- Simple and understandable by the masses. Large section of uneducated masses may not be able to understand or implement the proportional representation system.
- The principal criticism levelled against the FPTP system is that it leads to the exclusion of small or regional parties from the Parliament. A 20-30% vote in favour of a majoritarian candidate can lead to his or her win.
- For example, the Indian National Congress won only about 49.10% of the total vote share in the 1984 General Elections to the Lok Sabha, but had a sweeping majority of 405 out of 515 seats in the House.
- This also means that slight changes in the vote share cause dramatic changes in the number of parliamentary seats won, causing the Indian electorate to be characterised as one that decisively swings in one direction or the other.
- Provides for stability in the government.The Supreme Court in RC Poudyal v. Union of India 156 had categorised the FPTP system as possessing ‘the merit of preponderance of decisiveness over representativeness’. The FPTP system presents the advantage of producing a majority government at a general election by being decisive, simple and familiar to the electorate
- Lower stability. Because parties are granted seats in accordance with their vote share, numerous parties get seats in the legislature in the proportional representation system, without any party gaining a majority. This detracts from the stability of the system.
- Difficult to understand.
- Results could be controversial as it involves election of multiple candidates from same constituency.
- Could lead to instability.
- Encourages voting along the lines of ethnicity, religion, caste etc.