Thursday, November 29, 2007

PS Comet
The paddle steamer PS Comet was built for Henry Bell, hotel and baths owner in Helensburgh, and began a passenger service in 1812 on the River Clyde between Glasgow and Greenock, the first commercially successful steamboat service in Europe.
Bell had become interested in steam propelled boats, corresponded with Robert Fulton and learnt from the Charlotte Dundas. In 1811 he got Messrs John Wood and Co., shipbuilders, Port Glasgow, to build a paddle steamer which was named the Comet after the "Great Comet" of 1811. The 28 ton craft was 45 feet long and 10 feet broad. It had two paddle wheels on each side, driven by engines rated at three horse power (or perhaps 4 hp.): at a later date the twin paddlewheels were replaced by a single paddlewheel on each side. The two engines were made by John Robertson of Glasgow, and the boiler by David Napier, Camlachlie, Glasgow: a story has it that they were evolved from an experimental little steam engine which Bell installed to pump sea water into the Helensburgh Baths. The funnel was tall and thin, and a yardarm allowed it to support a sail when there was a following wind. A tiny cabin aft had wooden seats and a table.
In August 1812 Bell advertised in local newspapers;
THE STEAMBOAT Comet BETWEEN GLASGOW, GREENOCK AND HELENSBURGH FOR PASSENGERS ONLY The subscriber, having at much expense, fitted up a handsome vessel to ply upon the River Clyde from Glasgow, to sail by the power of air, wind, and steam, intends that the vessel shall leave the Broomielaw on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays about mid-day, or such hour thereafter as may answer from the state of the tide, and to leave Greenock on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in the morning to suit the tide.
The fare was "four shillings for the best cabin, and three shillings for the second."
In 1812 the Comet made a delivery voyage from Port Glasgow (a town just to the east of Greenock) 21 miles upriver to the Broomielaw, Glasgow, then sailed from Glasgow the 24 miles down to Greenock, making five miles an hour against a head-wind. (some sources give a date of January 18, 1812 for a trial trip, McCrorie gives August 6, 1812 for the delivery, with the historic trip a day or so later)
The success of this service quickly inspired competition, with services down the Firth of Clyde and the sea lochs to Largs, Rothesay, Campbeltown and Inveraray within four years, and the Comet was outclassed by newer steamers. Bell briefly tried a service on the Firth of Forth. Then he had the Comet lengthened and re-engined and from September 1819 ran a service to Oban and Fort William (via the Crinan Canal) a trip which took four days, but on December 13, 1820 the Comet was shipwrecked in strong currents at Craignish Point near Oban. (One of the engines ended its working days in a Greenock brewery, and is now in The Science Museum in London).
Bell built another vessel, Comet II, but on 21 October 1825 she collided with the steamer Ayr off Kempock Point, Gourock, Scotland. Comet II sank very quickly, killing 62 of the 80 passengers on board. After the loss of his second ship, Bell abandoned his work on steam navigation.
A replica of the Comet made by shipyard apprentices now stands prominently in Port Glasgow.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Sharpsburg, Maryland
Sharpsburg is a town in Washington County, Maryland, approximately 13 miles (20 km) south of Hagerstown. The population was 691 at the 2000 census.
During the American Civil War, the Battle of Antietam (or Battle of Sharpsburg) was fought on what is now Antietam National Battlefield, along the shores of Antietam Creek.

Sharpsburg, Maryland Geography
As of the census of 2000, there were 691 people, 286 households, and 193 families residing in the town. The population density was 3,119.1 per square mile (1,212.7/km²). There were 304 housing units at an average density of 1,372.2 per square mile (533.5/km²). The racial makeup of the town was 97.83% White, 0.43% African American, 0.58% Asian, and 1.16% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.29% of the population.
There were 286 households out of which 26.6% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 54.2% were married couples living together, 9.4% had a female householder with no husband present, and 32.5% were non-families. 26.2% of all households were made up of individuals and 8.0% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.42 and the average family size was 2.90.
In the town the population was spread out with 21.7% under the age of 18, 8.7% from 18 to 24, 29.1% from 25 to 44, 27.6% from 45 to 64, and 12.9% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females there were 103.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 101.9 males.
The median income for a household in the town was $41,786, and the median income for a family was $52,875. Males had a median income of $37,500 versus $22,000 for females. The per capita income for the town was $20,917. About 1.1% of families and 3.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including none of those under age 18 and 5.6% of those age 65 or over.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The Adventure of the Copper Beeches
Anthony Michell Howard (born February 12, 1934) is a prominent British journalist, broadcaster and writer. He was formerly editor of the New Statesman and deputy editor of The Observer.

