Talk:First-past-the-post Voting
Get Talk:First-past-the-post Voting essential facts below. View Videos or join the Talk:First-past-the-post Voting discussion. Add Talk:First-past-the-post Voting to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Talk:First-past-the-post Voting

## Evaluation section

The "evaluation" section seems to contain only criticisms. It would be good if someone who knows enough about the topic to site some referecences could add some points in favour.86.160.156.109 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime I've changed the section heading to "criticisms." However, I believe the whole section should be deleted as per the tags that hang over it. Any thoughts on that?--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see citations for the elements of the section. It's well known that the criticisms exist (their validity is open to debate), but without citations the section just isn't credible. Also, as someone decidedly against FPTP, I'm very interested in hearing pro-FPTP reasoning and would like to see cited evaluations for this as well. Erik Carson (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (resigned after login)

## Disproportionate influence of smaller parties

This section contains the statement "However in PR systems, small parties can become decisive in Parliament so gaining a power of blackmail against the Government, a problem which is generally reduced by the FPTP system.[3][4]". The first citation doesn't seem to substantiate the statement except in the lone case of the article's subject, in which PR is combined with the relative ease of dissolving the government, creating the conditions for the mentioned blackmail; in essence, the dissolution option appears to be the more direct cause rather than the PR itself.

I only skimmed the second citation, but it isn't terribly long, and it doesn't appear to mention this sentiment at all, much less substantiate it. Erik Carson (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it even legitimate to keep that claim in popflock.com resource when the US FPTP system is currently the single most notable case of a small extremist non-party (Tea Party) effectively blackmailing the more centrist parts of the major party? Really would seem to suggest FPTP is more prone to giving extremists a disproportionate voice. 84.112.114.146 (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Arent many of the items listed under "benefits" actually criticisms ? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.17.45 (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

## Confusing Introduction

The introduction seems to say two different things, and even if you disagree, I think you might agree that it is far too long. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.16.224 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

## Grammar/Spelling

"an majority"? Frognsausage (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

## 2005 GE results

Before anybody complains - I've fixed the results given for the 2005 British general election. The results committed the old BBC fault of not realizing that the Speaker is non-partisan, as well as confusing Great Britain with the United Kingdom. Wereon (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

## Majority criterion

I just undid an edit by JMFriedman which suggested that FPTP does not meet the majority criterion. This is incorrect - it is one of the few citreria it does meet. See Voting_system#Summary_table which is correct.

The confusion may be that JMF has overinterpreted the criterion. The criterion only requires that if a majority of voters pick a candidate that candidate must win. It does not require the converse (i.e. that if only a plurality support a candidate, then the candidate must not win). Therefore, FPTP satisfies the criterion (indeed you could argue that it over-satisfies it). --Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.56.49 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See also Majority criterion, or for example http://www.fairvote.org/single-winner-voting-method-comparison-chart 2.123.56.49 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The chart and explanations at Fairvote.org is quite specific that Plurality Voting does not need to meet the plurality criterion, that the winning candidate does not have to have a majority over all other voters

Majority Favorite Criterion: If a majority (more than 50%) of voters consider candidate A to be the best choice, then A should win.[1]

-- Fairvote.org
Looks pretty unambiguous to me. I will undo the revert and add this citation.
I suspect that Majority criterion has been hacked, so will go there to correct it.
No. The criteria at Fairvote is correct, but I think you still midunderstanding it.

Majority Favorite Criterion: If a majority (more than 50%) of voters consider candidate A to be the best choice, then A should win.

. If, in a plurality system, more than 50% of voters support A, then A does in fact always win. Thus plurality obeys the majority criterion. The majority criterion simply doesn't say anything about what happens when a plurality but not a majority support A. I'm going to flag this for independent review.
Here's some more standard texts confirming this very point: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tGsQl-wxbKAC&pg=PA174#v=onepage&q&f=false (see table 7) or Democracy defended
(Gerry Mackie) 144.32.196.109 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
In the plurality system, it is certainly true that a candidate with more than 50% of the valid poll will win. That is also what your citation says - but no more. But the reason why Plurality fails to pass the majority criterion is that it is not necessary that A should have an overall majority to win. There are many instances, certainly in UK politics, where candidates have won having secured as little as 35% of the valid votes. The majority criterion simply says that a majority must support A for A to win: any system [such as plurality] in which A wins without acheiving majority does not pass the test. It fails.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, so we agree exactly on the ananlysis. We disagree on what the criterion actually says or means.
The version at fairvote only makes a positive statement, it doesn't make the additional negative statement required by your definition. Similarly the statement on the popflock.com resource page: Majority Criterion. Similarly all of the external sources I've previously cited.
I've given links to the Voting System page in popflock.com resource (the table has not been recently changed) and three external sources all of which explicitly classify plurality as MC compliant. I'm still waiting for any citation which explicitly classify it as non compliant.

144.32.196.109 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've had an insight. Maybe the problem is the language used? Voting system theory is a branch of game theory which is a branch of mathematics. Voting systems criteria therefore use the formal language of mathematical proofs. If you're not aware of this, then I can see that it might lead to misinterpretations.
My interpretation is that the MC is of the form 'A implies B'. You are arguing for a stronger reading: 'A implies B and not A implies not B'. These are differenct: see for exampe Inverse (logic) quote 'the inverse of a conditional is not inferable from the conditional'.
The formal language of mathematics provides unambiguous ways of stating either of these. In the first case, we say 'If A, then B'. In the second, we would say 'If and only if A, then B'. See if and only if, necessary and sufficient condition. The MC is stated in the first form. Does that clear it up?
I guess if we adopted your stonger form, several other voting systems would also change wtheir compliance status. But the table in Voting systems would then have multiple inconsistencies with those in Nurmi or Fairvote, whereas at present they are consistent.

