First-past-the-post | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: Nov 2
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 60–75 minutes
First-past-the-post (FPTP) is the electoral system used for elections to the Westminster Parliament and is a central part of Edexcel's Electoral Systems topic. This First-past-the-post A-Level Politics revision page explains how FPTP works, before examining arguments about government, representation and voter choice. These ideas prepare you to study alternative electoral systems and later make direct comparisons between voting systems in electoral reform debates. The specification requires you to understand FPTP, its advantages and disadvantages, and the effects electoral systems have on party representation and voter choice.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define First-past-the-post and explain the meaning of a plurality.
Explain how FPTP determines the winner of an election in a constituency.
Analyse the main advantages and disadvantages of FPTP.
Explain how FPTP can affect the type of government formed.
Evaluate the impact of FPTP on party representation and voter choice.
Apply the concepts of safe and marginal seats when analysing elections.
Revision Notes 📚
What is First-past-the-post?
First-past-the-post (FPTP) is an electoral system in which the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes is elected.
Pearson defines victory under FPTP as having more votes than any other contender. This makes FPTP a plurality system. A candidate therefore does not need more than 50% of the vote to win.
The basic principle is:
An election takes place in a constituency.
Voters choose between the candidates standing there.
The votes for each candidate are counted.
The candidate with the largest number of votes wins.
All constituencies are decided separately, producing the elected House of Commons.
This makes FPTP fundamentally different from systems designed to achieve greater proportionality between a party's overall share of the vote and its share of seats. You will examine those systems in AMS, STV and SV.
Example of how FPTP works
Imagine the following result in a constituency:
Candidate | Votes |
Candidate A | 18,420 |
Candidate B | 16,810 |
Candidate C | 7,940 |
Candidate D | 2,330 |
Candidate A wins because 18,420 is the largest number of votes.
There are 45,500 votes in total, meaning Candidate A received only about 40.5% of the vote. The candidate nevertheless wins because FPTP requires a plurality, not an absolute majority.
This distinction is essential in an examination. Do not write that a candidate must gain more than half of the votes.
Safe seats and marginal seats
The effect of FPTP cannot be understood without distinguishing between safe seats and marginal seats.
Safe seats
A safe seat is a constituency in which the incumbent has a considerable majority over the nearest rival and is therefore largely resistant to changes in voting behaviour. The same party tends to retain the seat from one election to another.
The specification glossary notes that a majority of Westminster constituencies are safe seats.
Safe seats matter because they affect voter choice. If one party is overwhelmingly likely to win, voters supporting other parties may believe that their vote has little chance of affecting who becomes the MP.
The 2019 examination source presented this as an argument against FPTP, suggesting that persuading people to vote can be difficult in safe seats.
Marginal seats
A marginal seat is held by a relatively small majority and can therefore change hands following a comparatively small movement in support.
Pearson gives the example that a seat with a 10% winning margin would require a 5% swing to the rival party to change hands. The specification also states that only a minority of Westminster constituencies are marginal.
Marginal constituencies are particularly important because changes within them can determine which party gains enough seats to form a government.
This connects electoral systems to the wider issue of how parties compete for support, explored further through party success and failure.
Advantages of First-past-the-post
The advantages of FPTP concern simplicity, representation, accountability and its potential consequences for government.
Simple and quick to operate
FPTP has a straightforward rule: the candidate with the most votes wins.
There is no requirement to rank candidates, calculate a quota or redistribute preferences. The 2019 and 2022 examination sources both presented simplicity as a significant argument in favour of FPTP.This can make election results easier for voters to understand.
Evaluation: Simplicity is an advantage, but it does not establish that the outcome is necessarily representative. An electoral system can be simple while still producing significant differences between votes cast and seats won.
A clear constituency representative
FPTP creates a direct connection between an elected MP and a particular constituency.
This means voters know who represents their area and can identify a specific MP who can be held responsible for representing that constituency. Both the 2019 and 2022 examination materials identify the close relationship between MPs and their constituencies as an argument in favour of FPTP.
Evaluation: This gives FPTP an important form of geographical representation, even where its overall party representation is less proportional.
It can produce governments with working majorities
One major argument for FPTP is that it can translate electoral support into a decisive parliamentary majority.