Anthony Howard (journalist) Life and career
The son of a Church of England clergyman Canon Guy Howard, he was educated at Highgate School and Westminster School and Christ Church, University of Oxford, where he was chairman of the Oxford University Labour Club in 1954 and President of the Oxford Union the following year.
Howard had planned on a career as a barrister, having been called to the Bar (Inner Temple) in 1956 while fulfilling his National Service obligations in the army, during which he saw active service in the Suez War, but he "stumbled" in to his career as a journalist in 1958, starting on Reynolds News as a political correspondent. Howard moved to the Manchester Guardian in 1959. The year after, he was awarded a Harkness scholarship to study in the United States, though he remained on the Guardian's staff.
He was political correspondent of the New Statesman from 1961 until 1964. In January 1965 Howard joined the Sunday Times as its Whitehall correspondent, which turned out to be an unfortunate career move, as it was a post in advance of accepted practices at the time.[1] He was then appointed the Observer's chief Washington correspondent (1966-69), later contributing a political column (1971-72).
As editor of the New Statesman (1972-78), succeeding Richard Crossman, whose deputy he had been (1970-72), he appointed Robin Cook as the magazine's parliamentary adviser in 1974,[2] (Cook also contributed articles), James Fenton, Christopher Hitchens and Martin Amis as literary editor in 1977. Under Howard, the magazine published a rare non-British contributor: Gabriel García Márquez in March 1974, on the overthrow of Salvador Allende's elected government in Chile the previous September. Perhaps out of a sense of mischief, he featured a series of diatribes against the British Left, by the journalist and historian Paul Johnson, a drinking companion and friend, whose rightward drift was well advanced by then. Howard was unable to halt the magazine's fall in circulation, however. He then edited The Listener for two years (1979-81).
Howard was deputy editor of The Observer (1981-88), where one of his journalist protégés was the journalist and (later novelist) Robert Harris, whom he appointed as the newspaper's political editor. His professional relationship with the then editor, Donald Trelford, ultimately broke down over allegations that Trelford had allowed the newspaper's then proprietor Tiny Rowland to interfere in editorial content. After leaving The Observer, following an ill-fated editorial coup against Trelford, he was a reporter on Newsnight and Panorama (1989-92), having previously presented Channel Four's Face the Press (1982-85). His last editorial positions before turning freelance were at The Times as Obituaries editor (1993-99) and Chief Political Book Reviewer (1990-2004), though he contributed opinion columns to the newspaper until September 2005, when his regular column was discontinued.
Howard assisted Michael Heseltine on his memoirs, Life in the Jungle: My Autobiography (2000), and more recently published an official biography Basil Hume: The Monk Cardinal (2005), despite being a self-confessed agnostic.
A convivial and avuncular man, he is regularly interviewed on radio and television, as his long career enables him to present contemporary events in a longer perspective than most other commentators can attain. Anthony Howard married Carol Anne Gaynor in 1965 and was awarded the CBE in 1997. He lives in London and Ludlow, Shropshire.

Monday, November 26, 2007


Webster's Dictionary is the common title given to English language dictionaries in the United States, derived from American lexicographer Noah Webster. In the United States, the phrase Webster's has become a genericized trademark for dictionaries. Although Merriam-Webster dictionaries are descended from those of the original purchasers of Noah Webster's work, many other dictionaries bear his name, such as those by the publishers Random House and John Wiley & Sons.

