UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed

[Carol]

Carol earlier:
> > 
> > <snip> I . . . just want to ask what "first past the post" means.
I'm unfamiliar with the term.
 
> Geoff:
> Carol, it's precisely what it says. The person with the highest
number of votes, regardless of the number of candidates is the winner.
> 
> I dislike it  because ot produces skewed results. Let's take a 
> hypothetical example.
> 
> In an election, there are 100 voters and three candidates A, B 
> and C. In the voting, A gets 31 votes, B gets 35 and C gets 34.
> Under 'first past the post', B is declared elected.
> 
> But he or she has only attracted 35% of the vote. <snip>

> Hope that makes it clearer.
>

Carol:
Well, yes and no. I take it that "first past the post" refers to a
candidate who receives a plurality rather than a majority and that you
consider such a result unrepresentative. (I agree.) However, the
meaning of the term was not immediately obvious to me upon reading it
since I have no idea which "post" you're talking about (I thought
"post" meant "mail") or in what sense the candidate is going "past"
the post (whatever the post may be). I'm imagining a horse race in
which the first horse to pass the post that marks the finish line is
the winner.

IOW, what is the etymology of the phrase? I've never heard it used in
the U.S. even though Congressional candidates and others can be
elected without earning a majority of the votes. (I won't even get
into Presidential elections, which are a political nightmare.)

Carol, still not understanding the literal meaning of the phrase
though I do understand the concept you've presented and why you object
to it