First Past the Post

0.0(0)
Studied by 5 people
call kaiCall Kai
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/43

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Last updated 9:23 PM on 4/30/26
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai

No analytics yet

Send a link to your students to track their progress

44 Terms

1
New cards

Plurality

When the winner of the election has won more votes than any other candidate, but not necessarily the majority of the votes

2
New cards

Safe seats

Seats where parties certain to win (20 000+ majoirty)

3
New cards

3 impacts of safe seats

  1. Can breed complacency among voters and parties

  2. Ignored by election campaigns (‘dyed in the wool’ voters) → apathy

  3. Low turnout as a guaranteed winner- no point in voting if your party is sure to win, or no other parties have a chance

4
New cards

Marginal seats

  • Seats where incumbent (current) party has a small majority so other parties have a chance

  • Resources focused here as they allow for a swing in the vote share and could influence the overall outcome

5
New cards

1 impact of marginal seats

  1. Turnout high as voters want to promote their own interests if they are unsure about the result

6
New cards

Winning % margin of x marginal seats in 2024

In 40 seats, less than 2%

7
New cards

Said marginal seats in 2019

  • Relatively safe 2019

    • All but 7 won by >20% of the vote

8
New cards

How many of the most marginal seats in 2024 were won by the Tories in 2019?

33 of 40

9
New cards

How many of the safest seats had a Labour hold in 2024?

34/40

10
New cards

40 ‘safest seat’ margin

36.8% - 56.5%

11
New cards

Two-party system

A system in which two parties hold most of the votes and/or power

12
New cards

2 party features favoured by FPTP

  1. Major parties

  2. Nation-wide support (able to win constituencies, instead of just votes here and there)

13
New cards

1 example of a major party splitting

SDP (Social Democrat Party) split in 1981 from Labour

14
New cards

SDP outcome of 1983 general election — % vote and seats

  • 25% of the vote (alliance with Liberals)

  • Only 23 seats

15
New cards

‘Outsider’ parties finding it hard to break through — UKIP % vote v seats 2015

  • 12.6% of the vote

  • Only 1 seat

16
New cards

Combined Lab/Con % vote share in 2010

65% (post-war low)

17
New cards

2015 % support for parties other than the 3 main ones

25%

18
New cards

Combined Lab/Con % vote share in 2017

82%, largest since 1970

19
New cards

2017 % support for smaller parties

18%

20
New cards

2019 % support for smaller parties

25%

21
New cards

Combined Lab/Con % vote share in 2024

57.4%

22
New cards

Smaller parties % combined vote share and seats in 2024

  • 52.6%

  • 118 seats

23
New cards

Winner’s bonus

  • ‘Landslide effect’

  • Exaggeration of performance of most popular party, very common with FPTP

24
New cards

1 impact of winner’s bonus

  • Tyranny of the majority

    • Gov’t has false sense of entitlement and impression of huge mandate (Johnson’s disregard for convention etc)

25
New cards

2 Conservative landslide victories

1983, 1987

26
New cards

2 Labour landslide victories

  • 1997 - 63% seats, 43% votes

  • 2024

27
New cards

2024 — L % seats and % votes

  • 63% seats

  • 34% votes

  • Most disproportionate on record

28
New cards

2 examples of major party bias

  • 1997-2010- Labour

    • 1997-2005- proportion of Tory seats lower than share of vote

  • 2010- Tory 7% more votes than Labour, 19 seats short of majority

29
New cards

3 reasons for major party bias

  1. Tactical voting (benefited Labour 1997-2005)

  2. Constituency size differences

  3. Turnout differences (turnout lower in Labour-held seats- Labour needed fewer votes to win seats 1997-2010)

30
New cards

2025 — electorate in L-won constituencies av. x lower than Tory + reason

  • 2015- electorate in Labour-won constituencies av. 3850 lower than Tory-won

  • Due to population mvmt from urban to suburban/rural areas

31
New cards

2015 — % turnout in L hold and C won seats

  • 62% turnout in Labhold seats

  • 69% in Torywon seats

32
New cards

2 reasons for discrimination against smaller parties (ones w/out geographical concentration of support)

  1. Mechanics (no reward for coming second)

  2. Psychology (credibility problems → ‘wasted vote’)

33
New cards

Libdem losses under FPTP — 1983 % vote % seats

  • 25.4% vote

  • 3.5% seats

34
New cards

1 smaller party with regional concentration — 2015 SNP % seats v % vote

  • 95% Scottish seats

  • 50% vote

35
New cards

Votes per seat in 2015 for C, UKIP and SNP

Tory - 34 243

UKIP - 3 881 129

SNP - 25 972

36
New cards

2024 — % of L seats with C 2nd

53%

37
New cards

2024 — % of C seats with L 2nd

83%

38
New cards

% seats with Labour & Con in 1st and 2nd — 2017

89%

39
New cards

% seats with Labour & Con in 1st and 2nd — 2019

71%

40
New cards

% seats with Labour & Con in 1st and 2nd — 2024

47%

41
New cards

Reform 2nd place 2024 number of constituencies

98 constituencies (89 of which 2nd to Labour)

42
New cards

Green 2nd place 2024 number of constituencies

40 constituencies

43
New cards

2015- UKIP — votes, seats, constituencies in 2nd

2nd in 120 constituencies

4m votes

1 seat

44
New cards

2 places in which FPTP is used

  1. House of Commons

  2. England & Wales for local govt