19th- and early 20th-century editions
Porter also edited the next edition, Webster's International Dictionary, an expansion of the American, published in 1890 and containing 175,000 entries. The name was changed because the publisher wished to reflect the wide authority the work had throughout the English-speaking world and that it was no longer solely an "American" dictionary. The dictionary was published with a Supplement in 1900, which added 25,000 entries.
The Merriam Company issued a complete revision in 1909, Webster's New International Dictionary, edited by William Torey Harris and F. Sturges Allen. Vastly expanded, it covered over 400,000 entries, and double the number of illustrations. A new format feature, the divided page, was designed to save space by including a section of words below the line at the bottom of each page: six columns of very fine print, devoted to such items as rarely used, obsolete, and foreign words, abbreviations, and variant spellings. Notable improvement was made in the treatment and number of discriminated synonyms, comparisons of subtle shades of meaning. Also added was a twenty-page chart comparing the Webster's pronunciations with those offered by six other major dictionaries.
In 1934, the work was revised and expanded for its Second Edition, popularly known as Webster's Second, edited by William Allen Neilson and Thamas A. Knott. Early printings contain the famous lexicographic error dord. The book was five-inches (130 mm) thick and contained nearly 3,400 pages, including introductory sections. Some versions added another 400 page supplement called A Reference History of the World: dated chronologies "from earliest times to the present." The editors claimed over 600,000 entries, the largest in any dictionary to date; however, this includes multitudes of proper names and newly added lists of undefined combination words. For its style and word coverage, it is still popular with many people.
For example, in the case of Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc., 561 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1977), a trademark dispute in which the terms "lite" and "light" were held to be generic for light beer and therefore available for use by anyone, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, after considering a definition offered by one of the parties from the Third Edition of the New International, wrote "[t]he comparable definition in the previous, and for many the classic, edition of the same dictionary is as follows:...".

The International Dictionary
After about a decade of preparation, Merriam issued the entirely new Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (familiarly known as Webster's Third) in September 1961, edited by Philip Babcock Gove and containing over 450,000 entries, including over 50,000 new words and as many new senses for existing words. The final definition, zyzzogeton, was written on October 17, 1960, the final etymology was recorded on October 26, and the final pronunciation was transcribed on November 9. Final copy went to the typesetters, R. R. Donnelley, on December 2. The book was printed by the Riverside Press in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The first edition had 2,726 large pages, weighed thirteen and one-half pounds (6 kg), and originally sold for $47.50. The changes were the most radical in the history of the Unabridged. Although it was an unprecedented masterwork of scholarship, it was met by many with disappointment and criticism.

Webster's Third New International
While prior to Webster's Third the Unabridged had been expanded with each new edition, with very minimal deletion, Gove now made sweeping deletions. He eliminated the "nonlexical matter", including the Pronouncing Gazetteer, Pronouncing Biographical Dictionary, Arbitrary Signs and Symbols, and other appendix sections, plus most other proper nouns from the main text (including mythological, biblical, and fictional names, and the names of buildings, historical events, art works, etc.,) and over thirty picture plates. The rationale was that, while useful, these are not strictly about language. Gove justified the change by the company's publication of Webster's Biographical Dictionary in 1943 and Webster's Geographical Dictionary in 1949, and the fact that most of the subjects removed could be found in encyclopedias. However, the change bothered many users of the dictionary who were accustomed to the dictionary being a one-volume reference source.
Also removed were words which had been virtually out of use, or obsolete, for over two hundred years (except those found in major literature such as Shakespeare), rare variants, reformed spellings, self-explanatory combination words, and other items considered of little value to the general reader. The number of small text illustrations was reduced, page size increased, and print size reduced by one-twelfth, from six point to agate (5.5 point) type. All this was considered necessary because of the large amount of new material, and Webster's Second had almost reached the limits of mechanical bookbinding. The fact that the new book had about 700 fewer pages was justified by the need to allow room for future additions.
In style and method, the dictionary bore little resemblance to earlier editions. Headwords (except for "God," initialisms, and, in the reprints, trademarks) were not capitalized. Instead of capitalizing "American," for example, the dictionary had labels next to the entries reading cap (for the noun) and usu cap (for the adjective). This allowed informative distinctions to be drawn: "gallic" is usu cap while "gallicism" is often cap and "gallicize" is sometimes cap.