A Pearson source used in the 2022 examination stated that FPTP had produced governments with working majorities in 18 of the 20 elections since 1945 at that point.
A working majority can make it easier for a government to:
pursue its programme;
pass legislation;
remain in office without relying continuously on another party.
This links directly to government type and electoral outcomes.
Evaluation: This outcome is common but not guaranteed. The specification includes both coalition government and minority government as relevant electoral-system terminology. It specifically identifies the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition of 2010–15 as an example of coalition government.
FPTP should therefore be described as a system that can favour single-party majority government, not one that always produces it.
Clearer accountability
Where one party wins a working majority and governs alone, responsibility for political decisions can be easier to identify.
Supporters argue that voters can therefore remove a government they believe has performed badly and replace it with another.
The 2022 examination source linked FPTP to the ability of voters to remove unsuccessful governments, a clear mandate and political accountability.
Evaluation: Accountability may be clearer under single-party government, but the value of this advantage depends partly on whether the distribution of seats accurately reflects how voters actually voted.
It can limit the representation of very small parties
FPTP makes it difficult for parties to gain representation when their support is too thinly spread across constituencies to allow them to finish first.
Supporters of FPTP have argued that this can prevent extremist parties from gaining parliamentary representation. This argument appeared in both the 2019 and 2022 Edexcel sources.
Evaluation: Whether this is an advantage depends on the criterion being used. Restricting representation might contribute to political stability, but it can simultaneously mean that substantial groups of voters do not receive representation corresponding to their support.
This tension becomes particularly important when studying minor parties.
Disadvantages of First-past-the-post
The central criticisms of FPTP concern disproportionality, unequal representation, safe seats and limitations on voter choice.
Votes and seats may not be proportional
Under FPTP, seats are won constituency by constituency. There is no mechanism designed to ensure that a party's national share of seats corresponds closely to its national share of the vote.
The Edexcel mark scheme has explicitly identified FPTP as an electoral system that can make a major difference to party representation and noted its tendency to favour the two main parties.
This can produce a Parliament that is not a proportional reflection of the votes cast nationally.
The 2022 examination source described FPTP as a "distorting" system and contrasted it with proportional systems intended to reflect voting patterns more closely.
Evaluation: FPTP prioritises the election of individual constituency representatives rather than national proportionality. Whether disproportionality is therefore considered unacceptable depends on what you believe an electoral system should primarily achieve.
A party can win the election without winning the most votes nationally
Because every constituency is a separate contest, the party winning the greatest number of seats does not necessarily have to receive the greatest number of votes nationally.
Pearson's 2022 examination source identified 1951 and February 1974 as elections in which FPTP produced this type of outcome.
This is a significant criticism because it raises questions about representation and legitimacy.
Evaluation: Supporters of FPTP would respond that Westminster elections determine constituency representatives and parliamentary seats, rather than conducting one nationwide contest for the largest popular vote.
Minor parties may be disadvantaged
A party can receive substantial support across the country but win few seats if it repeatedly finishes second or third rather than first.
This creates particular problems for smaller parties whose support is geographically dispersed.
The 2021 examiner report is especially useful here. Examiners found that stronger candidates understood the different effects of FPTP on smaller parties and supported their arguments with detailed evidence about several parties. Weaker answers simply described FPTP as generally "unfair" without explaining how actual electoral outcomes for parties were affected.
This links directly to your earlier work on the political importance of smaller political parties.
However, do not turn this into the simplistic claim that smaller parties can never win seats. The impact depends partly on where their support is located. Edexcel mark-scheme material also recognises that smaller parties can play a larger role when support for the two major parties declines.
Many votes do not affect who is elected
A consequence of the winner-takes-all nature of each constituency contest is that votes cast for losing candidates do not help those candidates gain representation.
Likewise, once the winning candidate has enough votes to finish first, additional votes increase their majority without producing additional representation.
Critics therefore argue that the system can create large numbers of votes which have little effect on the final allocation of seats.
This problem is particularly visible in safe seats, where the same party may win repeatedly by large margins.
Evaluation: Supporters can argue that every vote still contributes to determining the constituency result and that electoral participation cannot be judged solely according to whether an individual vote elects the voter's preferred candidate.