144.32.196.109 (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok yes, I understand the mathematics and accept your logic. So to put it succinctly: "If A gets most votes, he must win. But if A does not get most votes, he may still win." I suggest a footnote to clarify this because I suspect that I won't be the first to fall for this mathematical fallacy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Following this change, I added in language here that will hopefully make the issue more clear. As I see it, FPTP can sometimes meet majority criterion even when it falls short other times. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As a new reader to this article I'd like to reopen this discussion - I don't fully understand the last few steps in the logic as to why this does not meet the Majority Criterion - I agree with the simple interpretation of MC where it only requires 'A implies B' and I don't see where in the article about MC, or the references, where that is disputed. I note that on Voting System that FPTP is marked as complying with MC... So this inconsistency does need to be addressed somehow. --DannoNZ

Hello Everyone, the section is currently blatently wrong, as the footnote referenced for this section completely contradicts the popflock.com resource article. I made an edit to correct it but John Maynard Friedman reverted it because he claims that there is consensus to the contrary (see my talk page for his comments). Is that the case? How can there be consensus if the popflock.com resource article is in complete contradiction with its own footnote on this point? If supposedly people think that the wiki article is right on this point why can't someone find a footnote to support the proposition rather than to contradict the proposition? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycloknow (talk o contribs) 06:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

#### Criticism moved from article:

This is mathematically incorrect. For example 9 people vote (5 blue, 4 red). A majority (more than 50%) of voters consider candidate A to be the best choice, then A should win - right? No, if there are 3 seats red could win two (getting two votes in each leaving blue with one in each) and blue win one (with all three votes). Blue loses the election even though they had an absolute majority of votes!
+
+ 1st seat (red,red,blue); 2nd seat (red,red,blue); 3rd seat (blue,blue,blue). This doesn't need to be sourced wiki is claiming something that is simply wrong, incorrect, does not follow the rules of mathematics - wiki is wrong here - simple.
Unsigned, but added by IP 109.158.138.156. The article needs to make clearer what it is saying to avoid misunderstandings. Dbfirs 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi the problem is not thinking that A implies B is the same as not A implies not B it is that in this case A does not imply B. Getting more than half the votes does not imply victory in FPTP.

For example the following with 9 voters, three seats and two options (A&B).

(AAB) (AAB) (BBB)

B wins 5 out of 9 votes (therefore over 50% so under majority criterion must imply victory)

However B secures only 1 out of 3 seats (therefore loses under FPTP)

Simple as that FPTP fails the majority criterion. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.138.156 (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, in a parliament, one party can be elected to form a government having received fewer votes overall than the losing party, and I think this fact needs to be mentioned in the article. Nevertheless, in each constituency, the first past the post system guarantees (rather trivially) the majority criterion. Dbfirs 22:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
How has this come back in? We agreed many moons ago that FPTP does NOT meet the majority criterion because it is possible for a candidate to be elected with achieving an overall majority. For example, in most UK constituencies, the winning candidate barely scrapes 40% and in a few it is as little as 30% when the opposition is hopelessly split. Conversely of course there are 'pin a red/blue rosette on a donkey' constituencies where the winning candidate gets 80%. For FPTP, an overall majority is sufficient but not neccessary. The majority criterion says that it must be necessary as well as sufficient. Thus FPTP fails this criterion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Where in Majority criterion does it say that 50% is necessary for a win? I read it as just a sufficiency criterion. Have you forgotten that you understood this last time? Please reconsider. Dbfirs 08:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for putting my criticism in the article in the first place

By the inclusion of "Although the criterion is met for each constituency vote, it is not met when adding up the total votes for a winning party in a parliament." the article is no longer highly misleading. It is, however, I think still incorrect.

FPTP is about the election of the whole parliament not the individual seat - do others agree. Therefore it would be better to say that FPTP fails MC but insert "Although the criterion fails when looking at the results of a parliament as a whole, it is met when looking at each constituency individually." Can someone else phrase this better?

FPTP is made up of the "winner takes all" system (at a constituency level) combined with "PR" at the parliament level (PR of the seats not of votes ie take 57.3% of seats get 57.3% of parliament). By only looking at a constituency level in judging MC we have only checked if the "winner takes all" system passes MC (which it does) not if FPTP passes MC (which it does not). What are your thoughts? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.233.103 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

ps it is not about "one party being elected to form a government having received fewer votes overall than the losing party" it is about a party not being elected after achieving, not just more votes than any other, but after achieving more than half the total votes (ie with FPTP you can lose with 50%+ of the vote therefore MC fails).

Well, no, not really. I am aware that some people in many countries vote for a party regardless of individual members, but this is not how the usual voting system is intended to work. Those of us who vote for individuals are happy that FPTP satisfies MC in our constituency. I agree that the party system distorts results at government level, but the article is about the voting system, not about the subsequent formation of governments, coalition or otherwise. In the UK, the government is often elected by a minority of voters, but this is a criticism of the constituency system, not of the FPTP voting system. Dbfirs 09:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think I am guilty of not reading the article properly. It clearly states that FPTP is the same as winner takes all. FPTP being the system we use to elect individual MPs and not the Government as a whole (I might be wrong but I think this might be what has caused confussion for a number of people). In which case the article is right, though I still think it has been improved by the clarification that "Although the criterion is met for each constituency vote, it is not met when adding up the total votes for a winning party in a parliament."

I also agree that under the Westminster model we theoretically elect MPs and not governments (thus MPs being able to cross the house without calling a bi-election).