Changes
Webster's Third was heavily criticized for its "permissiveness" and its refusal to take a position on what was "good" English, critics comparing it unfavorably with the Second Edition. As Herbert Morton put it, "Webster's Second was more than respected. It was accepted as the ultimate authority on meaning and usage and its preeminence was virtually unchallenged in the United States. It did not provoke controversies, it settled them." Critics charged that the dictionary was reluctant to defend standard English, for example entirely eliminating the labels "colloquial", "correct", "incorrect", "proper", "improper", "erroneous", "humorous", "jocular", "poetic", and "contemptuous", among others.
Gove's stance was an exemplar of descriptivist linguistics, aiming to represent the English language as it is actually spoken and written by most users rather than attempting to prescribe its use. David M. Glixon in the Saturday Review described the new approach: "Having descended from God's throne of supreme authority, the Merriam folks are now seated around the city desk, recording like mad.". (It today uses the Webster's New World Dictionary published by John Wiley & Sons.) Garry Wills in the National Review opined that the new dictionary "has all the modern virtues. It is big, expensive, and ugly. It should be a great success".
Criticism of the dictionary spurred the creation of the American Heritage Dictionary, where usage notes were determined by a panel of expert writers, commentators, and speakers.

Webster's Dictionary Criticism
Since the 1961 publication of the Third, Merriam-Webster has reprinted the main text of the dictionary with only minor corrections. To add new words, they created an Addenda Section in 1966, included in the front matter, which was expanded in 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1993, and 2002. However, the rate of additions has been much slower than it had been throughout the previous hundred years.
Following the purchase of Merriam-Webster by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. in 1964, a three-volume version was issued for many years as a supplement to the encyclopedia. At the end of volume three, this edition included the Britannica World Language Dictionary, 474 pages of translations between English and French, German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, and Yiddish.
Although the time between new editions previously ranged between nineteen and twenty-seven years, after forty-five years (as of 2006), Merriam-Webster has not revealed any plans to publish a new edition of their Unabridged.

Revisions and updates
Merriam-Webster introduced its Collegiate Dictionary in 1898 and the series is now in its 11th edition. Following the publication of Webster's International in 1890, two Collegiate editions were issued as abridgements of each of their Unabridged editions.
With the 9th edition (published in 1985), the Collegiate adopted changes which distinguish it as a separate entity rather than merely an abridgement of the Third New International (the main text of which has remained virtually unrevised since 1961). Some proper names were returned to the word list, including names of Knights of the Round Table. The most notable change was the inclusion of the date of the first known citation of each word, to document its entry into the English language. The 11th edition includes over 225,000 definitions, and over 165,000 entries.

Competition
The latest edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary can be searched online at the company's website. The updated Third New International is available online by subscription.
The dictionary's 1913 edition of the 1900 International, renamed Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, has in modern times been used in various free online resources, as its copyright lapsed and it became public domain. Some of these resources include:
There are also online resources based on the 1913 version that aren't completely free, such as:
Both the Collegiate and the 1913 Unabridged are searched by the free dictionary search engine OneLook.
The 1828 edition can be searched online at the Cornerstone Baptist Temple website.
Both the 1828 edition and the 1913 edition are available online in searchable format.

DICT
Collaborative International Dictionary of English and GCIDE
Everything2
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1913
Webster's Online Dictionary - The Rosetta Edition [1] (named after the Rosetta Stone)

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Gloria Hendry
Gloria Hendry (born March 3, 1949 in Winter Haven, Florida) is an African-American actress. She is sometimes credited as "Carl Van Vechten."

