As political parties walk the ground ahead of GE 2025, Singaporeans prepare to cast their vote for MPs to represent them in Parliament. How does the electoral system work? And how has it performed in terms of ensuring representation and effective lawmaking? Learn more about the bread and butter of the Singapore General Election before you head down to the ballot box!  

What electoral system does Singapore use?

Singapore uses the first-past-the-post (FPTP), or simple plurality, system in both the General Elections and Presidential Elections. Under this system, the candidate that secures the highest number of votes gets elected, regardless of the actual winning margin. This means that a candidate can win an election by gaining even just one vote more than their opponent(s), and that the winning candidate may not have a majority (i.e. more than 50% of votes).

What are the merits of a first-past-the post system?

i. Simplicity

One of the benefits of a FPTP system is its simplicity. A mark next to the name or symbol of one candidate counts as a valid vote, which minimises voter confusion and facilitates efficient vote counting. The system also produces clear winners – the candidate that gets the highest number of votes gets elected into Parliament. 

ii. Swift decision-making 

Another benefit of the FPTP system is its tendency to produce stable, single-party governments over coalition governments.¹ This allows the winning party to act swiftly and cohesively with fewer time lags or obstacles in passing laws or amending the Constitution in comparison to working with a coalition partner. Such swift decision-making might be particularly resonant to governments and voters when navigating rising global tensions and uncertainties.

You don’t want a government that is embroiled in paralysis – things cannot go forward. I think Singaporeans are deeply aware of that, and so they will take it, I believe, step by step and do what is right for Singapore.

Minister of Health, Ong Ye Kung²

In practice, such “paralysis” in decision-making is rare unless the Government holds less than half the seats in Parliament.³ In Singapore, a simple majority of votes in Parliament (i.e. 51%) is sufficient to pass Ordinary Bills (i.e. draft laws) into law, and to move Motions (i.e. Parliament’s opinion on a matter). A further two-thirds majority of votes in Parliament is required to amend most articles in the Constitution.

Since the PAP has consistently held 89% or more seats in Parliament, and its members almost always vote in line with the party due to the party whip, the party can pass laws, motions and even constitutional amendments swiftly with little opposition. In other words, a more diverse Parliament might have a smaller effect on the Government’s ability to pass laws than imagined. 

Furthermore, more deliberation in Parliament might not necessarily be a bad thing. Considering different viewpoints can help strengthen draft laws and constitutional amendments so that they can be as precise, comprehensive, and effective as possible. Some examples of important bills and constitutional amendments that were widely debated include the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) scheme in 1988, the Elected Presidency in 2017, and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill in 2025.

In short, while the FPTP system is simple and enables quick decision-making, fears of legislative gridlock may be overstated – amore diverse Parliament may not significantly slow the Government’s ability to pass laws. More importantly, efficiency is not the only measure of good governance; thoughtful debate and diverse perspectives can potentially lead to stronger, more inclusive laws that better reflect society’s needs.

What are the implications of a FPTP system?

i. Disproportionate vote-to-seat ratio

A FPTP system tends to give the winning party more seats in parliament than the share of votes it actually received. The size of this vote-to-seat ratio further depends on the drawing of electoral boundaries, including the location of boundaries, the number and size of GRCs, and the size of electoral districts:⁴

• Drawing of electoral boundaries: The drawing of electoral boundaries can affect the electoral chances of both ruling and opposition parties. For example, dissolving a constituency where an opposition party has been gaining ground can potentially impact that party’s electoral prospects.
• Number and size of GRCs: The number and size of GRCs can affect parties’ ability to field candidates, which in turn influence the number of constituencies they can contest in. 
• District magnitude: Under a FPTP system, increasing district magnitude also makes it easier for the party that captures most votes in that district to capture all seats in parliament. In other words, as constituencies get larger, the winning party is more likely to win a higher proportion of seats relative to their vote share.⁵

In Singapore, the People’s Action Party (PAP) has consistently won at least 89% of seats in Parliament since the first General Election in 1968 – a figure far higher than its actual vote share. For example, in 2020, the PAP won 61.24% of votes but secured 89% of seats in Parliament – a 28% difference between vote and seat share.⁶ In 2015, it won 69.9% of votes but secured 93% of the seats in Parliament – a 23% difference.⁷  In fact, from 1968 to 2020, the PAP has consistently received a more than 20% “boost” in seats compared to the number of votes it received.⁸

To be clear, there is nothing underhanded about this. Political observer Cherian George notes that the PAP holds a substantially larger number of seats in Parliament compared to other countries with a first-past-the-post system, such as the United Kingdom, because voting patterns remain largely similar across the country.⁹ Unlike places like the UK, where different regions vote very differently, most constituencies in Singapore vote in a way that is close to the national average. This explains why the party’s seat share is far higher than its vote share.

ii. Winning parties can move swiftly with few barriers

Nevertheless, the disproportionate vote-to-seat ratio is not merely a result of strong voter support – it also reflects the design of our electoral system. Under the current set up, a party that wins the most votes can end up with a far greater share of power than its vote count might suggest. This means the ruling party can move quickly—changing electoral rules, passing laws, even amending the Constitution—with few barriers.

Food for thought

1. To what extent does the current system succeed in electing parliamentarians who effectively represent society’s interests?
2. How can Singapore’s electoral system balance efficient decision-making with accurate representation of votes?
3. What influence might greater diversity in Parliament have on the government’s ability to pass laws?
4. How might more deliberation in Parliament impact the efficiency and effectiveness of governance?

References

1. Netina Tan and Bernard Grofman, “Electoral Rules and Manufacturing Legislative Supermajority: Evidence from Singapore,” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 56, no. 3 (July 3, 2018): 273–97, https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2018.1468238. ↩︎
2. Yuen-C Tham, “‘You Don’t Want a Govt That Is Embroiled in Paralysis,’ Says Ong Ye Kung Ahead of GE2025,” The Straits Times, March 25, 2025, ↩︎
3. General Elections Explained: What Is a Mandate (Part 2), 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMI0FxzJwlQ. ↩︎
4. Tan and Grofman, “Electoral Rules and Manufacturing Legislative Supermajority.” ↩︎
5. Tan and Grofman. ↩︎
6. Matthew Mohan and Rachel Phua, “GE2020: PAP Wins with 61.24% of Vote; WP Claims Two GRCs Including New Sengkang GRC,” Channel News Asia, July 11, 2020, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/ge2020-general-election-final-result-pap-wp-952471. ↩︎
7. Sumiko Tan, “GE2015: PAP Vote Share Increases to 69.9%, Party Wins 83 of 89 Seats Including WP-Held Punggol East,” The Straits Times, September 12, 2015, https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/ge2015-pap-vote-share-increases-to-699-party-wins-83-of-89-seats-including-wp-held-punggol. ↩︎
8. The average deviance between vote share and seat share between 1968 and 2020 is 29%. ↩︎
9. Cherian George, “Freak Elections,” in Singapore, Incomplete: Reflections on a First World Nation’s Arrested Political Development (Singapore: Woodsville News, 2017), https://www.academia.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/George-2017-Freak-Elections.pdf. ↩︎