A LevelPoliticsEdexcelRevision Notes1. UK Politics & Core Political Ideas1.3 Electoral SystemsElectoral Systems: First Past the Post

Electoral Systems: First Past the Post (Edexcel A Level Politics): Revision Note

Exam code: 9PL0

Sarra Jenkins

Written by: Sarra Jenkins

Reviewed by: Lisa Eades

Updated on

How First Past the Post works

  • First Past the Post (FPTP) is a plurality electoral system used to elect MPs to the UK House of Commons

  • The candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins the seat, even if they do not have a majority

Features of FPTP

1. Single-member constituencies

  • The UK is divided into 650 constituencies, each represented by one MP.

  • This creates a clear link between voters and their representative.

2. Plurality system

  • The winning candidate only needs one more vote than their nearest rival.

  • They do not need to win over 50% of the vote.

3. Each voter has one vote

  • Voters select one candidate only, keeping the system simple and familiar.

How FPTP works

  • Each voter votes for one candidate in their constituency

  • Votes are counted locally and the candidate with the most votes wins that seat

  • All 650 constituency results are added together to see how many seats each party has gained

    • The party with 326+ seats is invited to form a majority government

    • If no party reaches this threshold, a coalition or minority government may form

  • The Prime Minister is normally the leader of the party with the most seats

    • In a coalition, a deputy is usually selected from another of the coalition parties

Evaluation of First Past the Post

  • FPTP has faced significant criticism for being outdated and unrepresentative

  • However, it remains the system used to elect representatives in UK general elections and in most local elections in England

  • Its simplicity and long-standing use have helped it endure, even while debates about electoral reform continue

Advantages and disadvantages of FPTP

Advantages

Disadvantages

  • FPTP is simple to understand, which helps voters feel confident when casting their ballot

  • FPTP often produces highly disproportionate results because the winning party in each constituency receives a 'winner’s bonus'

  • FPTP usually leads to decisive outcomes because it often gives one party enough seats to form a majority government

  • FPTP leads to a high number of wasted votes, as votes for losing candidates or excess votes for winners do not influence the final result

  • FPTP tends to create stable governments since majority administrations are less likely to collapse during a parliamentary term

  • FPTP does not always guarantee strong majority governments, as shown by the coalitions and minority governments seen since 2010

  • FPTP creates a clear constituency link because each area is represented by one MP who voters can easily identify

  • FPTP encourages tactical voting because many voters feel pressured to vote for a candidate they think can win rather than their genuine first choice

  • FPTP provides clear accountability because voters know which party is responsible for governing and can reward or punish them at elections

  • FPTP favours the two largest parties and makes it difficult for smaller parties to win seats unless their support is concentrated in specific areas

  • FPTP allows results to be announced quickly because constituency counts are completed overnight

  • FPTP leads to regional distortions, as parties with concentrated support can be over-represented while parties with evenly spread support are under-represented

  • FPTP makes it difficult for extremist parties to gain representation because they rarely have concentrated geographical support

  • FPTP creates many safe seats, where one party is almost certain to win, which can reduce voter turnout and political engagement

Case Study

  • The 2024 UK General Election is widely regarded by political scientists and election analysts as one of the most disproportionate results in modern British history

Two people in suits stand smiling against a red background with "CHANGE" banners featuring the Union Jack, symbolising political change.
The Labour Party won a landslide victory in the 2024 General Election

Key outcomes

Party

Vote Share & Seats Won

Explanation

Labour

34%

411

  • Labour won a landslide majority of 411 out of 650 seats with 34% of the vote

  • This is the lowest vote share ever to produce a majority government in the UK

Conservatives

24%

121

  • The Conservatives received 121 seats on 24% of the vote, their worst total since 1906

Reform UK

14%

5

  • Reform UK won 14% of all votes cast but only 5 seats

  • This demonstates how FPTP penalises parties whose support is spread thinly across the country

Liberal Democrats

12%

72

  • The Liberal Democrats secured 72 seats with 12% of the vote, achieving their best result since 1923

  • This was due to concentrated regional support and targeted campaigning.