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Circumpolar star
A circumpolar star is a star that, as viewed from a given latitude on Earth, never sets (that is, never disappears below the horizon), due to its proximity to one of the celestial poles. Circumpolar stars are therefore visible (from said location) for the entire night on every night of the year (and would be continuously visible throughout the day too, were they not overwhelmed by the Sun's glare).
As the Earth spins daily on its axis, the stars appear to rotate in circular paths around one of the celestial poles (the north celestial pole for observers in the northern hemisphere, or the south celestial pole for observers in the southern hemisphere). Stars far from a celestial pole appear to rotate in large circles; stars located very close to a celestial pole rotate in small circles and hence hardly seem to engage in any diurnal motion at all. Depending on the observer's latitude on Earth, some stars – the circumpolar ones – are close enough to the celestial pole to remain continuously above the horizon, while other stars dip below the horizon for some portion of their daily circular path (and others remain permanently below the horizon).
The circumpolar stars appear to lie within a circle that is centred at the celestial pole and tangential to the horizon. At the Earth's North Pole, the north celestial pole is directly overhead, and all stars that are visible at all (that is, all stars in the northern celestial hemisphere) are circumpolar. As one travels south, the north celestial pole moves towards the northern horizon. More and more stars that are at a distance from it begin to disappear below the horizon for some portion of their daily "orbit", and the circle containing the remaining circumpolar stars becomes increasingly small. At the Earth's equator this circle vanishes to a single point – the celestial pole itself – which lies on the horizon, and there are therefore effectively no circumpolar stars at all.
As one travels south of the equator the opposite happens. The south celestial pole appears increasingly high in the sky, and all the stars lying within an increasingly large circle centred on that pole become circumpolar about it. This continues until one reaches the Earth's South Pole where, once again, all visible stars are circumpolar.
The north celestial pole is located very close to the the North Star (Polaris), so, from the northern hemisphere all circumpolar stars appear to rotate around Polaris. Polaris itself remains almost stationary, always at the north (i.e., the azimuth is 0°), and always at the same altitude (angle from the horizon), equal to the latitude of the point of observation on Earth.

Alternative definition
Some astronomers define a circumpolar star as any star having a declination of 55 or more degrees from the celestial equator; i.e., a declination between 55° and 90° on the celestial sphere. In other words, circumpolar stars are within 35° of the north or south celestial pole. These astronomers propose this idea because, from the vantange point of stargazers outside of the tropics, most stars with declinations between 55° and 90° never rise or set on the horizon in their respective hemispheres.
Stars of extreme northern constellations, such as Cassiopeia, Cepheus, Ursa Major, and Ursa Minor are well within this zone. Observers living in mid-northern latitudes always see the stars of these constellations above the horizon, never rising or setting.
Stars of extreme southern constellations, such as Crux, Carina, and Hydrus are also well within this zone of circumpolar stars. Observers living in mid-southern latitudes, in countries such as Australia, South Africa, and Argentina, always see the stars of these constellations above the horizon. From their vantange point, the diurnal circles of these extreme southern stars do not cross below the horizon; therefore, they never rise or set.
Stars and constellations that are circumpolar (within 35° of the celestial pole) in one hemisphere are virtually invisible, never rising above the horizon, in the middle and high latitudes of the opposite hemisphere. For example, the southern circumpolar star Acrux is invisible from most the Continental United States, likewise, the seven stars of the northern circumpolar Big Dipper asterism are invisible from most of the Patagonia region of South America.

Friday, November 23, 2007


This series is part of the Politics and the Election series
The plurality voting system is a single-winner voting system often used to elect executive officers or to elect members of a legislative assembly which is based on single-member constituencies.
The most common system, used in Canada, India, the UK, and the USA, is first past the post or winner-takes-all, a voting system in which a single winner is chosen in a given constituency by having the most votes, regardless of whether or not he or she has a majority of votes.
In some countries such as France a similar system is used, but there are two rounds: the "two-round" or "two-ballot" plurality system. The two highest-voted candidates of the first round compete in a two-candidate second round or all candidates above a certain threshold in the first round compete in a two-, three- or four-candidate second round. If one candidate has a majority of votes in the first round, there is no second round.
In political science, the use of the plurality voting system alongside multiple, single-winner constituencies to elect a multi-member body is often referred to as single-member district plurality or SMDP. Plurality voting is also variously referred to as winner-takes-all or relative/simple majority voting; however, these terms can also refer to elections for multiple winners in a particular constituency using bloc voting.
The famous works of Arend Lijphart use the term "majoritarian" systems, which is used almost synonymously with "plurality" systems.

