First Past the Post vs Proportional Representation: How the Two Systems Differ

An electoral system is the set of rules that turns votes into seats. Two countries can hold equally free and honest elections and still end up with very different parliaments, simply because they count in different ways. The two families of systems that most debates come down to are first past the post and proportional representation.

First past the post in one minute

Under first past the post (FPTP), the country is divided into constituencies, and each constituency elects one representative. Voters mark a single cross, and the candidate with the most votes wins. They do not need a majority, only more votes than anyone else.

Imagine a constituency where three candidates take 40%, 35% and 25% of the vote. The first candidate wins the seat. The other 60% of voters elect nobody, and their votes have no further effect on the make-up of parliament. Across hundreds of constituencies, those results add up to the national picture.

FPTP is used to elect the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, the House of Commons in Canada, the US House of Representatives and the Lok Sabha in India. It is also used for parliamentary constituencies in several African countries with a British colonial past, such as Nigeria and Zambia.

Proportional representation in one minute

Proportional representation (PR) is a family of systems with one aim: a party's share of the seats should be close to its share of the votes. A party that wins 20% of the vote should end up with roughly 20% of the seats.

The most common form is the party list. Each party puts forward a ranked list of candidates for a large, multi-member area, or for the whole country. Seats are shared out according to the votes, using a formula such as D'Hondt or Sainte-Laguë, and filled from the top of each list. In a closed list, voters choose only a party; in an open list, they can also push particular candidates up the list.

Israel elects all 120 members of the Knesset from nationwide lists, and a party needs at least 3.25% of the vote to win any seats. South Africa's 400-seat National Assembly is also elected by list PR.

What the difference looks like in real results

Two recent elections show how far apart the systems can land.

In the UK general election of July 2024, held under FPTP, Labour won 411 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons with 33.7% of the vote, a large majority. Reform UK took 14.3% of the vote but won 5 seats. The Liberal Democrats won 12.2% of the vote and 72 seats, because their support was concentrated in places where they could win. Under FPTP, where a party's votes are matters as much as how many it gets.

In South Africa's general election of May 2024, held under PR, the African National Congress won 40.18% of the vote and 159 of the 400 seats, which is 39.75%. The Democratic Alliance won 21.81% and 87 seats. Seats tracked votes closely, and because no party passed half, a government had to be built from several parties. Our explainer on coalition government shows what happened next.

Election	System	Party	Vote share	Seat share
UK 2024	FPTP	Labour	33.7%	63% (411 of 650)
UK 2024	FPTP	Reform UK	14.3%	0.8% (5 of 650)
UK 2024	FPTP	Liberal Democrats	12.2%	11% (72 of 650)
South Africa 2024	List PR	ANC	40.18%	39.75% (159 of 400)
South Africa 2024	List PR	Democratic Alliance	21.81%	21.75% (87 of 400)

Neither result is a malfunction. Each system did what it was designed to do. The argument is about which design is better.

The case for first past the post

• A local representative. Every voter has one named member for their area, who can be contacted, praised or voted out.
• Clear results and stable governments. FPTP tends to give one party a majority on less than half the vote, so a government can usually be formed the morning after polling day without negotiations.
• Easy to understand and to count. One cross, one winner, results by the next day.
• Accountability. If voters dislike a government, they can remove it as a whole, rather than see it return in a new coalition.

The case for proportional representation

• Seats match votes. Parliament reflects the range of opinion in the country more closely.
• Fewer wasted votes. Supporters of smaller parties, or of a large party in an area it never wins, still help to elect someone.
• Less tactical voting. Voters can back their first choice without worrying about "splitting the vote".
• Broad governments. Coalitions need the support of parties that together usually represent a majority of voters.

Critics of PR answer that coalition talks can take weeks, that small parties can gain influence out of proportion to their size, and that closed lists give party leaders control over who is elected. Critics of FPTP answer that a majority government elected by a third of voters is not a fair outcome, and that the system pushes voters towards two main parties.

Systems in between

Many countries combine the two ideas.

Mixed-member proportional (MMP)

Voters have two votes: one for a local constituency member, elected as under FPTP, and one for a party. The party vote decides each party's total number of seats, and list seats top up the constituency wins so the overall result is proportional. Germany uses a version of this system for the Bundestag. New Zealand adopted MMP after a referendum in 1993 and first used it in 1996, replacing first past the post.

Additional member system (AMS)

A close relative of MMP, used for the Scottish Parliament since its first election in 1999. Constituency members are topped up by regional list members, which makes the result more proportional than FPTP but usually less than full PR.

Single transferable vote (STV)

Voters rank candidates in multi-member constituencies: 1, 2, 3 and so on. A candidate who reaches a set quota is elected, and votes they do not need, or votes for candidates who are eliminated, move to the next preference. STV keeps local representatives and gives broadly proportional results. It is used in the Republic of Ireland, Malta, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish local council elections.

Can a country change its system?

Yes, though it rarely happens quickly. New Zealand changed after two referendums. In the United Kingdom, a 2011 referendum asked whether Westminster should switch from FPTP to the alternative vote, a ranked system for single-member seats. Voters rejected the change by 67.9% to 32.1%. Debate about electoral reform continues in many countries, usually after an election in which seats and votes have drifted far apart.

Side by side

	First past the post	Proportional representation
Representatives per area	One	Several, or nationwide lists
How a seat is won	Most votes in the constituency	Share of the vote across the area
Typical result	Single-party majority on a minority of votes	Parliament close to the vote; coalitions common
Smaller parties	Under-represented unless their votes are concentrated	Represented above any threshold
Tactical voting	Common	Rarely needed
Examples	UK Commons, Canada, India, US House	Israel, Netherlands, South Africa