It is very confusing to me that if we are talking about FPTP being the system that elects the individual MPs (rather than parliament as a whole) that gerrymandering is talked about in such detail. Gerrymandering only effects the broader election of the parliament - not the FPTP system as described in this article (ie a system of winner takes all that have nothing to do with the effects of segmenting the votes into different constituencies). If FPTP is more complicated, and in fact the system that electes the parliament as a whole (with division into constituencies being integral to FPTP), then such a system would not comply with MC. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.38.155 (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

## Merge

So this merge template to merge with Plurality voting system has been up there since the beginning of this year. I'm not very familiar with the subjects but is there a major difference between Plurality voting system and First-past-the-post voting. Devourer09 (t·c) 01:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First past the post systems have a predetermined maximum number of votes (i.e. the electoral college) whereas a plurality has no preset maximum (i.e. electing a representative from one district). They are substantively different.

I don't understand your distinction because "first past the post" is just another name for "single winner plurality voting". In a two-round "first past the post" system, there is no "predetermined maximum number of votes". I would support a merge, but not strongly. Dbfirs 08:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Plurality has nothing to do with FPTP system. This system in fact reduce plurality (i.e. numbers of parties in parlaiment), for example US and Canada. Definitly opose mixing plurality with FPTS. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.228.119 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

99.224.228.119 appears to confuse plurality (a standard weaker than absolute majority) with pluralism. --Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

## Terrible intoduction

I read the intro and the first half of the article and still have no idea what FPTP voting is. I mean, even the introduction says that it's both "the person who gets the most votes wins" and simultaneously "the person with a majority of the votes doesn't necessarily win". WTF?

Perhaps this is a clear distinction to a polisci major, but it's awful for everyone else. Worse still, nothing in the article actually clarifies this. No examples, nothing. This article is less a description of what FPTP voting is, and more a discussion of its value as a system of voting, which sucks. Monolith2 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and revised a bit. The absolute majority part was problematic anyway, given where the link to that redirects. Sgelbman (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
@Monolith2: Where did you find "the person with a majority of the votes doesn't necessarily win"? This sentence was not part of the introduction. The introduction said "The winning candidate does not necessarily receive an absolute majority of all votes cast.". That's logically something totally different. It is the same difference like reading "Not every running world champion runs 100m in 5s." (${\displaystyle A\not \Rightarrow B}$) and understanding "Running 100m in 5s does not necessarily is good enough to become running world champion." (${\displaystyle B\not \Rightarrow A}$) Therefore, your problem with the introduction was not that you are not a "polisci major", but that you misread the semantic logic of the sentence.
In the new version, the whole information was just erased. In my opinion, the old version was more informative and therefore better. Maybe the old version can be modified in a way that the logical misinterpretation Monolith2 showed us, can be avoided without completely deleting the statement. --Arno Nymus (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The old version's use of "absolute majority" was very misleading, and also not particularly informative (even if it had been accurate) given the extensive discussion of what distinguishes FTPT from other plurality systems in the body of the article. Sgelbman (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a huge improvement, thanks! Monolith2 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

## What's with the ABBA lyrics?

"The first-past-the-post voting method is one of the several plurality voting systems. It is also known as the 'winner-takes it all, the loser's standing small, beside the victory, that's her destiny',[1] or 'simple plurality'."

Um, . Since when is FPTP associated with some old ABBA song, "The Winner Takes It All?"

Is this some sort of UK phenomenon? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.91.136 (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

## FPTP favors regional-interest small parties over issue-based small parties with nationwide support

The article does not discuss a phenomenon that arises in FPTP voting systems: small parties tend to do better if their support is concentrated in a few constituencies. The UK provides the best example, probably. The Scottish (SNP), Welsh (Plaid Cymru) and the various Northern Ireland parties won seats in the 2015 election because their support was concentrated in regions. UKIP's votes were spread out across the country and UKIP won only a single seat, despite having more overall votes than the SNP.

Here in Canada, we see a similar phenomenon, for example in the Canadian federal election, 2015. The regional Bloc Quebecois, which has support only in Quebec, got 10 seats with 821,144 votes (4.7%). The issue-based Green Party got 602,944 votes but only 1 seat.

Using these results would be OR but someone should mention FPTP's preference for highly concentrated regional small parties over small issue-based parties with broad support. Since a small party must win a plurality in at least one constituency, issue-based small parties generally only win any seats if there is a constituency where that issue is very important.

Also, the "votes per seat" count does not apply to "Others" or independents. If 20 independents ran and won 1 seat with a total of 250,000 votes, the votes per seat would be equal to the number of votes for the single winning candidate, not the total for all independents. The main article on the election states that 170 independents ran and received a total of 98,711 votes but does not state how many votes were obtained by the single winning independent. Roches (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added a section about regional parties being favoured at the expense small non-regional ones. I will probably add something about unequal votes as well (votes per seats). FormularSumo (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

What is "the post", please? Shouldn't this be stated somewhere in the article? --Tamfang (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

'First past the post' is an English idiom, taken from racing. It means the person or horse or dog that crosses the finishing line first wins. When used in a political sense, it means that the candidate with the highest number of votes wins, even if he or she has nowhere near an overall majority. For example, Candidate A gets 35% of the vote, Candidate B gets 30%, Candidate C 25%, Candidate D 10%, so Candidate A wins. Norvo (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

But the unique characteristic of this voting system, unlike almost all others, is that it has no "winning post". There is no "finish line" a candidate has to reach to get elected - in theory it is possible to get elected with 10% of the vote if your ten rivals get 9% each. In practice candidates have won with vote shares not much above 25%. When most other systems have some sort of quota or defined number of votes you need to secure to win, calling this system "first past the post" is surely a nonsense? MapReader (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The post comes in as a metaphor for the end of the count. It does not mater how fast you are or how slow but only whether you are in the lead at the end. The district elections are like heats. some heats are slow; others fast. it does not matter about your objective speed or popularity. As long as you are in the lead when the vote count ends you win. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.203.119 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First-past-the-post voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template `{{sourcecheck}}` (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot 09:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

