text:
First-past-the-post voting

First-preference plurality (FPP)—often shortened simply to plurality—is a single-winner system of positional voting where voters mark one candidate as their favorite, and the candidate with the largest number of points (a plurality of points) is elected. It is also called first-past-the-post (FPTP), based on a metaphor from horse racing.

In social choice theory, FPP is considered a degenerate form of ranked voting, where voters "rank" candidates, but only the first preference matters; as a result, FPP is usually implemented using a choose-one ballot, where voters mark a single bubble next to their favorite candidate.

FPP has been used to elect the British House of Commons since the Middle Ages. Its use extends to former British colonies, most notably the United States, Canada, and India. It is used as the primary form of allocating seats for legislative elections in about a third of the world's countries, mostly in the English-speaking world. It is also used to directly elect heads of states in some, although less often than the two-round system.

Notwithstanding its simplicity and antiquity, there are several major drawbacks to FPTP. As a winner-take-all method, it often produces disproportional results, particularly when electing members of a legislature, in the sense that political parties do not get representation according to their share of the popular vote. This usually favors the largest party and parties with strong regional support to the detriment of smaller parties without a geographically concentrated base.

Supporters of electoral reform are generally highly critical of FPTP because of this and point out other flaws, such as FPTP's vulnerability to gerrymandering which can create districts distorting representation in the legislature, the high number of wasted votes, and the chance of a majority reversal (i.e., the party winning the most votes getting fewer seats than the second-largest party and losing the election). Throughout the 20th century many countries that previously used FPTP have abandoned it in favour of other electoral systems, including the former British colonies Australia, and New Zealand (these nations now use IRV + STV and MMP, respectively).

Some countries use FPTP alongside proportional representation (PR) in a parallel voting system, or in compensatory mixed systems, e.g. as part of mixed-member proportional representation.

Description
A first-past-the-post election entails a single winner. The ballot requires voters to mark only one option from the list of candidates. Whichever candidate wins the greatest number, or plurality, of votes wins. In a legislative election, the polity is divided into any number of districts, or constituencies, each of which elect a representative to the legislature via FPTP.

Example
In FPTP, only the first preferences matter. Voters are allowed to make only one choice of candidate. As such, the votes would be counted as 42 per cent for Memphis, 26 for Nashville, 17 for Knoxville, and 15 for Chattanooga. Since Memphis has the most votes, it would win a FPTP election, even though a majority of voters prefer Nashville. This makes the election a center squeeze. By contrast, Condorcet methods would return Nashville – the actual capital of Tennessee – whereas instant-runoff voting would return Knoxville, the easternmost city.

Voting method criteria
Scholars rate voting methods using mathematically derived voting method criteria, which describe desirable features of a method. The following criteria are passed or failed when FPTP is used in a single-winner contest:

Terminology
The phrase first-past-the-post is a metaphor from British horse racing, where there is a post at the finish line. While widely-used, the term is a misnomer in that it is precisely backwards: there is no specific percentage "finish line" required to win in a plurality voting system, and any candidate can win.

FPTP is a plurality voting method, a plurality meaning the largest part of the whole, in contrast to majority, which generally means more than half of the whole. Under FPTP the candidate with the highest number (but not necessarily a majority) of votes is elected. Sometimes the term relative majority is used to refer to a plurality as opposed to an absolute majority meaning a (standard) majority.

Even though FPTP is a type of plurality voting, it is categorised as a majoritarian system, even though it does not always elect the majority-preferred candidate. FPTP is primarily used in systems that use single-member electoral divisions. The multiple-member version of plurality voting is when each voter casts (up to) the same number of votes as there are positions to be filled, and those elected are the highest-placed candidates; this system is called block plurality voting. When voters have only a single vote each, which is non-transferable, but there are multiple seats to be filled, that system is called the single non-transferable vote (SNTV), which is a

Party distribution
Perhaps the most striking effect of FPTP is the fact that the number of a party's seats in a legislature has nothing to do with its vote count in an election, only in how those votes were geographically distributed. This has been a target of criticism for the method, many arguing that a fundamental requirement of an election system is to accurately represent the views of voters. FPTP often creates "false majorities" by over-representing larger parties (giving a majority of the parliamentary/legislative seats to a party that did not receive a majority of the votes) while under-representing smaller ones. In Canada, majority governments have been formed due to one party winning a majority of the votes cast in Canada only three times since 1921: in 1940, 1958 and 1984. In the United Kingdom, 19 of the 24 general elections since 1922 have produced a single-party majority government. In all but two of them (1931 and 1935), the leading party did not take a majority of the votes across the UK.

In extreme cases, this can lead to a party receiving the plurality or even majority of total votes yet still failing to gain a plurality of legislative seats. This results in a situation called a majority reversal or electoral inversion. Famous examples of the second placed party (in votes nationally) winning a majority of seats include the elections in Ghana in 2012, in New Zealand in 1978 and 1981, and in the United Kingdom in 1951. Famous examples of the second placed party (in votes nationally) winning a plurality of seats include the elections in Canada in 2019 and 2021 as well as in Japan in 2003. Even when a party wins more than half the votes in an almost purely two-party-competition, it is possible for the runner-up to win a majority of seats. This happened in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in 1966, 1998 and 2020 and in Belize in 1993. Even with only two parties and equally-sized constituencies, winning a majority of seats just requires receiving more than half the vote in more than half the districts—even if the other party receives all the votes cast in the other districts—so just over a quarter of the vote is theoretically enough to win a majority in the legislature. With enough candidates splitting the vote in a district, the total number of votes needed to win can be made arbitrarily small.

Under first-past-the-post, a small party may draw votes and seats away from a larger party that it is more similar to, and therefore give an advantage to one it is less similar to. For example, in the 2000 United States presidential election, the left-leaning Ralph Nader drew more votes from the left-leaning Al Gore, resulting in Nader spoiling the election for the Democrats. According to the political pressure group Make Votes Matter, FPTP creates a powerful electoral incentive for large parties to target similar segments of voters with similar policies. The effect of this reduces political diversity in a country because the larger parties are incentivised to coalesce around similar policies. The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network describes India's use of FPTP as a "legacy of British colonialism".

