Preferential Voting vs First Past the Post — What is the Difference?

Two fundamentally different ways to count votes

When people talk about elections, the focus is usually on who wins. Less attention gets paid to how that result is actually produced — yet the counting method can shape the outcome just as much as the candidates themselves.

Two systems come up again and again: first past the post and preferential voting. On paper, both are straightforward. In practice, they lead to very different results, particularly once you have more than two candidates in the mix.

In Australia, preferential voting is the norm at a federal level. Elsewhere, first past the post still dominates. Each has its place, but they’re built on very different assumptions about what a “fair” result looks like.

First Past the Post: quick, clear — and sometimes misleading

First past the post does exactly what the name suggests. Each voter selects one candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins. That’s it.

There’s no requirement to secure a majority. No redistribution. No second chances. Counting is fast, and results are usually beyond doubt within a short timeframe.

This simplicity is the main reason it’s still widely used, including in the United Kingdom.

But there’s a trade-off. Once you have three or more candidates, the vote can split in unpredictable ways. It’s entirely possible — and not uncommon — for a candidate to win despite most voters preferring someone else. That’s where criticism tends to land.

Preferential Voting: designed to find a majority

Preferential voting approaches the same problem from a different angle. Instead of asking voters for a single choice, it asks for an ordered list.

Voters rank candidates — 1, 2, 3 and so on — in line with their preferences. If no candidate secures more than 50% of first-preference votes, the count doesn’t stop there. The lowest-performing candidate is excluded, and their votes are redistributed based on next preferences. That process repeats until someone crosses the majority line.

This is the system used in federal House of Representatives elections, administered by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). Their step-by-step explanation is worth a look: House of Representatives counting process.

It’s a more involved process, but the intent is clear: the eventual winner should have broader support, not just a strong first-preference showing.

Where each system holds up — and where it doesn’t

In practice, neither system is universally better. It depends on what you’re trying to achieve.

First past the post works well when the field is small and the stakes are relatively straightforward. It’s efficient. Easy to explain. Hard to dispute.

Preferential voting comes into its own when things get more complex — more candidates, more divergent views, and a higher expectation around representativeness. It reduces the likelihood of a result that feels “off”, even if it’s technically correct.

The downside? Counting takes longer, and the process needs to be explained properly. If participants don’t understand how preferences flow, confidence can drop off quickly.

Why Australia moved away from first past the post

Australia’s shift to preferential voting wasn’t accidental. It came out of very practical problems with first past the post — particularly vote splitting between similar candidates.

By the early 20th century, those distortions were becoming hard to ignore. Preferential voting was introduced federally in 1918 to address exactly that issue.

Over time, it’s become part of the fabric of Australian elections. The expectation now is that a winning candidate should be able to demonstrate majority support once preferences are taken into account — not just lead the primary vote.

What this means for organisational elections

This is where theory meets reality.

For smaller ballots — say, a two-candidate contest or a low-stakes internal vote — first past the post is often perfectly adequate. There’s little to be gained from adding complexity.

But once you introduce multiple candidates, or where the outcome needs to stand up to scrutiny, preferential voting starts to make more sense. It removes a lot of the “what if” questions that can arise after the fact.

We see this regularly in practice. Board elections, enterprise agreement votes, constitutional changes — these aren’t situations where ambiguity helps. A clear majority outcome tends to carry more weight, particularly if the result is challenged.

The key point is flexibility. With the right setup, you’re not locked into one method. The voting system should match the circumstances, not the other way around.

Choosing the right approach

There’s no perfect system — only the one that best fits your election.

If you’re weighing up which approach to take, it’s worth getting advice early. The structure of the ballot, the number of candidates, and the expectations of your stakeholders all play a role.

If you’d like to talk it through, the team at Vero Voting can help you design an approach that’s clear, defensible, and appropriate for your situation.