## Plurality Voting vs Multiple-Member System

The introduction of this article states that FPTP is a plurality voting system: "an electoral system in which each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate" [quote from introduction of article on plurality voting]. Under the "Overview" section, the article goes on to state that FPTP can be used in multiple-member systems, where "each voter casts (up to) the same number of votes as there are positions to be filled". These are in direct contradiction. Could someone knowledgable on these systems please correct where appropriate? Cherifiic (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

## United States and the UK not practicing FPTP?

Knowing how the electoral system works in the US, it is a textbook example of FPTP. Why does the page say in the beginning that the US and UK are exceptions to the rule? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8801:E500:0:0:0:13F4 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

## Criticisms Unrepresentative numbers are wrong and don't match=

Unlike what it says, Liberals were over-represented by 50 seats. they should have received 134 seats not 133 as written. Greens were unrepresented by 10. they should have received 11 seats, not 12 as written. Currently we have Liberals over-represented by 51 and other parties under-represented by 49 seats, which does not match and can be seen to be wrong if you look at the math. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.203.119 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

## Sacking of Long-Bailey as evidence that FPTP is flawed

Per wp:BRD, I reverted va bold edit that asserted that this sacking is evidence that FPTP is a failure. I did this for a number of reasons:

1. no wp:RS is offered that makes this conclusion: it is an editor's opinion and thus precluded per wp:NOR and wp:SYN.
2. it used the pejorative term "claimed"

I could go on but the factual inaccuracies are details that could be corrected: the main point is #1 above. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

## "Effects" section

I propose editing this sentence: "The effect of a system based on plurality voting spread over a number of separate districts is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distributed support gain a disproportionately small share.", my proposed edit is as follows:

I propose deleting ".. and parties with more geographically concentrated support.." because in reality a party with too great a geographic concentration of voters could lose out because because of waster "surplus" votes. Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting consensus on a difficult topic. So long as you can provide a supporting citation, no reason why not. It does strike me as a bit too 'purist' though, the article is about FPTP, not about proportionality.
But I notice that the current text is uncited, which is a problem in itself! I wonder if you have misread what it is trying to say because it doesn't say it very well. I believe that what it is trying to say is that a party with geographically concentrated support (PQ, SNP) get a "disproportionate" representation but only when set against their share of the total national (Canada, UK) vote. They would say that they got a fair share of their "nations'" vote, Quebec and Scotland. (Arguably, FPTP gave the SNP far more than their fair share).
So I guess I am saying that
1. the para needs a copyedit for clarity.
2. your reason for the change is valid but too far off topic / too subtle for this article.
3. citations needed!

I hope that helps. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)EUR

Thinking about this a bit more, the phrase you propose to delete is quite important. The 'test case' it describes is the 2017 United Kingdom general election, where the Liberal Democrats got 1.8% of the seats with 7.5% of the vote but the SNP got 5.4% of the seats with 3% of the UK vote. It seems to me to be really important not to lose that perspective. As I said above, the paragraph as it exists badly needs a rewrite so perhaps you could accommodate you concern by doing so? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

## "Purported" benefits

There is a dispute on whether the section title "Benefits" may be qualified by the word "purported". popflock.com resource policy on this word is unambiguous, see WP:ALLEGED. So the only basis to apply wp:ignore all rules would be that there are exceptional circumstances that justify an exception to the general rule. A discussion is required here to provide such an exceptional justification. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not justified. The rest of the article provides sufficient demolition of the case for FPTP without any need to 'lead the witness' like this. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