Duverger's law is an idea in political science which says that constituencies that use first-past-the-post methods will lead to two-party systems, given enough time. Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains: "The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the 'first-past-the-post' (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as Duverger's Law. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections."

However, most countries with first-past-the-post elections have multiparty legislatures (albeit with two parties larger than the others), the United States being the major exception. There is a counter-argument to Duverger's Law, that while on the national level a plurality system may encourage two parties, in the individual constituencies supermajorities will lead to the vote fracturing.

It has been suggested that the distortions in geographical representation provide incentives for parties to ignore the interests of areas in which they are too weak to stand much chance of gaining representation, leading to governments that do not govern in the national interest. Further, during election campaigns the campaigning activity of parties tends to focus on marginal seats where there is a prospect of a change in representation, leaving safer areas excluded from participation in an active campaign. Political parties operate by targeting districts, directing their activists and policy proposals toward those areas considered to be marginal, where each additional vote has more value.

This feature of FPTP has often been used by its supporters in contrast to proportional systems. In the latter, smaller parties act as 'kingmakers' in coalitions as they have greater bargaining power and therefore, arguably, their influence on policy is disproportional to their parliamentary size- this is largely avoided in FPTP systems where majorities are generally achieved. FPTP often produces governments which have legislative voting majorities, thus providing such governments the legislative power necessary to implement their electoral manifesto commitments during their term in office. This may be beneficial for the country in question in circumstances where the government's legislative agenda has broad public support, albeit potentially divided across party lines, or at least benefits society as a whole. However handing a legislative voting majority to a government which lacks popular support can be problematic where said government's policies favour only that fraction of the electorate that supported it, particularly if the electorate divides on tribal, religious, or urban–rural lines. There is also the perceived issue of unfair coalitions where a smaller party can form a coalition with other smaller parties and form a government, without a clear mandate as was the case in the 2009 Israeli legislative election where the leading party Kadima, was unable to form a coalition so Likud, a smaller party, managed to form a government without being the largest party. The use of proportional representation (PR) may enable smaller parties to become decisive in the country's legislature and gain leverage they would not otherwise enjoy, although this can be somewhat mitigated by a large enough electoral threshold. They argue that FPTP generally reduces this possibility, except where parties have a strong regional basis. A journalist at Haaretz noted that Israel's highly proportional Knesset "affords great power to relatively small parties, forcing the government to give in to political blackmail and to reach compromises"; Tony Blair, defending FPTP, argued that other systems give small parties the balance of power, and influence disproportionate to their votes. Allowing people into parliament who did not finish first in their district was described by David Cameron as creating a "Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either." Winston Churchill criticized the alternative vote system as "determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates."

FPTP often results in strategic voting which has prevented extreme left and right-wing parties from gaining parliamentary seats. For example, PR systems such as the electoral system of Hungary have seen Fidesz (right-wing, populist party) win 135 seats in the 2022 Hungarian parliamentary election and has remained the largest party in Hungary since 2010. Since 2010, Fidesz has implemented anti-democratic reforms that now mean the European Parliament no longer qualifies Hungary as a full democracy. On the other hand, the Constitution Society published a report in April 2019 stating that, "[in certain circumstances] FPTP can ... abet extreme politics, since should a radical faction gain control of one of the major political parties, FPTP works to preserve that party's position. ...This is because the psychological effect of the plurality system disincentivises a major party's supporters from voting for a minor party in protest at its policies, since to do so would likely only help the major party's main rival. Rather than curtailing extreme voices, FPTP today empowers the (relatively) extreme voices of the Labour and Conservative party memberships." Electoral reform campaigners have argued that the use of FPTP in South Africa was a contributory factor in the country adopting the apartheid system after the 1948 general election in that country. Leblang and Chan found that a country's electoral system is the most important predictor of a country's involvement in war, according to three different measures: (1) when a country was the first to enter a war; (2) when it joined a multinational coalition in an ongoing war; and (3) how long it stayed in a war after becoming a party to it. When the people are fairly represented in parliament, more of those groups who may object to any potential war have access to the political power necessary to prevent it. In a proportional democracy, war and other major decisions generally requires the consent of the majority. The British human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, and others, have argued that Britain entered the Iraq War primarily because of the political effects of FPTP and that proportional representation would have prevented Britain's involvement in the war.

Tactical voting
To a greater extent than many others, the first-past-the-post method encourages "tactical voting". Voters have an incentive to vote for a candidate who they predict is more likely to win, as opposed to their preferred candidate who may be unlikely to win and for whom a vote could be considered as wasted. FPTP wastes fewer votes when it is used in two-party contests. But waste of votes and minority governments are more likely when large groups of voters vote for three, four or more parties as in Canadian elections. Canada uses FPTP and only two of the last seven federal Canadian elections (2011 and 2015) produced single-party majority governments. In none of them did the leading party receive a majority of the votes.

The position is sometimes summarised, in an extreme form, as "all votes for anyone other than the runner-up are votes for the winner." This is because votes for these other candidates deny potential support from the second-placed candidate, who might otherwise have won. Following the extremely close 2000 U.S. presidential election, some supporters of Democratic candidate Al Gore believed one reason he lost to Republican George W. Bush is that a portion of the electorate (2.7%) voted for Ralph Nader of the Green Party, and exit polls indicated that more of them would have preferred Gore (45%) to Bush (27%). This election was ultimately determined by the results from Florida, where Bush prevailed over Gore by a margin of only 537 votes (0.009%), which was far exceeded by the 97488 (1.635%) votes cast for Nader in that state.

In Puerto Rico, there has been a tendency for Independentista voters to support Populares candidates. This phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the Estadistas have the most voters on the island, and is so widely recognised that Puerto Ricans sometimes call the Independentistas who vote for the Populares "melons", because that fruit is green on the outside but red on the inside (in reference to the party colors).

