That's what the British call their electoral system; "First-past-the-post".
Perhaps obvious but just for clarity, compare it to horse racing. In a field of many there is only one winner. The first horse to cross the finish line. It doesn't matter how many more follow or the distance(s) between.
First important point: Many. Many candidates. Many parties. It's not like the American system where there are two dominant parties. True that some British parties are quite large, some quite small but relative sizes have been known to change.
In any district the winning candidate is the one (1) getting the greatest number of votes. No majority required.
By contrast, in many American CITIES (by way of example) there often are so-called "non-partisan" elections in which many candidates run for (again, example) mayor. BUT there are legislatively set parameters to be met; typically a 50+% requirement for a victory. If there are 3 candidates and the vote goes 35%, 33%, 32% there is no winner and a runoff election follows. More campaigning; more election expense. For sake of argument, in many instances a really weird result like 36%, 32%, 32% there may be a coin-toss to see which of the 32% candidates faces the 36% candidates in a runoff.
That can't happen in Britain. OK, so complain that more people voted AGAINST the declared winner and you'd be right but that's not how the agreed-upon system works, so suck it up.
It doesn't stop there, though.
In Britain, the top office (other than Queen or King in the royal sense of the word) is the Prime Minister. NOBODY is directly elected PM. To be considered one must first be an MP (Member of Parliament, elected by a district as described above). The easiest way to become PM is to be the chosen leader of a political party that has more Members of Parliament than all the other parties combined.
Until this election David Cameron was PM but his party (Conservatives, aka "Tories") did not have a majority. He was chosen in coalition with Liberal Democrats. That meant a constant horse-trading over issues with that one opposition party. It worked amazingly well. This time Conservatives hold the majority and are in a position to act alone. Not a wise thing and we might hope they figure that out quickly.
The one advantage I see in the system when compared to our American system is that it does not discourage the formation of multiple parties. It's as though each of our dominant parties saw their factions free to nominate their own candidates. That would not eliminate the kind of partisan madness we've come to expect but it would rein it in a tad.
A minor advantage; since a PM normally has to first be an MP then the chances of a bumbling inexperienced fool becoming the top dog are exceedingly slim.
But remember, The American method is NOT First-past-the-post and it's NOT direct popular vote.
On the optimistic assumption that there is wide understanding of America's political system, up to and through the whole business of The Electoral College, let us try to explore relative advantages and disadvantages of the TWO systems. That without dragging in systems that may exist in countries other than The United States and The United Kingdom.
Ready?
Set?
GO!
Perhaps obvious but just for clarity, compare it to horse racing. In a field of many there is only one winner. The first horse to cross the finish line. It doesn't matter how many more follow or the distance(s) between.
First important point: Many. Many candidates. Many parties. It's not like the American system where there are two dominant parties. True that some British parties are quite large, some quite small but relative sizes have been known to change.
In any district the winning candidate is the one (1) getting the greatest number of votes. No majority required.
By contrast, in many American CITIES (by way of example) there often are so-called "non-partisan" elections in which many candidates run for (again, example) mayor. BUT there are legislatively set parameters to be met; typically a 50+% requirement for a victory. If there are 3 candidates and the vote goes 35%, 33%, 32% there is no winner and a runoff election follows. More campaigning; more election expense. For sake of argument, in many instances a really weird result like 36%, 32%, 32% there may be a coin-toss to see which of the 32% candidates faces the 36% candidates in a runoff.
That can't happen in Britain. OK, so complain that more people voted AGAINST the declared winner and you'd be right but that's not how the agreed-upon system works, so suck it up.
It doesn't stop there, though.
In Britain, the top office (other than Queen or King in the royal sense of the word) is the Prime Minister. NOBODY is directly elected PM. To be considered one must first be an MP (Member of Parliament, elected by a district as described above). The easiest way to become PM is to be the chosen leader of a political party that has more Members of Parliament than all the other parties combined.
Until this election David Cameron was PM but his party (Conservatives, aka "Tories") did not have a majority. He was chosen in coalition with Liberal Democrats. That meant a constant horse-trading over issues with that one opposition party. It worked amazingly well. This time Conservatives hold the majority and are in a position to act alone. Not a wise thing and we might hope they figure that out quickly.
The one advantage I see in the system when compared to our American system is that it does not discourage the formation of multiple parties. It's as though each of our dominant parties saw their factions free to nominate their own candidates. That would not eliminate the kind of partisan madness we've come to expect but it would rein it in a tad.
A minor advantage; since a PM normally has to first be an MP then the chances of a bumbling inexperienced fool becoming the top dog are exceedingly slim.
But remember, The American method is NOT First-past-the-post and it's NOT direct popular vote.
On the optimistic assumption that there is wide understanding of America's political system, up to and through the whole business of The Electoral College, let us try to explore relative advantages and disadvantages of the TWO systems. That without dragging in systems that may exist in countries other than The United States and The United Kingdom.
Ready?
Set?
GO!