All the claimed "benefits" of FPTP listed in the article have been thoroughly rebutted (both in the article and elsewhere). Consequently this section is properly titled "Purported benefits".
Generally, the people who make the claims of "benefits" of FPTP do so because this voting system favours their political agenda. For example the UK Conservative Party (which benefits from FPTP[1]) made a 2019 manifesto commitment[2] to retain FPTP in Westminster elections citing specious "benefits", despite extensive independent evidence indicating that FPTP has numerous adverse outcomes in the UK.
Wikipedia's neutrality policy WP:WEIGHT does not require articles to give equal weight to dubious claims: and the "benefits" claimed by FPTP supporters are dubious, if not downright fraudulent.[3]
By way of further example: if, during the Apartheid era, we had been discussing an encyclopaedia article on South Africa's Apartheid system (which used FPTP), we would quite rightly list the "benefits" of Apartheid as "Purported benefits", or more properly something like "Claims made by Apartheid proponents". Similar arguments would apply to those who opposed votes for women who listed among the "benefits" of male-only voting "Avoids over-emotional women from voting thus disrupting government" etc. Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
John Maynard Friedman also makes a dubious claim re Wikipedia's style policy WP:MOSWTW in order to justify his deletion. The policy actually states that "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia..." and that the guidance "...should not be applied rigidly [original emphasis]" Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
First and most importantly, you must not revert policy-based edits while discussion is in progress (and it is poor practice in any case). I am reinstating the neutral wording until there is a consensus. That means contributions from more editors.
Your examples are false equivalence. It is not obvious that there is overwhelming international disapproval (as there was with Apartheid and Jim Crow laws) not a substantial popular movement for change (as there was for women's suffrage). Right now, the argument still has to be made and that argument is not helped by tendentious framing,
Although personally I believe that FPTP is a primitive system that should be abolished, that is just my personal opinion. You hold the same view, but are being insufficiently objective. WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it seems to me that you are soap-boxing.
The disputed title should remain in place until consensus is reached. The evidence on FPTP is clear, as can be seen from the totality of the article and my comments above. All the article's listed "benefits" of FPTP have been thoroughly rebutted. Hence the section should remain as "Purported benefits" unless and until consensus can be reached and a genuine benefit of FPTP included in this section with adequate citations.
Your "soapboxing" smear is, in itself, an example of soapboxing.Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
No, the prefix 'purported' is contrary to policy and may be removed without even this discussion. Nevertheless I propose a compromise #Alternative section title below.
You are also on a wp:three revert rule violation so you need to stop to reflect. Please don't add an unwarranted WP:NPA allegation. "Soapboxing" is not a smear, it is an assessment that your edits amount to a political campaign. I have already advised you privately of the problem of WP:SINGLESOURCE. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
You are also on a wp:three revert rule violation for this same section so you need to stop to reflect. Instead of trying to smear me with your false "soapboxing" allegation, I suggest you adhere to Wikipedia's core principles and engage me in rational discourse, citing evidence - don't make it personal. This is also not the first time you've used smear tactics, because you referred to one of my earlier edits as a "conspiracy theory" even though the text was fully referenced. Smearing another editor's work because you don't like it is not acceptable on Wikipedia.Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you will find that you have reverted three times, I have done so twice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you look at the article's revision history and you'll see you are in breach of the 3 revert rule. Instead of attacking other editors with your pedantic and highly selective reference to Wikipedia's rules, perhaps you should make substantive contributions to the article. If you lack the willingness or ability to make substantive contributions, then you should restrict yourself to helping formatting links etc. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree entirely with John Maynard Friedman's initial response above. The statements in the relevant paragraph are obviously true, without making any comment about whether or not they are outweighed by the criticisms listed.---Ehrenkater (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ehrenkater's assertion that John Maynard Friedman's statements are "obviously true" is the fallacy of proof by assertion. Stating that something is "obviously true" does not make it so.Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "First Past the Post". Make Votes Matter. Retrieved 2020.
2. ^ "The Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto 2019". Conservatives.com. Retrieved 2020.
3. ^ "Democracy: we've never had it so bad". The Guardian. Retrieved 2020.
The problem here is the imbalance between the two sections. If you have a section titled "benefits", the counterposing section needs to be titled "disadvantages" or "drawbacks". That is pitting fact against fact, not fact against opinion (which is what "criticisms" are). The problem is that we aren't dealing with facts, but with opinions. Therefore "criticisms" needs to be matched with something equivalent. "Claimed benefits" would do, or "commendations" or "approbation". MapReader (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
"Claimed benefits" I think is a case of POV sneaking in there, the same as Purported. Commendations or approbations would be better, though I wonder if there's a simpler word to use. Perhaps "Advocacy", or "Advocation", or simply "Support"? Something along those lines. -- Czello 15:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
On reflection, two factual headings, accompanied by text beneath that makes clear that varying opinions are being presented, might be best. I would propose the two sections be titled "Advantages" and "Disadvantages". That is about as neutral as possible. MapReader (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I would agree to this. -- Czello 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You're undoing the heading, but seem to have abandoned the discussion here. I notice you're also blanking any attempt to communicate with you on your talk page. Your heading is clearly contested: if you want to keep it, you have to actually continue to engage in discussion. That's how popflock.com resource works. -- Czello 16:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Czello: You're editing disputed text without properly considering the extended discussions above and below (and also in the other Talk section below, titled "FPTP Arguments"). Your edit is clearly disputed, so you should make your case here, rather than rushing to edit. That's how popflock.com resource works. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I have considered the arguments above or below; it seems that it's your version that is disputed, however. As far as I can see, you're the only editor supporting the "Purported" heading. There was some semblance of a consensus achieved in merging the sections into the below characteristics section, but no effort has been made on your part to actually do this. As we've now resumed this discussion in this thread, with some other suggestions above, please actually engage. -- Czello 16:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
If you'd bothered to read the entire discussion as you claimed, then you'd have seen that supports the title "Purported benefits". Instead of making rushed responses in order to bulldoze your opinion, I suggest you slow down and this time read the entire discussion, not just the parts that fit your agenda. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, a new account whose only contribution is to agree with you in this discussion. I'm afraid that's hardly working in your favour. So, I'll ask you again to stop arguing here and engage in the actual discussion. -- Czello 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see - first you claim there are no other accounts that support my edit, and then when I point one out (that you obviously hadn't even bothered to read before), you say you don't accept that because you claim it's a "new account". No doubt if 45StanJames agreed with you, you'd have no problem whatsoever with their comment. Stop acting like a spoilt child trying to get your own way, and try engaging constructively. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually had read the article and disregarded that account for the reasons that I stated before. Also please do not engage in personal attacks by resorting to that kind of reply. This isn't a battlefield so I suggest you WP:CHILL. -- Czello 19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not justified. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and most importantly, its not a indiscriminate collection of information. It's not a list of things that could be or might not be, its prose on what is. If there are no benefits to FPTP, which I doubt, there should be no section. Let's not dwell upon the maybes or the perhaps. John Maynard Friedman point that exceptional circumstances must exist is absolutely correct. I believe that no such circumstances exist, exceptional or otherwise. Rklahn (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not justified as per John Maynard Friedman. I've made my case elsewhere in this discussion but I thought I'd clear here for easy of browsing this thread. -- Czello 09:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

### Alternative section title

I propose that the section title be changed to Arguments in favour, which I believe is NPOV.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I propose changing the section title to "Benefits asserted by FPTP supporters" Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I propose we combine the Purported benefits and Criticisms sections into ONE section called "Characteristics" or a continuation of the "Effects" section. Strictly speaking we are supposed to avoid criticism sections and instead deal with such material in the prose of a regular section where it can be balanced with other content. I think the inverse of this is also true, we should avoid "Benefits" or "All the good things" sections. If all of this content is next to the other (ie the good, with the bad, and the ugly) then the article will be WP:NPOV and balanced. That is what we should strive for.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me if it can be achieved. It is a lot more work but it is certainly the better end point. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that merging into single a "Characteristics" would be a good idea, but it's a lot of work, so probably best to consider it a long term objective - Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I again propose changing the section title to "Benefits asserted by FPTP supporters" -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk o contribs) 18:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, as this introduces a bias. We should keep it simple, hence why I agree with the claim elsewhere of being "benefits" and "disadvantages" -- Czello 19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe purported benefits is a fair title as the meaning of the word purported is effectively a statement that appears true that may in fact not be true. Opponents of FPTP will certainly argue that the statements made in favour are always untrue. Let's look at the issue of FPTP being easy to understand. FPTP critics could certainly argue that this kind of statement is seen as patronising, as it suggests that voters in a FPTP country are less capable than voters in most developed countries, who tend to vote under proportional systems. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 45StanJames (talk o contribs) 18:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