Single member

  • Plurality (first-past-the-post)
    Preferential systems

    • Satisfy Condorcet criterion

      • Condorcet method
        Copeland's method
        Kemeny-Young method
        Minimax Condorcet
        Nanson's method
        Ranked Pairs
        Schulze method
        Runoff voting

        • Bucklin voting
          Coombs' method
          Instant-runoff
          Two-round system
          Non-rank methods

          • Approval voting
            Range voting
            Multi-member

            • Proportional representation

              • Cumulative voting
                Mixed-member
                Party-list

                • D'Hondt method
                  Highest averages method
                  Largest remainder method
                  Sainte-Laguë method
                  Proportional approval voting
                  Single transferable vote
                  Semi-proportional representation

                  • Cumulative voting
                    Parallel voting
                    Single non-transferable vote
                    Non-proportional multi-member representation

                    • Bloc voting
                      Limited voting
                      Random Selection

                      • Sortition First past the post system Voting
                        Generally plurality ballots can be categorised into two forms. The simplest form is a blank ballot where the name of a candidate is written in by hand. A more structured ballot will list all the candidates and allow a mark to be made by a single candidate, however a structured ballot can also include space for a write-in candidate as well.
                        Plurality voting is based on minimal information — a person's vote can be entirely represented by a binary choice, so anything can be used to signify a vote — the ancient Greeks would vote on ostracising someone by scratching the name of the person to be ostracised on a piece of pottery. Votes cast as physical objects can also create a realistic display of the election results, such as an array of candidates with jars filled with differently coloured beans, with the winner being the most-filled.

                        Ballot types

                        Examples of plurality voting
                        The election of a Member of Parliament in the UK is a well known example of the First Past the Post electoral system. But the system is also used on a smaller scale.

                        Simple example
                        For this example, consider the election for the president of a school class. Each class has a president, who sits on a school council. Further assume that, in this imaginary school, male and female students disagree with each other on most issues, and students prefer to vote for others of the same sex as themselves.
                        In our hypothetical election, there are three candidates: Amy, Brian and Cathy. Each class member gets a ballot, with these three names on it. Each voter must put an "X" by one of the names on their ballot.
                        After the election finishes, the papers are sorted into three piles--one for votes for Amy, one for votes for Brian, and one for votes for Cathy.
                        The largest pile decides the winner. If Amy's pile has 11 votes, Brian's has 16, and Cathy's has 13, Brian wins.
                        Notice that there were a total of 40 votes cast, and the winner had only 16 of them — only 40%.
                        Note that the class members (the "electors") only vote once, and their votes help to choose both a class president and a member of the school council (the same person).

                        The election for class president
                        Suppose that all the other classes hold similar elections. Across all the classes, 8 of the class presidents that were elected were girls, and 9 were boys. That makes the boys the overall winner. The only influence that the pupils in this particular class had was to vote for Amy, Brian or Cathy to represent themselves.
                        Some might argue that a boy won for this class because there were two girls, who "split the vote": some of the girls in the class voted for Amy and others for Cathy. Perhaps if Amy had not been a candidate, all the girls would have voted for Cathy and she would have won this class; this in turn would make the girls the winners of the whole council. This is known as the spoiler effect.

                        The election for school council
                        Imagine that the population of Tennessee, a state in the United States, is voting on the location of its capital. The population of Tennessee is concentrated around its four major cities, which are spread throughout the state. For this example, suppose that the entire electorate lives in these four cities, and that everyone wants to live as near the capital as possible.
                        The candidates for the capital are:
                        The preferences of the voters would be divided like this:
                        Voting is accomplished whereby each voter in each city selects one city on the ballot (Memphis voters select Memphis, Nashville voters select Nashville, etc.) Votes are tabulated; Memphis is selected with the most votes (42%). Note that this system does not require that the winner have a majority, but only a plurality. Memphis wins because it has the most votes, even though 58% of the voters in this example preferred Memphis least.

                        Memphis, the state's largest city, with 42% of the voters, but located far from the other cities
                        Nashville, with 26% of the voters
                        Knoxville, with 17% of the voters
                        Chattanooga, with 15% of the voters
                        Memphis
                        Nashville
                        Chattanooga
                        Knoxville
                        Nashville
                        Chattanooga
                        Knoxville
                        Memphis
                        Chattanooga
                        Knoxville
                        Nashville
                        Memphis
                        Knoxville
                        Chattanooga
                        Nashville
                        Memphis More complex example
                        Plurality is often conflated with Single-winner voting systems in general, in order to contrast it with Proportional Representation. See the advantages there for other advantages of plurality in this context, such as regionalism and accountability.

