The FPTP system allows each citizen to cast one vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins.
It is often viewed as simple, fair, and logical.
Under FPTP, a candidate can win without securing a majority of the votes.
Example: In an election, Leopard gets 20 votes (winner), Tiger 15, and Snake 6.
This means that 80% of the voters wanted a different candidate, leading to minority rule.
In larger elections with more candidates, a candidate could win even with as little as 5% of the total vote.
FPTP often leads to a two-party system over time.
This occurs because voters from smaller parties may feel their votes are wasted which influences their voting behavior.
Voters may opt for a less favored candidate with higher chances of winning (strategic voting).
Example: After Leopard's rule, turtle voters support Gorilla, viewing him as the best alternative to Leopard, while snake voters are pulled towards Tiger, fearing a Leopard victory.
This cycle continues as the major parties remain dominant and competition from smaller parties is reduced.
The iterative nature of voting under FPTP develops a system dominated by two major parties.
Citizens do not favor this system; rather, they end up with it because of the structural advantages it provides to the leading parties.
Curiously, this dynamic mirrors why the United States predominantly exhibits a two-party political system.
Changing this outcome would require reforming the electoral system.
The conversation touches on the implications of winning a constituency by a majority (e.g., achieving 70% support).
This shows that while one candidate can dominate in certain areas, it fails to reflect diverse voter preferences sufficiently across the broader electoral landscape.
Voters should potentially have the option to rank candidates or express preferences beyond a binary choice to better gauge public sentiment.
The narrative shifts to questions surrounding the Brexit process.
David Cameron, then Prime Minister, campaigned for remaining in the EU.
The outcome showed a clear division in public opinion, leading to further questions about the accuracy and interpretation of the referendum results.