## FPTP Arguments

Arguments in favour of First Past The Post are either due to self-interest or naivety. Taking on board the evidence in terms of what countries perform best on a range of measures such as action on climate change, income equality, and the likelihood of going to war, there are no credible arguments to use FPTP in a modern liberal democracy. The use of the word of the word "purported" is justified. 45StanJames (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This is why I originally edited the section title to "Purported benefits" --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policies are that such phrasing may only be used when there an overwhelming consensus of external wp:reliable sources say so – as with, for example, Climate change or Race and intelligence. It may well be true (I hope it is) but it has not been demonstrated. The article still suffers from a preponderance of WP:SINGLESOURCE citations. I don't know enough about the topic to research these but it needs to be done before a proponent chops back all the recent additions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's neutrality policy WP:WEIGHT does not require articles to give equal weight to dubious claims: and the "benefits" claimed by FPTP supporters are dubious, if not downright fraudulent.--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

## North Korea

An anonymous edit (from IP address 69.157.126.224) has added North Korea as an example of first past the post. I suggest this be deleted, in part because unsourced. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

it's a spoof. delete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
. -- Czello 12:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

North Korea has reappeared, in Revision 969207094 as part of a larger edit. Im removing it. Rklahn (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

## Original research and bad sources

This is yet another attempt to encourage you to communicate on the talk page rather than edit warring. You've added a lot of statements of questionable quality, and as per WP:BRD they were removed -- but you have neglected to actually bring this to the talk page, so I'll do it for you. A lot of the time you have reverted them with the edit summary that they were "unjustified reversions", even though my edit summaries clearly state what was wrong with each one. Therefore, I'm going to make a section so we can discuss each one. I encourage you to engage, otherwise they'll just get removed again. -- Czello 10:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Czello: This is yet another attempt to encourage you to communicate on the talk page rather than edit warring. You've carried out bulk deletions of properly sourced text without first attempting to seek consensus or improve the text. Therefore, I'm replying here so we can discuss each one. I encourage you to engage, otherwise your blanket deletions will be reverted again.--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
What do you think I made this entire thread for, if not communication? I'm the only one here who actually has attempted to communicate. -- Czello 12:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
If you are willing to stop your blanket deletions and edit warring, then we can discuss any valid concerns you might have. What do you say?--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

### An example of this was Brexit

You've made several mistakes here. Firstly, as I said, the Conservatives were never a Remain party, even during the referendum. Secondly, the crux of your article depends on an opinion piece. Opinion pieces aren't considered reliable in this context. You've also tried to justify the change in position by linking to manifestos: there is no evidence here that FPTP played a part in their policies, and by linking to manifestos is WP:OR. Similarly the claim of "However, the recent experience in the United Kingdom would suggest that small single-issue parties can exploit FPTP, [[#Vulnerability_to_manipulation_by_single-issue_parties|as discussed below]]" depends on this section existing. -- Czello 10:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You've made several mistakes here. The relevant section in the article clearly sets out the effect of FPTP in a neutral and unbiased way. It's clear that you are peddling a pro Tory agenda here. By using popflock.com resource in this way you undermine the purpose of the platform. Either improve the article text, or leave it alone. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
You've ignored my points clearly there. You've made a claim using one website, and then tried to back up a claim using another even though that second article is, as I said, an opinion piece which isn't reliable. Also, please don't accuse me of have a pro-Tory bias. We need to assume good faith if we're going to work together on this. -- Czello 12:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Likewise, you have ignored my comments. If you want to submit a suggested edit to the section, then go ahead, but stop doing blanket deletions of text which you dislike.--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
What points of yours have I ignored? Plus, replying with "yeah but so did you" doesn't address the fact you haven't addressed the concerns here. -- Czello 13:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Why are you continuing to ignore my earlier replies?--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, which? -- Czello 13:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

### Representation versus "winners" and "losers"

This entire section has a single source, which is an opinion piece/letter. This is not considered a reliable source. -- Czello 10:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet another example of your determination to dismiss entire sections of valid and properly sourced text with vague statements. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
My statement isn't vague. What bit of it didn't you understand? Opinion pieces aren't reliable -- that's pretty clear. -- Czello 13:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
My text was compliant with popflock.com resource policies. What bit of it didn't you understand? --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The bit where you said it was reliable. It was an opinion piece. They're not considered reliable. -- Czello 13:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The citation was valid. Your objection seems to fit a pattern of deleting criticisms to FPTP. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not valid. Please take the time to read WP:NEWSORG. -- Czello 09:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

### Most modern democracies use forms of proportional representation

Not supported by your source: this source only talks about Europe, and at no point says most modern democracies work in this way.

