Difference Between First Past the Post (FPTP) and Proportional Representation (PR)

Introduction

According to the universal adult franchise, all citizens of the country over the age of 18 can vote and participate in the formation of the government. In this way, the people can elect their representatives, who will endeavor to protect their interests. The two most prevalent voting systems used to elect members of Parliament are first past the post and proportional representation.

First Past the Post (FPTP) vs Proportional Representation (PR)

First Past the Post is a voting system in which inhabitants of a constituency vote for the candidate they want to represent them in Parliament. Proportional Representation, on the other hand, is an election system in which voters cast their votes directly for a political party.

Difference Between First Past the Post vs Proportional Representation  in Tabular Form

Parameters of Comparison	First Past the Post	Proportional Representation
Definition	First Past the Post is a voting system in which individuals cast their votes for the candidate of their choice, and the candidate with the most votes wins.	Proportional Representation is an electoral method in which political parties are assigned seats based on the number of votes cast for them.
Constituency	The entire country is divided into distinct geographical units, known as constituencies.	Constituencies are large geographical areas.
Representative	Each constituency elects one representative.	A single constituency can elect one or more representatives.
Voting	Voting is done for the candidate.	The party receives votes.
Seats	The number of votes cast may or may not be equivalent to the number of seats won.	A party receives seats based on the proportion of votes it receives.
Majority	The winning candidate may not receive a majority of votes.	The winning candidate receives the most votes.
Accountability	Exists	Does not exist
Clashinh of Ideas	Does not win	May win

What is First Past the Post ?

The First Past the Post System, also known as the Simple Majority System, is an electoral system in which the candidate with the most votes wins in a single-member constituency. The outcome is determined by the candidate who received the most votes.

The multi-cornered contest is also observed, in which the number of candidates contesting the election climbs to three or four, and sometimes more than six. In such instances, the candidate with the most total votes cast wins the seat, as the simple rule of the majority applies, even if it is less than 50% of the total votes cast.

Its goal is to elect someone to represent the constituency in Parliament. As a result, individuals vote for various candidates nominated by a political party. It is followed by countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and India.

The nation as a whole is divided into small geographical entities called constituencies in the FPTP system. Every constituency elects one representative, with each voter casting one vote for one candidate. The candidate who receives the most votes is proclaimed the winner. The winning candidate does not need to receive a majority, i.e. 50%+1 of the votes cast. India, the United Kingdom, and Canada are examples of countries that use the FPTP system.

In the case of FPTP, a party may receive more legislative seats than votes. The Congress party won 415 of the 543 Lok Sabha seats in the 1984 elections, or more than 80% of the seats, but only 48% of the votes cast. As a result, the Congress party received more seats than it received votes. Furthermore, this system generally gives the largest party or coalition more bonus seats than their vote share would allow.

Advantages of FTPT

Here are a few advantages of the FPTP system:

• A voting procedure that is easy and well-known: It is less complicated than other voting procedures, such as the Proportional Representation (PR) procedure used in nations like Israel, the Netherlands, and others. India uses a proportional representation electoral system to choose its president and vice president.
• Easy and Convenient: In a big country like India, the FPTP system works better than the PR method. The sophisticated system of proportional representation is best suited for small nations. Furthermore, FPTP is simple to comprehend by regular voters who may lack specialized political and electoral knowledge.
• Voters have the option to choose between parties as well as specific candidates under the FPTP system. In a PR system, candidates for representatives are chosen based on party lists after voters are frequently asked to select a party.
• Voters are familiar with their representatives because, unlike in the proportional representation system, candidates in FPTP are familiar with their representatives. Candidates can therefore hold the representatives accountable in FPTP.
• The parliamentary system necessitates that the executive has a majority in the legislature in order for the government to run smoothly. The authors of the Constitution believed that in a parliamentary system like India's, the PR system might not be suitable for providing a stable administration. As a result, the FPTP system facilitates the smooth operation of the legislative government.

Disadvantages of FTPT

Below are a few disadvantages of the First Past the Post (FPTP) System:

• True representation is not achieved by FPTP: First Past the Post (FPTP) voting is not entirely representational because a candidate can win with less than 50% of the vote. For instance: With just 38.5% of the popular vote, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the BJP, won 336 seats in 2014. In the FPTP system, smaller parties have a lower chance of winning. The goal of local self-government and federalism is defeated because smaller parties are compelled to support the objectives of larger parties.
• Voting within communities: The First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system's characteristics could result in communal vote splitting.

The FPTP system, in general, results in a two-party system, but India's FPTP experience is slightly different. Following India's independence, a one-party dominance emerged, and after 1989, India saw the operation of multi-party coalitions. However, an important feature of India's party system is that the rise of coalitions has allowed new and smaller parties to compete in elections despite the FPTP system.

What is Proportional Representation ?

Proportional Representation, also known as the Single Transferable Vote System, is an election system in which all classes of people are represented since each party receives the same number of seats as the proportion of votes the candidate receives in the election.