Safe seats can restrict meaningful voter choice
Although voters can choose between candidates, their practical ability to influence the result varies substantially between constituencies.
In a marginal seat, a relatively small change in votes can replace the incumbent.
In a safe seat, the winning party may have such a large majority that a change in representation is much less likely.
This means FPTP can give voters formally identical votes but very different opportunities to affect the result.
The 2019 Edexcel source specifically linked safe seats to difficulties in encouraging electoral participation.
Evaluation: Marginal seats demonstrate that FPTP can create highly competitive local contests. The criticism is therefore not that voter choice is always ineffective, but that the significance of that choice can vary considerably according to constituency.
FPTP may reinforce the largest parties
Because winning seats depends on coming first in individual constituencies, major parties capable of building geographically effective concentrations of support can be rewarded strongly.
Edexcel mark-scheme material identifies FPTP's tendency to over-represent the major parties as a significant issue when evaluating party representation.
This can create tension with Britain's development towards a multi-party political environment.
Evaluation: Larger parties are not guaranteed success simply because FPTP is used. Electoral outcomes still depend on how voters distribute their support between parties and constituencies.
FPTP and representation
The specification specifically requires you to analyse the impact of different electoral systems on party representation.
Under FPTP, representation has several dimensions.
Aspect of representation | Possible strength of FPTP | Possible weakness of FPTP |
Local representation | A clear constituency MP represents a defined area. | A large proportion of voters may have supported someone else. |
Party representation | Parties that win constituencies gain clear parliamentary representation. | Seat totals may not closely reflect national vote shares. |
Major parties | The system can help produce decisive parliamentary representation. | Larger parties may be over-represented. |
Minor parties | Parties with effective concentrations of support can win constituencies. | Parties with dispersed support may receive many votes but few seats. |
Government representation | FPTP can produce a government with a working majority and clear responsibility. | A parliamentary majority can be produced without majority support among voters. |
The key exam skill is not to label FPTP simply "representative" or "unrepresentative". Instead, identify what kind of representation you are assessing.
It can provide strong constituency representation while producing less proportional party representation.
That distinction is central to later comparison between electoral systems.
FPTP and voter choice
The specification also requires you to understand the impact of electoral systems on voter choice.
FPTP provides voters with a straightforward choice between candidates and establishes a clear relationship between that choice and the constituency representative.
However, voter choice can also be restricted by the system's structure.
Arguments that FPTP supports voter choice
Voters make a clear choice between competing candidates.
The candidate receiving the most support locally wins.
Voters can directly replace their constituency representative.
The connection between vote and constituency MP is easily understood.
Arguments that FPTP restricts voter choice
Only the leading candidate gains representation.
Votes for defeated candidates do not translate into parliamentary representation.
Voters in safe seats have less opportunity to change the result.
Parties with substantial but dispersed support can struggle to convert votes into seats.
The correct judgement is therefore nuanced: FPTP provides clear local choice, but does not necessarily translate the full range of voter preferences into parliamentary representation.
FPTP and the type of government formed
The specification requires students to understand the impact electoral systems can have on the government or type of government appointed.
FPTP is frequently associated with single-party government because its constituency-based structure can amplify the parliamentary representation of the strongest parties.
This can produce:
a working parliamentary majority;
clearer governing responsibility;
a stronger mandate argument.
However, FPTP does not make these outcomes inevitable.
A minority government has fewer than half of the seats in the legislature, making the passage of legislation more difficult.
A coalition government contains more than one political party and normally involves agreement between the participating parties over policies and offices. The specification gives the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government of 2010–15 as an example.
This is an important qualification when evaluating claims that FPTP automatically produces strong single-party government.
You will develop this issue in much greater depth in electoral system consequences.
Overall assessment of First-past-the-post
There is no single specification-approved judgement about whether FPTP is "good" or "bad". The issue is deliberately contestable.
A strong overall evaluation weighs competing criteria.