A new source has been added --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Which source? The one from FairVote? Because that doesn't support your claim. It says, "Internationally, proportional representation is the most common type of electoral system with 89 of the 195 countries below using it." "Most common" doesn't mean "Most modern democracies". For it to be "most", it'd have to be more than half (which it's not). Or is there another sentence in there that I've missed? -- Czello 12:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, another example of your agenda: you are either deliberately failing to read the citations, or you are acting in bad faith. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Then prove me wrong: please paste the exact sentence you think backs this up. -- Czello 13:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Then prove me wrong: please suggest an alternate edit, instead of just deleting the work of other editors--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
That's not my job, it's yours (as per WP:BRD). If you think this statement is important then support it. Don't use shakey sources and try to join things together in order to make it work. -- Czello 13:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
If you're going to delete other editors work, then it IS your job to justify the deletions, which you've failed to do. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This is bad-faith acting from Friend-of-the-planet-99. The question Czello is asking is clear, but being deliberately ignored. 62.255.9.122 (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are you making anonymous contributions to a dispute talk page. In the interests of transparency, you should use a valid Editor account--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the above claim that FairVote does not support the statement, it states that 89 countries have PR electoral systems and 34 have electoral systems in which PR is partially used (like MMP). The combined 123 countries more than half of the countries in the world, so "most" is correct. Number 57 14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I misread the second half ("34 systems where it's partially used"). -- Czello 18:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The word "most" suggests at least 75%. "The majority" would be more NPOV and make the point just as well. Overstatement is counter-productive. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the word "most" suggests that and I've never heard the 75% thing before. Number 57 19:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Well I made it up so it must be true. :-) Ok, point conceded. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of which phrasing we use, I propose we move this out of the lede and into a section elsewhere, possibly one of the criticism subsections. This seems unsuitable for the lede given that this article isn't about PR. -- Czello 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
True but the lead does need to say what fraction of the world's democracies uses FPTP. It is a bit difficult to do that without saying what the other three-fifths do. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds totally fine. I think just changing the wording to "FPTP is still used in about a third of the world's countries, mostly in the English-speaking world (the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Canada and other countries in the British Commonwealth)" or whatever phrasing we use, but move the PR bit elsewhere. -- Czello 20:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll leave it to you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it under to the section regarding campaigns to replace FPTP. -- Czello 10:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

### Vulnerability to manipulation by single-issue parties

This is WP:OR. The Guardian article does not mention FPTP once, and the electoral reform article does not support the overall claim of the section -- Czello 12:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just noticed you've also added another citation for this from the Indy. This citation, too, does not support your claim. Please take a look at WP:OR -- I think the biggest issue with your edits is that you've misunderstood how popflock.com resource should present itself. You're reaching conclusions based on articles, as if this were a thesis. This would count as original research. Please try to re-assess your edits. -- Czello 12:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This is yet another example of your agenda to silence criticisms of FPTP, in particular where they reflect badly on the Tory Party. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
You're assuming bad faith, again. Can you address my actual point, please? -- Czello 12:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Can you address my actual points please? --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
What points? -- Czello 13:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Haven't you bothered to read the previous comments?--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a bad-faith accusation that I'm acting out of bias. I didn't see you address the original statement about WP:OR. -- Czello 13:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Everyone who wants to achieve an NPOV article that is persuasive because it is neutral, is not a stooge of the Tory Party. I for one am not, I believe FPTP to be a travesty of democracy but I realise equally that button-holing readers with a political polemic is a complete turn-off. popflock.com resource is the wrong platform for WP:ADVOCACY. If you can adjust your style to the suit the circumstances, you will be a lot more effective. As you know, I did advise you a few weeks back that your work would be undone if you failed to address these issues. There is far too much wp:original research and wp:synthesis (rather than neutrally reporting reliable sources). What Czello says is true. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

### nuclear weapons

Another obvious case of WP:OR. Not one of the citations even mentions FPTP. -- Czello 10:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Another obvious example of your agenda to delete valid text which draws attention to potentially catastrophic dangers of FPTP--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're just exposing your bias here. Can you address my actual point, please? -- Czello 12:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Your bias is obvious. You simply refuse to engage in good faith discussion. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you even attempting to improve the article at this point, or are you just trolling? -- Czello 13:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you even attempting to improve the article at this point, or are you just deleting text you don't like? I see you've also tried to get my popflock.com resource count deleted!--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
This thread is to improve the article. Now please address the original point about original research. You do know what that is, don't you? -- Czello 13:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
If you genuinely wanted to improve the article you would have done so, but instead you just deleted the entire section--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Which improved the article. Unless you have real sources to back this up, it'll stay deleted. -- Czello 13:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

### However, in practice, tactical voting considerations can make it difficult for voters because they may have to guess which candidate has the best chance of winning.

Completely unsourced, sounds like invented guesswork. -- Czello 10:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet again, you are wilfully failing to properly read the sourced material, and deleting text based on your agenda to silence criticism of FPTP--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my point. This is unsourced. -- Czello 12:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my point. The text is properly sourced. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
No, it isn't. -- Czello 13:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is. --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There were no citations for this section. -- Czello 09:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

### The effect of this is to reduce political diversity in a country because the larger parties are incentivised to coalesce around similar policies.

The phrase "is to reduce" sounds like this this is a deliberate, malicious attempt on behalf of those who support FPTP. I changed this to "reduces" to make it more NPOV, but you have reverted it by incorrectly citing grammatical issues. -- Czello 10:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand your objection here, but I will not revert this edit which you have made (I did inavertendly revert, but have now restored). --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

## Political agenda and repeated attempts at bulk deletion by Czello

Czello has repeatedly attempted to carry out bulk deletions of text without first seeking consensus or attempting to first improve the text.