In this system, any political party or interest group receives representation in proportion to their voting strength; that is, once the votes are counted, each party receives the number of seats in parliament based on the number of votes received.

Parties with a modest support base can thereby get representation in the legislature. It can sometimes lead to a multi-party coalition government. Every vote is significant in the eyes of a voter because it counts. It is practiced in nations such as the Netherlands and Israel.

Proportional Representation (PR) refers to election systems in which electorate divisions are mirrored proportionally in the elected body. If n% of the electorate selects a particular political party as their favorite, that party will win around n% of the seats. The essence of such systems is that all votes count toward the outcome, not merely a plurality or a simple majority.

Members of the Rajya Sabha are elected indirectly rather than directly by the people, as is the case with the Lok Sabha. Members of the Rajya Sabha are elected by the Vidhan Sabha (Legislative Assembly) of each state using a single transferable vote system. In contrast to other federal systems, the number of MPs returned by each state is nearly proportional to its population.

Advantages of PR

• To avoid some of the most disruptive and 'unfair' results produced by plurality/majority electoral systems, faithfully translate votes cast into seats gained. Seat benefits for larger parties are reduced, and tiny parties can have a voice in the legislature.
• Encourage or require the development of political parties or groups of candidates who have similar views to put out lists. This may clarify policy, philosophy, or leadership disparities within society, especially where there is no established party system, as in Timor-Leste at the time of independence.
• Allow for very few squandered votes. When thresholds are low, practically all votes cast in PR elections go to electing a preferred candidate. See Voluntary Party Candidate Quotas for more information on who can influence the selection process in political parties. This boosts voters' sense that it is worthwhile to make the trip to the polling booth during election season, as they can be more confident that their vote will make a difference, however tiny, in the election outcome.
• Allow minority parties easier access to representation. Unless the threshold is very high or the district magnitude is extremely small, any political party with even a minor share of the vote can earn seats in the legislature.
• Encourage parties to campaign in districts where they have a strong presence or where the outcomes are predicted to be close. The incentive in PR systems is to maximize the total vote, regardless of where it comes from. Every vote counts, even if it comes from a region where a party is electorally weak.

Disadvantages of PR

• Coalition governments result in a legislative impasse and, as a result, an inability to implement clear policies. There are especially high risks during the immediate post-conflict transition period when people have great expectations of new governments. Coalition cabinets and administrations of national unity that are divided by factions can stymie quick and clear decision-making.
• The disintegration of the party system is disruptive. PR can both reflect and encourage party system disintegration. Extreme pluralism may allow tiny minority parties to hold larger parties hostage in coalition negotiations. In this regard, the system's inclusion is seen as a disadvantage. Extremist religious groups, for example, are frequently vital in the formation of a government in Israel, but Italy has weathered many years of unstable shifting coalition governments. Countries that are democratizing are frequently concerned that PR may allow personality-based and ethnic-cleavage parties to spread in their underdeveloped party systems.
• A venue for radical parties. In a related argument, PR systems are frequently attacked for allowing extreme left- or right-leaning parties to get seats in the legislature. It has been argued that the fall of Weimar Germany was partially caused by the way the PR election system allowed extremist groups on the far left and right to gain a foothold.

Main Difference Between First Past the Post and Proportional Representation in Points

The following points illustrate the distinction between first past the post and proportional representation:

• The First Past the Post (FPTP) system is a voting technique in which inhabitants of a constituency vote for a candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. In contrast, Proportional Representation (PR) is an election system in which individuals vote for political parties, and seats are allotted to the parties based on their voting strength.
• The entire country is divided into different tiny geographical sections, i.e. constituencies, in the first-past-the-post system. In proportional representation, large geographical units are termed a constituency.
• In the first-past-the-post system, one candidate from each constituency is elected. In contrast to proportional representation, where more than one candidate from a constituency can be chosen.
• Citizens vote for the candidate of their choice using the first pass the post system. Citizens of the constituency, on the other hand, vote for a political party.
• The total number of seats given to a political party in an FPTP system may or may not be equal to the total number of votes cast. In contrast, in a PR system, the party receives seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them.
• Accountability exists in the first past the post system because people know the candidate for whom they voted and can confront him or her if he or she does not serve them or work for their development. On the contrary, accountability is lacking in the sense that they vote for a party rather than a candidate.
• In the first past the post system, the winning candidate may or may not receive the majority of votes, whereas in the proportional representation system, the candidate who won the elections receives the majority of votes.
• Due to the large number of political parties in the parliament, political parties with a small number of votes are elected in proportional representation, which leads to disagreements of opinions. In contrast, in the first past the post elections, the candidate with the most votes wins the election, and the political party receives seats in Parliament, therefore there is no battle of ideas.

In India, the first past the post method is used for direct elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly, but the proportional representation system is used for indirect elections, such as Rajya Sabha and Legislative Council elections, or the election of the President and Vice President.