If you prioritise... | FPTP may appear... |
Simple elections | Strong |
Clear constituency representation | Strong |
Clear governmental accountability | Strong |
Working parliamentary majorities | Often strong, but not guaranteed |
Proportional party representation | Weak |
Equal impact of votes across constituencies | Weak |
Representation of dispersed minor-party support | Weak |
Straightforward voter choice | Strong |
Translating the full range of voter preferences into seats | Weak |
An effective judgement might therefore argue that FPTP performs strongly when the aim is decisive government and constituency accountability, but less strongly when the priority is proportional representation and equal electoral influence.
That trade-off should form the basis of your evaluation rather than a simple assertion that the system is fair or unfair.
These definitions reflect the terminology required in the Edexcel specification glossary.
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Do not reduce an FPTP essay to a vague argument that the system is simply "unfair". In the 2021 examination, stronger responses explained precisely what happened to different smaller parties under FPTP and connected this evidence to the question. Weaker candidates made broad claims about unfairness without enough evidence or analysis.
Examiner hint: Build evaluation into the argument rather than saving all judgement for the conclusion. Examiner guidance emphasises that contested arguments need to be weighed and that your conclusion should reflect a position developed throughout the essay.
Examiner hint: When a question requires comparison between FPTP and a devolved electoral system, answer that comparison directly. In 2022, many students knew the standard strengths and weaknesses of FPTP but did not fully address the requirement to compare it with an alternative system operating in a devolved region.
Examiner hint: Pair competing arguments. For example, compare FPTP's clear constituency link directly with concerns about proportional representation, or compare the possibility of a working majority directly with the possibility of disproportionate seat outcomes. This makes analysis clearer and helps create substantiated AO3 judgements.
Examiner hint: Precise terminology matters. A candidate wins under FPTP by achieving a plurality, not necessarily a majority. Similarly, distinguish carefully between safe and marginal seats.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying the winner needs more than 50% of the vote
Why this is incorrect: FPTP is a plurality system. The winner needs more votes than each rival candidate, not necessarily an absolute majority of all votes cast.
How to improve: Write: "The candidate receiving the greatest number of votes wins, even if this is less than 50%."
Mistake: Claiming FPTP always produces majority government
Why this is incorrect: FPTP often produces working parliamentary majorities, but this is not guaranteed. The specification explicitly requires knowledge of minority and coalition governments and gives the 2010–15 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition as an example.
How to improve: Use qualified language such as "FPTP tends to" or "FPTP can" produce working majorities.
Mistake: Treating a safe seat as an uncontested seat
Why this is incorrect: A safe seat can still have several candidates. It is "safe" because the incumbent party has a sufficiently large majority that the seat is relatively resistant to changes in voting behaviour.
How to improve: Link safe seats to the size of the existing majority, not to an absence of opposition candidates.
Mistake: Assuming national vote share directly determines seats
Why this is incorrect: FPTP operates through separate constituency contests. Parties gain seats by winning individual constituencies rather than receiving seats according to their national percentage of the vote.
How to improve: Always distinguish between votes won nationally and constituencies won.
Mistake: Saying all minor parties are affected in exactly the same way
Why this is incorrect: The effect of FPTP depends partly on the geographical distribution of support. Smaller parties are particularly disadvantaged where their votes are spread across many constituencies without producing first-place finishes.
How to improve: Explain the mechanism causing under-representation rather than simply stating that FPTP "hurts small parties".
Mistake: Listing advantages and disadvantages without evaluating them
Why this is incorrect: Edexcel questions reward analysis and evaluation as well as knowledge. A list does not demonstrate why one argument might outweigh another.
How to improve: Pair each argument with a counterargument and make a judgement. For example:
Clear constituency representation is a strength because voters know their MP, however, this does not solve disproportionality between national votes and seats. Therefore, whether the advantage outweighs the disadvantage depends on whether local or proportional representation is considered more important.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define First-past-the-post. (1 mark)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer: An electoral system in which the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes is elected.
Question 2
The result in the fictional constituency of Westford is shown below.
Candidate | Votes |
A | 15,850 |
B | 14,720 |
C | 9,100 |
D | 4,330 |
Identify the winning candidate and explain why they win under FPTP. (2 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer:
Candidate A wins. (1)
Candidate A has the largest number of votes and therefore achieves the required plurality. (1)
The candidate does not need more than 50% of all votes.