Because voters have to predict who the top two candidates will be, results can be significantly distorted:
 * Some voters will vote based on their view of how others will vote as well, changing their originally intended vote;
 * Substantial power is given to the media, because some voters will believe its assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be. Even voters who distrust the media will know that others do believe the media, and therefore those candidates who receive the most media attention will probably be the most popular;
 * A new candidate with no track record, who might otherwise be supported by the majority of voters, may be considered unlikely to be one of the top two, and thus lose votes to tactical voting;
 * The method may promote votes against as opposed to votes for. For example, in the UK (and only in the Great Britain region), entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting against the Conservative Party by voting Labour, Liberal Democrat in England and Wales, and since 2015 the SNP in Scotland, depending on which is seen as best placed to win in each locality. Such behaviour is difficult to measure objectively.

Proponents of other voting methods in single-member districts argue that these would reduce the need for tactical voting and reduce the spoiler effect. Examples include preferential voting systems, such as instant runoff voting, as well as the two-round system of runoffs and less tested methods such as approval voting and Condorcet methods. Wasted votes are seen as those cast for losing candidates, and 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. On this basis a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. This winner-takes-all system may be one of the reasons why "voter participation tends to be lower in countries with FPTP than elsewhere."

Geography
The effect of a system based on plurality voting spread over many separate districts is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distributed support gain a disproportionately small share. This is because in doing this they win many seats and do not 'waste' many votes in other areas. As voting patterns are similar in about two-thirds of the districts, it is more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats under FPTP than happens in a proportional system, and under FPTP it is rare to elect a majority government that actually has the support of a majority of voters. Because FPTP permits many wasted votes, an election under FPTP is more easily gerrymandered. Through gerrymandering, electoral areas are designed deliberately to unfairly increase the number of seats won by one party by redrawing the map such that one party has a small number of districts in which it has an overwhelming majority of votes (whether due to policy, demographics which tend to favour one party, or other reasons), and many districts where it is at a smaller disadvantage.

The British Electoral Reform Society (ERS) says that regional parties benefit from this system. "With a geographical base, parties that are small UK-wide can still do very well".

On the other hand, minor parties that do not concentrate their vote usually end up getting a much lower proportion of seats than votes, as they lose most of the seats they contest and 'waste' most of their votes.

The ERS also says that in FPTP elections using many separate districts "small parties without a geographical base find it hard to win seats".

Make Votes Matter said that in the 2017 general election, "the Green Party, Liberal Democrats and UKIP (minor, non-regional parties) received 11% of votes between them, yet they shared just 2% of seats", and in the 2015 general election, "[t]he same three parties received almost a quarter of all the votes cast, yet these parties shared just 1.5% of seats."

According to Make Votes Matter, in the 2015 UK general election UKIP came in third in terms of number of votes (3.9 million/12.6%), but gained only one seat in Parliament, resulting in one seat per 3.9 million votes. The Conservatives on the other hand received one seat per 34,000 votes.

The winner-takes-all nature of FPTP leads to distorted patterns of representation, since it exaggerates the correlation between party support and geography.

For example, in the UK the Conservative Party represents most of the rural seats in England, and most of the south of England, while the Labour Party represents most of the English cities and most of the north of England. This pattern hides the large number of votes for the non-dominant party. Parties can find themselves without elected politicians in significant parts of the country, heightening feelings of regionalism. Party supporters (who may nevertheless be a significant minority) in those sections of the country are unrepresented.

In the 2019 Canadian federal election Conservatives won 98% of the seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan with only 68% of the vote. The lack of non-Conservative representation gives the appearance of greater Conservative support than actually exists. Similarly, in Canada's 2021 elections, the Conservative Party won 88% of the seats in Alberta with only 55% of the vote, and won 100% of the seats in Saskatchewan with only 59% of the vote.

First-past-the-post within geographical areas tends to deliver (particularly to larger parties) a significant number of safe seats, where a representative is sheltered from any but the most dramatic change in voting behaviour. In the UK, the Electoral Reform Society estimates that more than half the seats can be considered as safe. It has been claimed that members involved in the 2009 expenses scandal were significantly more likely to hold a safe seat.

History
FPTP is one of the simplest electoral systems, and alongside block voting has been used since ancient times. The House of Commons of England originated in the Middle Ages as an assembly representing the gentry of the counties and cities of the Kingdom, each of which generally sent two members of parliament (MPs). These two MPs were elected by block voting, although the by-elections that occurred between general elections were elected by FPTP. Starting in the 19th century and concluding with the Representation of the People Act 1948, constituencies to the House of Commons were all reduced to electing one MP each by FPTP.

The United States broke away from British rule in the late 18th century, and its constitution provides for an electoral college to elect its president. Despite original intentions to the contrary, by the mid-19th century this college had transformed into a de facto use of FPTP by the states' presidential elections. In any event, direct elections to the United States House of Representatives were conducted in FPTP, as were elections to the United States Senate both in the state legislatures and after they were made directly to the people. In Canada, elections to the House of Commons, and to provincial assemblies, have always been conducted with FPTP.

Criticism and replacement
Non-plurality voting systems have been devised since at least 1299, when Ramon Llull came up with both the Condorcet and Borda count methods, which were respectively reinvented in the 18th century by the Marquis de Condorcet and Jean-Charles de Borda. More serious investigation into electoral systems came in the late 18th century, when several thinkers independently proposed systems of proportional representation to elect legislatures. The single transferable vote in particular was invented in 1819 by Thomas Wright Hill, and first used in a public election in 1840 by his son Rowland for the Adelaide City Council in Australia. STV saw its first national use in Denmark in 1855, and was reinvented several times in the late 19th century.

The Proportional Representation Society was founded in England in 1884 and began campaigning. STV was used to elect the British House of Commons's university constituencies between 1918 and their abolition in 1950.

Many countries which use FPTP have active campaigns to switch to proportional representation (e.g. UK and Canada ). Most modern democracies use some form of proportional representation. In the case of the UK, the campaign to get rid of FPTP has been ongoing since at least the 1970s. However, in both these countries, reform campaigners face the obstacle of large incumbent parties who control the legislature and who are incentivised to resist any attempts to replace the FPTP system that elected them on a minority vote.