                        Advantages
                        Plurality may well be the simplest of all voting systems. This implies specific advantages. It is likely to be quicker, and easier to administer; this may also imply that an election costs less to run. It may also have an effect on voters, because it is easy to explain and understand. Alternative voting systems may alienate some voters who find the systems hard to understand, and who therefore feel detached from the direct effect of their own vote.

                        Simplicity
                        The arguments for a plurality voting system rely heavily on the preservation of the "one person, one vote" principle (often shortened to OMOV for "one man, one vote" or more recently "one member, one vote"), as cited by the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein each voter is only able to cast one vote in a given election, where that vote can only go to one candidate. Plurality voting systems elect the candidate who is preferred first by the largest number of voters. Other voting systems, such as Instant-runoff voting or Single Transferable Vote also preserve OMOV, but rely on lower voter preference to arrive at a candidate earning either absolute majority or droop quota, respectively.
                        However, proponents of other systems, such as approval voting, point out that the OMOV principle was made to control the magnitude of districts; that each district must be relatively in proportion to one another in population. Approval voting does not actually represent some voters more than others, so the OMOV principle would be a weak one to discount it on. In any case, it could be argued approval voting grants one vote for each candidate to each voter - which they may choose not to cast, and cannot vote cumulate on one candidate.

                        Preservation of One Person One Vote principle
                        See single-winner voting systems for other disadvantages commonly associated with plurality, such as diminished representation, sweepout and other skewed results, and "safe seats".

                        Disadvantages
                        To a much greater extent than many other electoral methods, plurality electoral systems encourage tactical voting techniques, like "compromising". Voters are pressured to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if their true preference is neither, because a vote for any other candidate will be likely to be wasted and have no impact on the final result. This is known as Duverger's Law.
                        In the Tennessee example, if all the voters for Chattanooga and Knoxville had instead voted for Nashville, then Nashville would have won (with 58% of the vote); this would only have been the 3rd choice for those voters, but voting for their respective 1st choices (their own cities) actually results in their 4th choice (Memphis) being elected.
                        The difficulty is sometimes summed up, in an extreme form, as "All votes for anyone other than the second place are votes for the winner", because by voting for other candidates, they have denied those votes to the second place candidate who could have won had they received them. It is often claimed by United States Democrats that Democrat Al Gore lost the 2000 Presidential Election to Republican George W. Bush because some voters on the left voted for Ralph Nader of the Green Party, who presumably would have preferred Gore to Bush. Conversely, Republicans can claim that Ross Perot was a spoiler who enabled Bill Clinton to win the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections with a minority of the popular vote, because Perot had split the conservative vote, winning 8.4 percent of the vote, far better than Nader did, with less than 0.5 percent of the vote.
                        Such a mentality is reflected by elections in Puerto Rico and its three principal voter groups: the Independentistas (pro-independence), the Populares (pro-commonwealth), and the Estadistas (pro-statehood). Historically, there has been a tendency for Independentista voters to elect Popular candidates and policies. This phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the Estadistas have the most voters on the island. It is so widely recognised that the Puertoricans sometimes call the Independentistas who vote for the Populares "melons", because the fruit is green on the outside but red on the inside (in reference to the party colours).
                        Because voters have to predict in advance who the top two candidates will be, this can cause significant perturbation to the system:
                        A feature of the FPTP system is that invariably, voters can select only one candidate in a single-member district, whilst in multi-member districts they can never select more candidates than the number of seats in the district. Some argue that FPTP would work better if electors could cast votes for as many candidates as they wish. This would allow voters to "vote against" a certain despised candidate if they choose, without being forced to guess who they should vote for to defeat that candidate, thus eliminating the need for tactical voting. Such a system would also serve to reduce the spoiler effect. This system is called approval voting.

