LogFAQs > #882033693

Mario_VS_DK posted...

I would have to actually sit down and do some solid research on what the benefits and negatives to each voting method is to actually know for sure anyways

Also, if you want the cliff notes version, here's the usual talking points:

First Past the Post
Winner is determined by who gets a plurality of votes in any given riding; a majority is not required.

Pros:
+Tends to result in large parliamentary majorities, allowing the winning party wide latitude to implement their agenda
+As a result, governments elected under FPTP tend to be stable and almost always serve out the full term, minimizing the costs and inconveniences of frequent elections
+If a government exceeds their mandate, it becomes a relatively straightforward task for the voters to toss them at the next election

Cons:
-Is a terrible voting system
-One of the most unrepresentative of all democratic voting systems. In Canada it is very possible to get >50% of the seats (which, thanks to an absence of separation between our executive and legislative branches is equivalent to nearly 100% of the power) with <40% of the popular vote (both the Harper Conservatives and the Trudeau Liberals did this in the last two elections). And, amazingly, we're not anywhere close to the worst example of that trend.
-Electoral resources are disproportionately funnelled towards competitive ridings; those ridings where any given candidate is polling more than 10% ahead of their nearest competitor are not worth investing in.
-It's awful
-Suffers from the "Spoiler Effect" where if you have a dominant party on one end of the political spectrum, creating/voting for an ideologically similar party will weaken both and provide an advantage to your rivals (this is why so many Conservative parties in Canada have amalgamated - they can only be competitive as a single, unified party under FPTP, and marching under one banner allows them a shot at electoral victory, despite the fact that >60% of Canadians vote for left-wing parties).
-Favours large parties, to the point where FPTP implicitly encourages a two-party system. Even in those countries that hold more than two political parties (like Canada), there are almost never more than two dominant ones at any given time.
-Very vulnerable to Gerrymandering
-Seriously, FPTP is just the worst

Ranked Ballots
Winner requires a majority of votes, not just a plurality. Voters cast ballots that include multiple ranked selections; in the event that no candidate get a majority, the lowest-ranked candiate is dropped and his/her voters' second choice is added to tally - this process is repeated until one candidate has a majority of votes.

Pros:
+Strikes a balance between proportional and FPTP systems
+Reduces the effects of "strategic voting" and the Spoiler Effect - voters are now free to vote for whatever candidate they like, no matter how fringe, and still be confident that their choices (in the form of their alternate selections) will still matter and they won't be supporting their ideological foes.
+Generally more representative than FPTP.

Cons:
-Strongly favours centrist parties.
-Can still produce extremely unrepresentative results, depending on how the votes shake out. Although this allows voters to support fringe parties without worry, that support still usually won't translate into actual representation.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!