Heads of state elected by FPTP

 * 🇦🇴 Angola
 * 🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina (one for each main ethnic group)
 * 🇨🇲 Cameroon
 * Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * 🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea
 * The Gambia
 * 🇭🇳 Honduras
 * 🇮🇸 Iceland
 * 🇰🇮 Kiribati
 * 🇲🇼 Malawi
 * 🇲🇽 Mexico
 * 🇳🇮 Nicaragua
 * 🇳🇬 Nigeria
 * Palestine
 * 🇵🇦 Panama
 * 🇵🇾 Paraguay
 * 🇵🇭 Philippines
 * 🇷🇼 Rwanda
 * 🇸🇬 Singapore
 * 🇰🇷 South Korea
 * 🇹🇼 Taiwan (from 1996 constitutional amendment)
 * 🇹🇿 Tanzania
 * 🇻🇪 Venezuela

Legislatures elected exclusively by FPTP/SMP
The following is a list of countries currently following the first-past-the-post voting system for their national legislatures.

Subnational legislatures
 * 🇦🇬 Antigua and Barbuda
 * 🇦🇿 Azerbaijan
 * 🇧🇸 Bahamas
 * 🇧🇩 Bangladesh
 * 🇧🇧 Barbados
 * 🇧🇾 Belarus
 * 🇧🇿 Belize
 * 🇧🇹 Bhutan (both houses)
 * 🇧🇼 Botswana
 * 🇨🇦 Canada (for the lower house only)
 * 🇩🇲 Dominica
 * 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic (for upper house only)
 * 🇪🇷 Eritrea
 * Eswatini
 * 🇪🇹 Ethiopia
 * The Gambia
 * 🇬🇭 Ghana
 * 🇬🇩 Grenada
 * 🇮🇳 India (for the lower house only)
 * 🇯🇲 Jamaica
 * 🇰🇪 Kenya
 * 🇱🇷 Liberia
 * 🇲🇾 Malaysia
 * 🇲🇼 Malawi
 * 🇲🇻 Maldives
 * 🇫🇲 Micronesia
 * 🇲🇲 Myanmar (both houses)
 * 🇳🇬 Nigeria (both houses)
 * 🇵🇼 Palau (lower house only)
 * 🇵🇱 Poland (for upper house only)
 * 🇶🇦 Qatar
 * 🇰🇳 Saint Kitts and Nevis
 * 🇱🇨 Saint Lucia
 * 🇻🇨 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
 * 🇼🇸 Samoa
 * 🇸🇧 Solomon Islands
 * 🇹🇴 Tonga
 * 🇹🇹 Trinidad and Tobago
 * 🇺🇬 Uganda
 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
 * 🇺🇸 United States (both houses)
 * 🇾🇪 Yemen
 * 🇿🇲 Zambia
 * 🇨🇰 Cook Islands (New Zealand)
 * US Virgin Islands
 * 🇧🇲 Bermuda
 * 🇰🇾 Cayman Islands

Use of FPTP/SMP in mixed systems for electing legislatures
The following countries use FPTP/SMP to elect part of their national legislature, in different types of mixed systems.

Alongside block voting (fully majoritarian systems) or as part of mixed-member majoritarian systems (semi-proportional representation)

 * 🇧🇷 Brazil – in the Federal Senate, alongside plurality block voting (alternating elections)
 * Ivory Coast – in single-member electoral districts, alongside party block voting
 * 🇮🇷 Iran – in single-member electoral districts for Khobregan, alongside plurality block voting
 * 🇲🇭 Marshall Islands – in single-member electoral districts, alongside plurality block voting
 * 🇴🇲 Oman – in single-member electoral districts, alongside plurality block voting
 * 🇵🇰 Pakistan – alongside seats distributed proportional to seats already won
 * 🇸🇬 Singapore – in single-member electoral districts, alongside plurality block voting
 * 🇰🇷 South Korea – as part is a mixed system (AMS and parallel voting)
 * 🇹🇼 Republic of China (Taiwan) – as part is a mixed system (parallel voting)

As part of mixed-member proportional (MMP) or additional member systems (AMS)

Subnational legislatures Local elections
 * 🇧🇴 Bolivia
 * 🇩🇪 Germany
 * 🇱🇸 Lesotho
 * 🇳🇿 New Zealand
 * 🏴 Scotland (United Kingdom)
 * 🏴 Wales (United Kingdom)
 * Greater London (United Kingdom; not a legislature)
 * 🇿🇦 Certain municipalities in South Africa

Former use

 * Argentina (The Chamber of Deputies uses party list PR. Only twice used FPTP, first between 1902 and 1905 used only in the 1904 Argentine legislative election, and the second time between 1951 and 1957 used only in the elections of 1951 and 1954.)
 * Australia (replaced by IRV in 1918 for both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with STV being introduced to the Senate in 1948)
 * Belgium (adopted in 1831, replaced by party list PR in 1899)— the Member of the European Parliament for the German-speaking electoral college is still elected by FPTP
 * Cyprus (replaced by proportional representation in 1981)
 * Denmark (replaced by proportional representation in 1920)
 * Hong Kong (adopted in 1995, replaced by party list PR in 1998)
 * Italy (used between 1860 and 1882, and between 1892 and 1919)
 * Japan (replaced by parallel voting in 1993)
 * Lebanon (replaced by proportional representation in June 2017)
 * Lesotho (replaced by MMP Party list in 2002)
 * Malta (replaced by STV in 1921)
 * Mexico (replaced by parallel voting in 1977)
 * Nepal (replaced by parallel voting)
 * Netherlands (replaced by party list PR in 1917)
 * New Zealand (replaced by MMP in 1996)
 * Papua New Guinea (replaced by IRV in 2002)
 * Philippines (replaced by parallel voting in 1998 for House of Representatives elections, and by multiple non-transferable vote in 1941 for Senate elections)
 * Portugal (replaced by party list PR)
 * Serbia (adopted in 1990, replaced by party list PR in 1992)
 * South Africa (replaced by party list PR in 1994)
 * Tanzania (replaced by parallel voting in 1995)

title: First-past-the-post voting


text:
List of electoral systems by country

This is a list of electoral systems by country in alphabetical order. An electoral system is used to elect national legislatures and heads of state.

