Geographic Polarization
Plurality elections can also exaggerate regional political divides. Since the winner takes all, districts often become strongholds for one party, reducing competition.
This leads to:
- Safe seats, where incumbents rarely lose, discouraging new candidates.
- Extreme partisanship, as parties focus on maintaining regional dominance.
- Less incentive for compromise, since politicians do not need to appeal to a broad base.
Examples of Plurality System Failures
1. U.S. Presidential Elections
The U.S. uses a plurality-based Electoral College system, which has led to several presidents winning without the popular vote (e.g., George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016).
This happens because:
- Some states have winner-takes-all rules, ignoring millions of votes.
- A candidate can lose the popular vote but still win the presidency.
- Swing states determine the outcome, making many votes irrelevant.
2. U.K. General Elections
In the U.K., the first-past-the-post system often leads to disproportionate representation. A party can win a majority in Parliament with far less than 50% of the national vote.
For example, in the 2015 General Election:
- The Conservative Party won 36.9% of the vote but gained 51% of the seats.
- The Liberal Democrats received 7.9% of the vote but got only 1.2% of the seats.
This shows how plurality systems can misrepresent public support in government.
Alternatives to the Plurality System
1. Ranked-Choice Voting (Instant Runoff Voting)
Instead of choosing just one candidate, voters rank them in order of preference. If no candidate gets a majority, the least popular is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed.
Benefits:
✔ Ensures the winner has majority support.
✔ Reduces strategic voting (choosing the “lesser evil”).
✔ Encourages third-party participation.
2. Proportional Representation
Under proportional representation (PR), seats in government are distributed based on the percentage of votes each party receives.
Benefits:
✔ More accurate reflection of voter preferences.
✔ Encourages multi-party competition.
✔ Reduces wasted votes and improves voter turnout.
3. Two-Round Runoff System
If no candidate gets a majority in the first round, the top two candidates compete in a runoff election.
Benefits:
✔ Guarantees that the winner has more than 50% support.
✔ Encourages broader voter engagement.
✔ Prevents vote splitting.
The plurality voting system discourages fair representation by favoring two-party dominance, discouraging third-party candidates, and allowing winners without majority support. This results in lower voter turnout, regional polarization, and misrepresentation of public opinion.
To create a more democratic and representative electoral process, alternatives like ranked-choice voting, proportional representation, and runoff elections should be considered. By adopting fairer voting methods, countries can ensure that every vote truly counts, strengthening democracy for future generations.