                        Substantial power is given to the media. Some voters will tend to believe the media's assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election. Even voters who distrust the media will know that other voters do believe the media, and therefore those candidates who receive the most media attention will nonetheless be the most popular and thus most likely to be in one of the top two.
                        A newly appointed candidate, who is in fact supported by the majority of voters, may be considered (due to the lack of a track record) to not be likely to become one of the top two candidates; thus, they will receive a reduced number of votes, which will then give them a reputation as a low poller in future elections, compounding the problem.
                        The system may promote votes against more so than votes for. In the UK, entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting against the Conservative party by voting for either Labour or Liberal Democrats based on which is most popular in each constituency, regardless of the voters' opinions of the policies of these parties.
                        If enough voters use this tactic, the first-past-the-post system becomes, effectively, runoff voting - a completely different system - where the first round is held in the court of public opinion. Tactical voting
                        Duverger's law is a principle of political science which predicts that constituencies that use first-past-the-post systems will become two-party systems, given enough time.
                        First-past-the-post tends to reduce the number of political parties to a greater extent than most other methods, thus making it more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats. (In the United Kingdom, 18 out of 22 General Elections since 1922 have produced a majority government.) Single party rule enables quicker decision-making with less need for back and forth negotiation; some argue that this is an advantage.
                        Multi-party coalitions, on the other hand, require consent among all coalition partners to pass legislation, which some argue gives small parties a disproportionate amount of power. In the UK, arguments for plurality often look to Italy where the frequent government changeovers are presented as undesirable. (This problem could be solved with separation of powers, in which the entire government didn't have to turn over just because it lost a vote.)
                        FPTP's tendency toward fewer parties and more frequent one-party rule can also produce disadvantages. One such disadvantage is that the government may not consider as wide a range of perspectives and concerns. It is entirely possible that a voter will find that all major parties agree on a particular issue. In this case, the voter will not have any meaningful way of expressing a dissenting opinion through his or her vote.
                        Another disadvantage is that fewer choices are offered to the voters, often pressuring voters to vote for a candidate with whom they largely disagree so as to oppose a candidate with whom they disagree even more (See tactical voting above); this feature pressures candidates to appeal to the extremes in order to avoid being undercut. This appeal-to-extremes operates by giving those voters who are more centrist no choice but to vote for them. The likely result of this is that candidates will less closely reflect the viewpoints of those who vote for them.
                        It may also be argued that one-party rule is more likely to lead to radical changes in government policy that are only favoured by a plurality or bare majority of the voters, whereas multi-party systems usually require greater consensus in order to make dramatic changes.

                        Effect on political parties
                        Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. For example, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes - a total of 70% wasted votes. This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. Alternative electoral systems attempt to ensure that almost all votes are effective in influencing the result and the number of wasted votes is consequently minimised.

                        Wasted votes
                        Smaller parties can disproportionately change the outcome of a FPTP election by swinging what is called the 50-50% balance of two party systems, by creating a faction within one or both ends of the political spectrum which shifts the winner of the election from an absolute majority outcome to a simple majority outcome favouring the previously less favoured party. In comparison, for electoral systems using proportional representation small groups win only their proportional share of representation. In the United States, this mechanism falls within one major reasoning (USA, Voting act, 1970s) favoring two-party, First-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral systems.

                        Disproportionate influence of smaller parties
                        The United Kingdom continues to use the first-past-the-post electoral system for general elections, and for local government elections in England and Wales. Changes to the UK system have been proposed, and alternatives were examined by the Jenkins Commission in the late 1990s but no major changes have been implemented. Canada also uses this system for national and provincial elections. In May 2005 the Canadian province of British Columbia had a referendum on abolishing single-member district plurality in favour of multi-member districts with the Single Transferable Vote system after the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform made a recommendation for the reform. The referendum obtained 57% of the vote, but failed to meet the 60% requirement for passing. The Canadian province of Ontario is in the midst of a referendum on a Mixed Member Proportional proposal, also requiring 60% approval; the referendum will take place Oct 10, 2007. See http://www.yourbigdecision.ca, established by Elections Ontario, for more information.
                        Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Australia are notable examples of countries within the UK, or with previous links to it, that use non-FPTP electoral systems.
                        Recent examples of nations which have undergone democratic reforms but have not adopted the FPTP system include South Africa, almost all of the former Eastern bloc nations, Russia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

                        Where plurality voting is used

                        Cube rule
                        List of democracy and elections-related topics
                        Proportional representation
                        Runoff voting
                        Single non-transferable vote
                        Single transferable vote
                        Voting system