Key
Type of system

Type of representation:

Number of winners in a contest—whether single or multiple (more than one)

 * single winner (single office at-large such as mayor, or chamber filled by single winner contests in districts dividing electorate. System used is usually one of  FPTP, TRS, instant-runoff voting.

 * multiple winners (block voting, STV, limited voting)

Type of elections

 * direct elections
 * indirect (by legislature(s) and/or electoral college),
 * no election (chosen by a single person, or other rules e.g. hereditary)

Winning formula:
 * majoritarian/plurality (body elected in winner-take-all districts e.g. FPTP, TRS, block voting),
 * majoritarian (Instant-runoff voting, TRS),
 * proportional (body elected by STV or party-list PR),
 * semi-proportional (e.g. SNTV, LV).

Mixed systems use two or more of these methods, and produce chamber where different members are elected through two or more different election methods. (Mixed Member Proportional elects members through both first past the post and proportional.) Parallel voting systems, such as used in Egypt, are examples of mixed systems.

 * Seats per district or contest: Some elections fill all the seats in the chamber (Netherlands, Israel). Most times the electorate is split into a number of electoral districts where all the district members are elected at one time. In some elections, there is one person elected per district. In others, there are many people elected per district (sometimes all districts have same number of seats; other systems use districts with varying number of seats.) (Proportional representation and STV depends on use of a contest that fills multiple seats at one time.) Electoral districts can have different names, see list of electoral districts by nation. Some election systems see half or a third of the members elected at one time (staggered terms).:

Election systems can use one or more layers.

 * First past the post elections use just one layer. : MMP (an example of a mixed system listed above) uses both district elections and overall pooling of votes, usually where voters cast both a district vote and a party vote. In Demark's mixed member system, a single vote is used both for election of the district member and of an at-large party seat.: Some city election systems, such as City of Thunder Bay (Canada) and Nelson (New Zealand), use both ward elections and at-large district to elect members of city council. At-large contests elect multiple members so make either list, PR, STV or block voting possible. As well, multi-member wards, such as used in Nelson, make either list PR, STV or block voting possible. Single-winner ward contests usually use the first past the post, instant-runoff voting or the two-round system.:

Type of vote used
 * Total number of seats: the number of representatives elected to the body in total. (general rule is number of members in the lower house is the cube root of the total population.)
 * Electoral threshold: see Electoral threshold

First past the post uses single X voting.

Block voting uses multiple X voting, same as number of seats to fill.

STV and Instant-runoff voting use ranked votes.

List PR uses X voting.

Limited voting uses multiple X voting, not as many as number of seats to fill.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: List of electoral systems by country


text:
Talk:The Big Fisherman

-

Untitled
it has recently been reported that this film is currently undergoing complete restoration at disney is this true? and will it be rereleased in cinemas,and on dvd&vhs

Fair use rationale for Image:Big fisherman86.jpg
Image:Big fisherman86.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Big Fisherman


text:
E. W. Bullinger

Ethelbert William Bullinger (15 December 1837 – 6 June 1913) was an Anglican clergyman, biblical scholar, and ultradispensationalist theologian.

Early life
He was born in Canterbury, Kent, England, the youngest of five children of William and Mary (Bent) Bullinger. His family traced their ancestry back to Heinrich Bullinger, the Swiss Reformer.

His formal theological training was at King's College London from 1860 to 1861, and he earned an associate degree. After graduation, on 15 October 1861, he married Emma Dobson, 13 years his senior. He later received a Doctor of Divinity in 1881 not from a university but from Archibald Campbell Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury, who cited Bullinger's "eminent service in the Church in the department of Biblical criticism".

Career
Bullinger's career in the Church of England spanned from 1861 to 1888. He began as associate curate in the parish of St. Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, in 1861, and was ordained as a priest in the Church of England in 1862. He served as parish curate in Tittleshall (1863–1866), Notting Hill (1866–1869), Leytonstone, (1869–1870) and Walthamstow until he became vicar of the new parish of St. Stephen's in 1874. He resigned his vicarage in 1888.

Trinitarian Bible Society
In the spring of 1867, at the age of 29, Bullinger became clerical secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, which he held, with rare lapses for illness in his later years, until his death, in 1913.

The society's accomplishments of TBS during his secretariat include the following:
 * The completion and publication of a Hebrew version of the New Testament under a TBS contract with Christian David Ginsburg after the demise of Isaac Salkinson.
 * The publication of Ginsburg's first edition of the Tanakh (Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible).
 * The formation (1885) of the Brittany Evangelical Mission Society under Pasteur LeCoat and translation of the Bible into Breton.
 * The first-ever Protestant Portuguese Reference Bible.
 * Distribution of Spanish Bibles in Spain after the 1868 Spanish Revolution.

Bullinger and Ginsburg parted ways, and another edition of Tanakh was published by the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Author
Bullinger was editor of a monthly journal Things to Come, subtitled ''A Journal of Biblical Literature, with Special Reference to Prophetic Truth. The Official Organ of Prophetic Conferences'' for over 20 years (1894–1915), and he contributed many articles.

In the great Anglican debate of the Victorian era, he belonged to the Low Church, rather than the High Church.

He wrote four major works:
 * A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1877) ISBN 0-8254-2096-2
 * Number in Scripture (1894) ISBN 0-8254-2204-3
 * Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1898) ISBN 0-8010-0559-0
 * Primary editor of The Companion Bible (published in 6 parts, 1909–1922) ISBN 0-8254-2177-2. It was completed after his death by his associates.

As of 2020, those works and many others remain in print, or at least are reproduced on the Internet.

Bullinger was also a practiced musician. As part of his support for the Breton Mission, he collected and harmonized several previously-untranscribed Breton Hymns on his visits to Trémel, Brittany. He also published “Fifty original hymn-tunes” in 1874 which reached a third edition in 1897. The first, BULLINGER, is the only still in use today, often sung to the words “I am trusting Thee, Lord Jesus”.

