Advantages and Disadvantages of Simple Majority System

The current voting system practiced in Malaysia in electing the members of the Dewan
Rakyat is referred to as the First - Past - The - Post System (FPTP). FPTP is also referred to as
Simple Majority System or the winner takes it all. It means that the candidate with the largest
number of votes in each constituency is duly elected, although he/she may not necessarily have
received more than half the votes cast. Under the system, the party that wins the majority number
of seats is the party that wins that particular election and that party will then go on to form the
government. This is the same system used in electing members of the House of Commons in the
United Kingdom.
The First - Past - The - Post system, is defended primarily on the grounds of simplicity
and ease of operation. Voters are used to the system; it is easily understood, and works in an
uncomplicated manner.
A clear-cut option or alternative for voters between two main parties is provided. The
voter can obviously express an opinion on which party should form the subsequent government.
It contributes rise to single-party governments which do not depend on sustenance from
other parties to pass legislation. The system produces steady majorities and resilient government
with a rational amount of support. This means that a single government can count on a full term,
enabling them to enact programmes without fear of a coup.
It additionally contributes to a comprehensible opposition in the legislature. In theory, the
flip side of a solid single-party government is that the opposition is also given enough seats to
execute a crucial checking role and present itself as a convincing alternative to the government
of the day. It benefits broadly-based political parties. However, in severely ethnically or
provincially divided societies, FPTP is recommended for uplifting political parties to be broad
churches, as well as several parts of society, mainly when there are only two major parties and
various social groups. These parties can then field a varied range of nominees for election.

In Malaysia, for instance, the Barisan Nasional government is created of a broadly-based

umbrella movement that fields Malay, Chinese, and Indian candidates in areas of numerous
ethnic complexions.
Extremist parties from representation in the legislature are also disqualified. Unless an
extremist minority partys electoral support is geographically focused, it is unlikely to win any
seats below FPTP.
It promotes a link between constituents and their representatives, because it creates a
legislature consisting of representatives of geographical areas. Elected members signify defined
areas of cities, towns, or regions instead of just party labels. Several political analysts have
debated that this geographic accountability is principally vital in agrarian societies and in
developing countries.
Nevertheless, FPTP is repeatedly critiqued for various reasons. It disregards minorities
from nondiscriminatory representation. Generally speaking, under FPTP, parties set up the most
comprehensively worthy candidate in a specific district in order to evade isolating the majority of
electors. Hence it is uncommon, for instance, for a black candidate to be given a major partys
recommendation in a majority white district in the United Kingdom or the United States of
America, and there is solid proof that ethnic and racial minorities across the world are far less
likely to be embodied in legislatures elected by FPTP. Consequently, if voting behavior does
merge with ethnic divisions, then the exclusion from representation of members of ethnic
minority groups can be threatening for the political system as a whole. In other words, it
encourages tactical voting, where numerous voters vote not for the nominee they prefer the best,
but against the nominee they dislike.
Clearly, in the simple majority system, large parties or associations gain uneven number
of seats and small parties obtain very little representation. Unfair outcomes in individual
constituencies and disproportionate representation of large parties in legislative assemblies are
the trademark of the simple majority system.
The growth of political parties based on fraternity, ethnicity or constituency is supported,
which may base their campaigns on ideas that are attractive to the majority of people in their
district but are intimidating to others. This has been a continuous issue in African countries like

Malawi and Kenya, where large communal assemblies tend to be regionally focused. The
country is therefore separated into geographically separate party strongholds, with little incentive
for parties to make appeals outside their home region and culturalpolitical base.1
It inflates the phenomenon of regional fiefdoms where one party wins all the seats in a
province or area. If a party has strong support in a specific area of a country, winning a majority
of votes, it will win nearly all, of the seats in the legislature for that particular area.
Apart from that, it raises a large number of wasted votes which do not go towards the
election of any candidate. It is undemocratic in the sense that many votes are wasted. Votes cast
are not taken into account or consideration when it comes to the formation of the government of
the day. What is taken into account is the number of seats won by a given party.
It may also be insensitive to changes in public opinion. A form of geographically focused
electoral support in a country means that one party can uphold exclusive executive control in the
face of a considerable drop in overall popular support. It has been predicted that a shift in support
from one party to another of only about 1 per cent will result in a change in Parliament of about
13 seats.2
Lastly, FPTP systems are reliant on the representation of electoral restrictions. Every
electoral boundary has political consequences: there is no practical procedure to produce a single
correct answer independently of political or other considerations. Boundary limitation may
require substantial time and resources if the results are to be accepted as legitimate. There may
also be pressure to influence boundaries by gerrymandering the results they want.

1 Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, Document of Destiny (Star Publications (Malaysia)

Bhd) 591-596
2 David Seth Jones, 'Election and Voting' [n.d.] 1 <http://www.eolss.net/samplechapters/c04/e6-32-03-01.pdf> accessed 30 August 2016