Question 3
Explain one way in which FPTP can strengthen constituency representation. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Award credit for developed explanation such as:
FPTP elects a specific representative for a constituency.
This creates a direct relationship between the MP and the geographical area they represent.
Voters can therefore identify who is responsible for representing their constituency.
This can strengthen political accountability.
Question 4
Explain one disadvantage of safe seats under FPTP. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Possible points include:
A safe seat has a large existing majority.
This makes a change of representative relatively unlikely.
Supporters of losing parties may therefore have less opportunity to affect the outcome.
This can weaken the effective influence of voter choice within that constituency.
Question 5
Study the fictional election results below.
Party | National vote share | Seats won |
Party A | 41% | 55% |
Party B | 36% | 38% |
Party C | 15% | 5% |
Other parties | 8% | 2% |
Analyse what these results suggest about the impact FPTP can have on party representation. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong answer should identify and develop points such as:
The percentage of seats does not closely match the percentage of votes.
Party A receives 41% of votes but 55% of seats, showing possible over-representation.
Party C receives 15% of votes but only 5% of seats, showing possible under-representation.
This reflects the constituency-based nature of FPTP because seats depend on winning individual contests rather than national vote share.
The results therefore illustrate how FPTP can favour larger parties while disadvantaging parties whose support does not translate efficiently into constituency victories.
Question 6
Explain why it is inaccurate to claim that FPTP always produces single-party majority governments. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Credit should be given for explaining that:
FPTP can produce working parliamentary majorities and historically has often done so.
However, the outcome depends on how constituency seats are distributed between parties.
A party may fail to secure a majority of seats.
This may result in a minority government or parties forming a coalition.
The specification gives the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition of 2010–15 as an example.
Therefore, majority government is a possible consequence of FPTP rather than an automatic outcome.
Question 7
Read the following source.
Supporters of FPTP argue that elections should produce a clear representative for every constituency and allow voters to identify which party is responsible for governing. Its simple plurality rule can contribute to decisive election outcomes and clear accountability.Critics argue that local clarity comes at the expense of fair party representation. A party may receive substantial support without winning many constituencies, while voters living in safe seats may have limited opportunity to alter the result. Parliament may therefore fail to reflect the overall distribution of votes.
Using the source, evaluate the view that FPTP provides effective political representation.
In your response you must:
compare and contrast the different opinions in the source;
examine and debate these views in a balanced way;
analyse and evaluate the information presented in the source.
(30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response could develop three paired debates:
Constituency representation
For: a clearly identifiable MP represents each constituency.
Against: the elected MP may have been supported by only a plurality of voters.
Judgement: distinguish local representation from representation of voter preferences.
Party representation
For: parties gain seats where they successfully win constituencies.
Against: national vote share and parliamentary seat share may differ considerably.
Judgement: assess whether geographical representation or proportionality should carry greater weight.
Government and accountability
For: FPTP can generate working majorities and clearer responsibility for government.
Against: a parliamentary majority need not represent majority electoral support, and majority government is not guaranteed.
Judgement: weigh decisiveness against representativeness.
For higher-level evaluation, maintain a consistent overall judgement rather than describing each side separately.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that the advantages of First-past-the-post outweigh its disadvantages for elections to the Westminster Parliament. (30 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages may include:
FPTP is simple and produces easily understood constituency outcomes.
It provides a clear MP-constituency relationship.
It can produce working parliamentary majorities.
It can strengthen accountability by making responsibility for government clearer.
It allows voters to replace constituency representatives and governments.
Arguments that the disadvantages are greater may include:
Votes and seats can be highly disproportionate.
A party can gain the largest number of seats without gaining the largest national vote share.
Parties with dispersed support can be under-represented.
Safe seats can reduce the practical influence of voter choice.
The system may over-represent major parties.
Working majority government is not guaranteed.
For a strong judgement: establish the criteria being used. If electoral systems are primarily judged by decisive government and constituency accountability, FPTP can be defended strongly. If the priority is proportional representation and equal influence for voter preferences, the case against FPTP becomes stronger. The best responses explicitly weigh these competing objectives rather than simply counting advantages and disadvantages.
Comments