Friends
Bullinger's friends included Zionist Dr. Theodor Herzl.

Bullingerism
Bullinger's views were often unique and sometimes controversial. He is so closely tied to what is now called ultradispensationalism that it is sometimes referred to as Bullingerism. Bullingerism differed from mainstream dispensationalism on the beginning of the church. Mainstream dispensationalism holds that the Church began at Pentecost, as described early in the Acts of the Apostles. In contrast, Bullinger held that the Church, which the Apostle Paul revealed as the Body of Christ, began after the end of Acts, and was not revealed until the Prison Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Dispensationalist Harry A. Ironside (1876–1951) declared Bullingerism an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth."

Bullinger described dispensations as divine "administrations" or "arrangements" under which God deals at distinct time periods and with distinct groups of people "on distinct principles, and the doctrine relating to each must be kept distinct." He emphasizes, "Nothing but confusion can arise from reading into one dispensation that which relates to another." He lists seven dispensations:

Other views
Other than ultradispensationalism, Bullinger had many unusual views. For example, Bullinger argued that the death of Jesus occurred on a Wednesday, not a Friday, after Pilate had condemned him at the previous midnight, and that Jesus was crucified on a single upright stake without crossbar with four, not just two, criminals and held that this last view was supported by a group of five crosses of different origins (all with crossbar) in Brittany (put together in the 18th century).

Bullinger argued for mortality of the soul, the cessation of the soul between death and resurrection. He did not express any views concerning the final state of the lost, but many of his followers hold to annihilationism.

Bullinger was a supporter of the theory of the Gospel in the Stars, which states the constellations to be pre-Christian expressions of Christian doctrine. In his book Number in Scripture he expounded his belief in the gematria or numerology values of words in Scripture (names and terms), a concept of which the Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Numerology sheds light on the innermost workings of the human mind but very little on the rest of the universe." He strongly opposed the theory of evolution and held that Adam was created in 4004 BC. He was a member of the Universal Zetetic Society, a group dedicated to believing and promoting the idea that the earth is flat,  and on 7 March 1905, he chaired a meeting in Exeter Hall, London, in which the flat earth theory was expounded.

Works
List of works

 * Number in Scripture
 * Commentary on Revelation or, The Apocalypse
 * Word Studies on the Holy Spirit
 * The Witness of the Stars
 * How to Enjoy the Bible
 * The Book of Job, Including "The Oldest Lesson in the World"
 * The Church Epistles: Romans to Thessalonians
 * Figures of Speech Used in the Bible
 * Great Cloud of Witnesses
 * A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament
 * The Companion Bible
 * The Two Natures in the Child of God
 * The Foundations of Dispensational Truth
 * The Chief Musician Or, Studies in the Psalms, and Their Titles
 * Ten Sermons on the Second Advent
 * Fifty Original Hymn-Tunes.London: Eyre & Spottiswode (1874)

title: E. W. Bullinger


text: User:Onfusionism

title: User:Onfusionism


text:
Foot fetishism

Foot fetishism, also known as foot partialism or podophilia, is a pronounced sexual interest in feet. It is the most common form of sexual fetishism for otherwise non-sexual objects or body parts.

Characteristics and related fetishes
Foot fetishism has been defined as a pronounced sexual interest in feet. For a foot fetishist, points of attraction may include the shape and size of feet, feet soles, toes, jewelry (e.g., toe rings, anklets, etc.), treatments (such as massaging, washing partner's feet or painting partner's toenails), state of dress (e.g., barefoot, flip flops, boat shoes, ballet flats, sandals, high heels, clogs, hosiery, socked feet, etc.), foot odor or sensory interaction (e.g., rubbing the foot, smelling, tickling, licking, rubbing genitals on foot, etc.).

Extensions of this fetish include shoes, socks, olfactophilia (odor fetishism), and tickling. Sigmund Freud also considered foot binding as a form of fetishism, although this view was disputed.

Odor fetishism (pertaining to the smell of feet) seems to play a major role in foot fetishism, and is closely related to it: in a 1994 study, 45% of those with a foot fetish were found to be aroused by smelly socks or feet, making it one of the most widespread forms of olfactophilia.

In extreme cases, an individual with a pronounced sexual interest in feet could possibly be diagnosed with fetishism disorder (characterized by the eroticization of non-living objects and body parts) if they are in adherence with the following symptoms:

 * Experiencing recurrent sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving the use of non-living objects over a period of at least six months.
 * These fantasies, urges or behaviors cause significant distress in a social, occupational or personal environment.
 * The fetish objects are not limited to articles of clothing  or devices used for genital stimulation.

Relative frequency
To estimate the relative frequency of fetishes, in 2006 researchers at the University of Bologna examined 381 Internet discussions of fetish groups, in which at least 5,000 people had been participating. Researchers estimated the prevalence of different fetishes based on the following elements:

 * (a) the number of discussion groups devoted to a particular fetish;
 * (b) the number of individuals participating in the groups;
 * (c) the number of messages exchanged.

It was concluded that the most common fetishes were for body parts or for objects usually associated with body parts (33% and 30%, respectively). Among those people preferring body parts, feet and toes were preferred by the greatest number, with 47% of those sampled preferring them. Among those people preferring objects related to body parts, 32% were in groups related to footwear (shoes, boots, etc.).

Foot fetishism is the most common form of sexual fetish related to the body.

In August 2006, AOL released a database of the search terms submitted by their subscribers. In ranking only those phrases that included the word "fetish", it was found that the most common search was for feet.

Foot fetishism may be more common in men than in women. Researchers using a polling agency to conduct a survey of the general Belgian population in 2017 found that 76 of the 459 male respondents (17%) and 23 of the 565 female respondents (4%) answered "Agree" or "Strongly agree" to a fetish interest in feet.

Causes
Similar to other forms of sexual fetishism, no consensus has yet been established about the specific causes of foot fetishism. While many works on the topic exist, their conclusions are often regarded as highly speculative. In a general sense, sexual fetishism can be caused by a number of factors, no singular cause for any type of fetishism has been conclusively established.

