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

[Carol]

Carol earlier:
> > 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 <snip>. I'm
imagining a horse race in which the first horse to pass the post that
marks the finish line is the winner.
<snip>
> 
Geoff responded:
> 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. <snip>

Carol again:
Yes. Thanks to both you and Goddlefrood. And what you call a "simple
majority" is what I meant by "plurality":

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

plurality

noun 
Inflected Form(s):
    plural plu·ral·i·ties
Date:
    14th century

<snip> 3 b: an excess of votes over those cast for an opposing
candidate c: a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of
more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any
other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast

Carol, who seldom attends horse races and normally would not have
associated the word "post" with them