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

[Geoff Bannister]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> 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

Geoff:
You've really put your finger on it by comparing it to a race.

If I may offer two definitions from my excellent dictionary:

first past the post Brit. (of an electoral system) in which a candidate or 
party is selected by achievement of a simple majority.

post 2 (the post) a starting post or winning post

In the first definition, the simple majority is just having the largest 
number of votes, i.e. being in front. It is not a majority over the 
aggregated results of all other candidates.

Hope that makes sense.

Geoff