Foot fetishism may be caused by the feet and the genitals occupying adjacent areas of the somatosensory cortex, possibly entailing some neural crosstalk between the two. Neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran proposed that an accidental link between these regions could explain the prevalence of foot fetishism.

Desmond Morris considered foot fetishism the result of mal-imprinting at an early age, the tactile pressure of a foot/shoe being important in this. Freud's reading of foot fetishism also involved early imprinting, but he considered the smell of feet significant in this, as well as the foot as a penis-symbol/surrogate (castration complex, especially when encountered while voyeuristically exploring the female body from below). Otto Fenichel similarly saw castration fear as significant in foot fetishism, citing a future fetishist who as an adolescent said to himself "You must remember this throughout life – that girls, too, have legs", to protect himself from the fear. Where fear of the (castrated) female body is too great, desire is felt not for shoes on female feet but for women's shoes alone, without women.

Georges Bataille saw the lure of the feet as linked to their anatomical baseness (abjection).

Health and disease
Some researchers have hypothesized that foot fetishism increases as a response to epidemics of sexually transmitted infections. In one study, conducted by A James Giannini at Ohio State University, an increased interest in feet as sexual objects was observed during the great gonorrhea epidemic of twelfth-century Europe, and the syphilis epidemics of the 16th and 19th centuries in Europe. In the same study, the frequency of foot-fetish depictions in pornographic literature was measured over a 30-year interval. An exponential increase was noted during the period of the current AIDS epidemic. In these cases, sexual footplay was viewed as a safe sex alternative. However, the researchers noted that these epidemics overlapped periods of relative female emancipation.

Society and culture
Some of the earliest recorded instances of foot fetishism occur in the erotic poems To a Barefoot Woman and To a Barefoot Boy attributed to the Ancient Greek writer Philostratus. The Hindu god Brahma was aroused by the sight of Parvati's feet in the eighth-century text Skanda Purana.

title: Foot fetishism


text:
User talk:Onfusionism

Hello Onfusionism, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela 19:43 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

U.S. Southern Wikipedians' notice board
Hey! I've created this new notice board specifically for articles related to people from the U.S. South. If you are interested in contributing, leave a message on the page and add articles you feel need to be reviewed, contributed to, or started. Mike H 20:48, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Onfusionism


text:
Pan-African colours

Pan-African colours is a term that may refer to two different sets of colours:

 * Green, yellow and red, the colours of the flag of Ethiopia, have come to represent the pan-Africanist ideology due to the country's history of having avoided being taken over by a colonial power. Numerous African countries have adopted the colours into their national flags, and they are similarly used as a symbol by many Pan-African organisations and the Rastafari movement.
 * Red, black, and green, first introduced by Marcus Garvey in 1920, have also come to represent Pan-Africanism, and are shown on the pan-African flag. These colours have also been incorporated on national flags, and they have sometimes been used to represent black nationalism rather than Pan-Africanism.

Green-yellow-red
Green, yellow, and red are now found on the national flags of many African nations. The colour combination was borrowed from the flag of Ethiopia. The Ethiopian flag has influenced the flags of many Pan-African organizations and polities. Except for relatively brief periods of influence and occupation by the Kingdom of Italy, Ethiopia remained outside European control during the colonial era by defeating the Italian army at the battle of Adwa in 1896, ending the Italian protectorate. As a result, the country drew the admiration of many newly independent states in Africa. The adoption of the Ethiopian national colours by many Pan-African entities is a consequence of this. The first African state to adopt a gold, red and green flag upon independence was Ghana in 1957, designed by Theodosia Okoh.

Red-black-green
The Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League (UNIA) founded by Marcus Garvey has a constitution that defines red, black, and green as the Pan-African colours: "red representing the noble blood that unites all people of African ancestry, the colour black for the people, green for the rich land of Africa." The UNIA flag was designated the official colours of Black Africans by the UNIA at its convention in Madison Square Garden on August 13, 1920, in New York City, United States.

Current country flags with the Pan-African symbolism
The following are countries and territories that use one or both sets of Pan-African colours in their official flags:

Non pan-African flags with pan-African colours
Although the following flags contain a pan-African colour scheme, they were not officially designed to symbolise pan-Africanism. The designs may or may not be influenced by pan-African colours.

Rastafari colours also originate from the Ethiopian flag, but though Rastafari thought harbours pan-African sympathies, its use of the Ethiopian flag is historically rooted in the veneration of former Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie.

title: Pan-African colours


text:
Donald Byrd

Donaldson Toussaint L'Ouverture Byrd II (December 9, 1932 – February 4, 2013) was an American jazz and rhythm & blues trumpeter and vocalist. A sideman for many other jazz musicians of his generation, Byrd was one of the few hard bop musicians who successfully explored funk and soul while remaining a jazz artist. As a bandleader, Byrd was an influence on the early career of Herbie Hancock and many others.

Early life and career
Byrd was born in 1932 in Detroit, Michigan. His family came from the African-American middle-class. His father, Elijah Thomas Byrd, was a Methodist minister who greatly valued education and oversaw his son's schooling. His mother, Cornelia Taylor, introduced Byrd to jazz music and it was her brother who gave Byrd his first trumpet. He attended Cass Technical High School. He performed with Lionel Hampton before finishing high school. During this period, his first professional recording session was in 1949 at Fortune Records in Detroit with the Robert Barnes Sextette for the single "Black Eyed Peas" / "Bobbin' At Barbee's." After playing in a military band during a term in the United States Air Force, Byrd obtained a bachelor's degree in music from Wayne State University and a master's degree from Manhattan School of Music. While still at the Manhattan School, he joined Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers as Clifford Brown's successor. In 1955, he recorded with Gigi Gryce, Jackie McLean and Mal Waldron. After leaving the Jazz Messengers in 1956, he performed with many leading jazz musicians of the day, including John Coltrane, Sonny Rollins, Thelonious Monk, and later Herbie Hancock.