This behaviour suggests that Czello is operating an agenda to silence legitimate and properly sourced criticisms of the widely discredited FPTP voting system which benefits the UK Conservative Party. Further evidence of Czello's agenda can be seen from his repeated attempts to edit the 2019 UK general election campaign article on popflock.com resource where he/she has systematically deleted all references to the popular vote in this article. By deleting the popular vote refernces, Czello appears to be editing the article in such a way as to overstate the level of public support for the UK Conservative Party. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk o contribs) 12:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Goodness, this has really gotten out of hand. The problem with your edits is that you haven't attempted to seek consensus, and you've ignored attempts to talk to you about these issues (your talk page blankings for one, or the paragraphs you had to scroll past in order to get to the bottom of this page). I think given your bad faith accusations here, we need to get admin involvement. I was really hoping we could resolve this just by talking about the edits themselves, rather than the editors, but at this juncture I see no other resolution. -- Czello 12:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow, you really have allowed your political agenda to get the better of you. And so now I see you are going to try and get my popflock.com resource account deactivated. A classic censorship tactic used by those who know their arguments are invalid--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The behaviour by Friend-Of-the-planet-99 is not appropriate. Editing articles, such as the 2019 General Election to bizarrely mention that the winning party failed to win 50%+ of the popular vote is not something that is present in any other UK General Election Results wiki page, nor should be as the popular vote is irrelevant for UK General Election Results. Rather than properly engage in discussions, Friend-Of-the-planet-99 has instead opted for abusive language/refusal to discuss properly. I fully support Czello involving this admins as this behaviour is unacceptable. 62.255.9.122 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are you making anonymous contributions in a dispute section? Why don't you use a proper popflock.com resource account for transparency so we can see who you are? -Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has always had an open, friendly, and welcoming attitude towards anonymous users. S/he is entitled to their anonymity. -- Czello 13:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
He/she can retain their anonymity by creating an account with a pseudonym, as you and I have. Why are you so keen to welcome this "anonymous" contributor, who just happens to agree with you? --Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a 'proper popflock.com resource account'. I work at a school and I've seen a gross inclusion of completely unnecessary information while putting together resources for students, so I am bringing it to light as it is unacceptable behaviour. 62.255.9.122 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and taking the time to contribute to these discussions, as well as your edits on the article page. -- Czello 13:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
In order to ensure transparency, the person at IP address 62.255.9.122 should create a popflock.com resource account (it's free and takes seconds) before getting involved. I also find it interesting that Czello is thanking the "anonymous" contributor who just so happens to agree with everything he/she says. It seems strange that an anonymous contributor would refuse to set up a popflock.com resource account before getting involved in a dispute--Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Creating an account is encouraged in Wikipedia, but it's not required for editing, and you don't get to tell anyone how they should be editing or not. Btw, with "contributor who just so happens to agree with everythng he/she says" you are referring to this account created specifically for casually supporting your stance in a discussion above, then disappear? That's not what I'd call "transparency", and it feels ironic that you are resorting to the same arguments that Czello used back then to criticize that new account, because it looks like you viciously attacked him for that. Impru20talk 14:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Im by no stretch of the imagination an unopinionated observer here. I think Czello is right on most of the relevant points, and the commentary by Friend-of-the-planet-99 on anonymous talk page edits is outrageous. It seems to be an attempt to silence disagreement, which gets us further away from consensus. I also think there is a refusal to Assume good faith going on here. Im also troubled by the number of edits Friend-of-the-planet-99 has made before consensus is reached. Ive tried to restore a status quo, just to have the edits described as "unjustified". and undone by Friend-of-the-planet-99. Im ready to share and hear some ideas about how to achieve consensus, but not before a reasonable status quo is reached. Rklahn (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue has been already brought to ANI, and considering the current state of things, Fotp99's persistent edit warring as well as their behaviour even after the numerous warnings, and despite noticing the ANI thread, it's almost guaranteed they will end up blocked. This is just untenable and this user is only creating a toxic atmosphere here. Impru20talk 14:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning the ANI, I was just about to head there myself. You have saved me some time. I certainly agree that its untenable and toxic. Rklahn (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
And now we see the real agenda: you can't rebut my arguments, so instead you are going to get my account blocked. -Friend-of-the-planet-99 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
It's you and your behaviour the one that has gotten to the point of deserving a fairly long block. Seven EIGHT ([1]) reverts within a 24-hour timespan is just unnaceptable and in violation of WP:3RR. And that without counting the insults, the bad-faith assumptions, the persistent disruptive editing, the possible sockpuppetry and so on. If you want to be blocked so badly just ask an administrator to do it for you instead of keeping the disruption ongoing. Cheers. Impru20talk 16:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I've just reported for edit warring. I was hoping that they could cooperate with other editors, but obviously not. The groundless accusations and attempts to intimidate other editors are also noted. Wikipedia is not a battleground or somewhere for campaigning against something. It's a pity, if this had been discussed back at the start, we'd probably not be at this situation, and may have been able to include something relevant in the article. But instead we got edit warring and attacking others, so here we are. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Nevertheless, whoever it was who raised the concern about "benefits" had a point - it is not balanced when the other side of the argument is titled "criticisms". Balanced terms (such as Advantages and Disadvantages) should be used for the article sub headings IMO MapReader (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree to "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" -- Czello 18:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

## Article name change needed

First Past The Post (abbreviated as FPTP) is just an alternate name for what the academic world calls plurality voting! The name First Past The Post is used in some places -- including Canada and the EndFPTP subreddit on Reddit -- but otherwise it's known as plurality voting. (In the United States this method is just called voting.)

Then, please point the First Past The Post name to the Plurality voting article, which already explains this voting method.

After this name change, I and others can improve this important article, which currently is a mess. Especially the introduction. Also this article currently contains lots of overlap with the Plurality voting article.

This advantages and disadvantages article is needed as a separate article because there are so many disadvantages of plurality voting. Those disadvantages can be, and are, exploited to change election outcomes, so it's important to explain (and understand) them.

Although this article already explains some important disadvantages, others need to be added. As an example, FPTP facilitated the blocking tactic that was used to block Hillary Clinton from the 2008 presidential general election.

Thank you for any assistance in helping to make this change.

FYI, I'm also waiting for a split request -- here: [[2]] -- that will add a new article named Pairwise vote counting. My goal is to help clean up some aspects of vote counting that popflock.com resource currently fails to explain. This topic is especially important now that attention is focused on the confusing U.S. presidential election. VoteFair (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:COMMONNAME, the current title is correct (unless you can prove "plurality" is used more commonly than FPTP). Also keep in mind, this article is not a simple "advantages and disadvantages" list. I suspect if any change needs to be made, it's on plurality voting. -- Czello 17:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)