Green Party

7%

4

  • The Green Party gained 7% of the national vote but secured only 4 seats, despite receiving more than 1.8 million votes

Scottish National Party (SNP)

2.2%

9

  • The SNP won 9 seats on 2.2% of the UK vote because their support is highly concentrated in Scotland

  • This enabled them to win constituencies even with a small share of the UK-wide vote

What 2024 shows about FPTP

  • FPTP tends to convert pluralities into decisive majorities, even when parties have modest public support

  • It rewards parties with geographically efficient vote distribution, not necessarily the highest overall support

  • It can produce sharp regional contrasts, such as Labour dominance in England and Wales, the SNP collapse in Scotland, and Reform UK’s widespread but shallow support

  • It raises questions about fairness and legitimacy, especially when millions of voters see their party gain few or no seats

Should FPTP be replaced?

  • The question of whether to replace FPTP centres on whether the UK needs a system that is more proportional, more inclusive and more reflective of modern voting behaviour

    • Supporters of FPTP argue that it delivers clarity, simplicity and stability

    • Critics believe it distorts public preferences and undermines fairness

Yes - FPTP should be replaced

Diagram advocating replacing FPTP with reasons: reduce wasted votes, broader choice, increased turnout, fairer representation, fewer safe seats.

  • Fairer representation

    • Proportional systems convert votes into seats more accurately, helping to produce a government that reflects public preferences

  • Reducing wasted votes

    • Proportional systems minimise wasted ballots by allocating seats more accurately or by redistributing votes in line with voter preferences

  • Broader choice

    • Voters are more willing to vote for smaller parties when they know these votes are more likely to be reflected in the final outcome

  • Increased turnout

    • Turnout tends to be higher when voters feel their vote matters; for example, turnout in Scotland under AMS was 63.5% in 2021, higher than the 2024 UK General Election

  • Fewer safe seats

    • Proportional systems reduce the dominance of safe seats, increasing competitiveness and voter influence

  • Marginalises extremist parties

    • Coalition politics encourages moderation, making it harder for extremist parties to gain influence

  • Reflects modern politics

    • FPTP no longer reliably delivers strong or stable governments, making the weaknesses of proportional systems less significant

No - FPTP should not be replaced

Diagram showing reasons to keep First Past The Post: clear accountability, simple, preserves links, limits small parties, policy clarity, difficult reform.

  • Produces stable single-party governments

    • FPTP often produces decisive outcomes, as seen in 2019 and 2024, which can strengthen government actions

  • Clear accountability

    • Voters know exactly who to reward or punish, such as how the 2019 Conservative government was judged over Covid policies and Partygate

  • Simple and familiar

    • FPTP is easy to understand and provides quick, clear results that voters recognise and trust

  • Preserves constituency links

    • Each MP represents a defined area, improving accountability and helping constituents feel represented

  • Limits small-party influence

    • FPTP prevents very small parties from gaining disproportionate power in coalition negotiations

  • Maintains policy clarity

    • Coalition agreements can dilute or contradict manifesto pledges, reducing transparency for voters

  • Reform could be difficult

    • The 2011 AV referendum rejected change (42% turnout; 67.9% voted No), suggesting limited public support for electoral reform

Unlock more, it's free!

Join the 100,000+ Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

    Previous:UK Political Parties in ContextNext:Electoral Systems: Proportional Systems
    Author
    Reviewer
    Sarra Jenkins

    Author: Sarra Jenkins

    Expertise: Content Writer

    Sarra is a highly experienced A-Level Politics educator with over two decades of teaching and examining experience. She was part of the team that wrote the Edexcel 2017 Politics Specification and currently works as a Senior Examiner. A published author of 14 textbooks and revision guides, her expertise lies in UK and US politics, exam skills, and career guidance. She continues to teach, driven by her passion for this "evolving and dynamic subject".

    Lisa Eades

    Reviewer: Lisa Eades

    Expertise: Business Content Creator

    Lisa has taught A Level, GCSE, BTEC and IBDP Business for over 20 years and is a senior Examiner for Edexcel. Lisa has been a successful Head of Department in Kent and has offered private Business tuition to students across the UK. Lisa loves to create imaginative and accessible resources which engage learners and build their passion for the subject.