Byrd's first regular group was a quintet that he co-led from 1958 to 1961 with baritone saxophonist Pepper Adams. The ensemble's hard-driving performances are captured live on At the Half Note Cafe. Byrd's 1961 LP Royal Flush was Hancock's Blue Note debut. Hancock has credited Byrd as a key influence in his early career, recounting that Byrd took the young pianist "under his wing" when he was a struggling musician newly arrived in New York, even letting him sleep on a hide-a-bed in his Bronx apartment for several years.

"He was the first person to let me be a permanent member of an internationally known band. He has always nurtured and encouraged young musicians. He's a born educator, it seems to be in his blood, and he really tried to encourage the development of creativity."

Hancock also recalled that Byrd helped him in many other ways: he encouraged Hancock to make his debut album for Blue Note, connected him with Mongo Santamaria, who turned Hancock's tune "Watermelon Man" into a chart-topping hit, and that Byrd also later urged him to accept Miles Davis' offer to join his quintet.

Hancock also credits Byrd with giving him one of the most important pieces of advice of his career – not to give away his publishing rights. When Blue Note offered Hancock the chance to record his first solo LP, label executives tried to convince him to relinquish his publishing in exchange for being able to record the album, but he stuck to Byrd's advice and refused, so the meeting came to an impasse. At this point, he stood up to leave and when it became clear that he was about to walk out, the executives relented and allowed him to retain his publishing. Thanks to Santamaria's subsequent hit cover version of "Watermelon Man", Hancock was soon receiving substantial royalties, and he used his first royalty check of $6,000 to buy his first car, a 1963 Shelby Cobra (also recommended by Byrd) which Hancock still owns, and which is now the oldest production Cobra still in its original owner's hands.

In June 1964, Byrd played with Eric Dolphy in Paris only two weeks before Dolphy died from insulin shock.

Electric Byrd
By 1969's Fancy Free, Byrd was moving away from the hard bop jazz idiom and began to record jazz fusion and jazz-funk. He teamed up with the Mizell Brothers (producer-writers Larry and Fonce) for Black Byrd (1973) which was, for many years, Blue Note's best-selling album. The title track climbed to No. 19 on Billboard R&B chart and reached the Hot 100 pop chart, peaking at No. 88. The Mizell brothers' follow-up albums for Byrd, Street Lady, Places and Spaces and Stepping into Tomorrow, were also big sellers, and have subsequently provided a rich source of samples for acid jazz artists such as Us3. Most of the material for the albums was written by Larry Mizell.

In 1973, he helped to establish and co-produce the Blackbyrds, a fusion group consisting of then-student musicians from Howard University, where Byrd taught in the music department and earned his J.D. in 1976. They scored several major hits including "Happy Music" (No. 3 R&B, No. 19 pop), "Walking in Rhythm" (No. 4 R&B, No. 6 pop) and "Rock Creek Park".

During his tenure at North Carolina Central University during the 1980s, he formed a group which included students from the college called the "125th St NYC Band". They recorded three albums; Love Byrd and Words, Sounds, Colors and Shapes which featured Isaac Hayes. "Love Has Come Around" on Love Byrd became a disco hit, reaching number No. 4 on Billboard's U.S. Dance Club Songs and in the UK and reached No. 41 on the charts.

Beginning in the 1960s, Byrd (who eventually gained his PhD in music education from Teachers College, Columbia University in 1982) taught at a variety of postsecondary institutions, including Rutgers University, the Hampton Institute, New York University, Howard University, Queens College, Oberlin College, Cornell University, North Carolina Central University and Delaware State University. Byrd returned to somewhat straight-ahead jazz later in his career, recording three albums for Orrin Keepnews' Landmark Records.

Byrd was a resident of Teaneck, New Jersey. He died on February 4, 2013, in Dover, Delaware, at age 80.

As sideman
With Art Blakey
 * 1956: The Jazz Messengers (Columbia, 1956)
 * 1956: Originally (Columbia, 1982)
 * 1957: Art Blakey Big Band (Bethlehem, 1959)
 * 1958: Holiday for Skins (Blue Note, 1959)

With Kenny Burrell
 * 1956: All Night Long (Prestige, 1957)
 * 1957: All Day Long (Prestige, 1957)
 * 1957: 2 Guitars (Prestige, 1957)

With Paul Chambers
 * 1956: Whims of Chambers (Blue Note, 1957)
 * 1957: Paul Chambers Quintet (Blue Note, 1958)

With Sonny Clark
 * 1957: Sonny's Crib (Blue Note, 1958)
 * 1957-59: My Conception (Blue Note, 1979)

With Kenny Clarke
 * Bohemia After Dark (Savoy, 1955)
 * Klook's Clique (Savoy, 1956)

With John Coltrane
 * 1957-58: Lush Life (Prestige, 1958)
 * 1957-58: The Believer (Prestige, 1964)
 * 1957-58: The Last Trane (Prestige, 1966)
 * 1958: Black Pearls (Prestige, 1964)

With Eric Dolphy
 * 1960-64: Naima (Jazzway, 1987)
 * 1964: Unrealized Tapes (Last Recordings) (West Wind, 1988)

With Lou Donaldson
 * 1957: Wailing With Lou (Blue Note, 1957)
 * 1957: Lou Takes Off (Blue Note, 1958)

With Red Garland
 * 1957: All Mornin' Long (Prestige, 1958)
 * 1957: Soul Junction (Prestige, 1960)
 * 1957: High Pressure (Prestige, 1961)

With Dexter Gordon
 * 1964 One Flight Up (Blue Note, 1965)
 * 1965: Ladybird (SteepleChase, 2005)

With Guru
 * 1992-93: Jazzmatazz, Vol. 1 (Chrysalis, 1993)
 * 1994-95: Guru's Jazzmatazz, Vol. 2: The New Reality (Chrysalis, 1995)

With Hank Jones
 * 1955: Quartet-Quintet (Savoy, 1955)
 * 1955: Bluebird (Savoy, 1956)

With Hank Mobley
 * 1956: The Jazz Message of Hank Mobley (Prestige, 1956)
 * 1956: Mobley's Message (Prestige, 1957)
 * 1956: Jazz Message No. 2 (Savoy, 1957)
 * 1956: Hank Mobley Sextet (Blue Note, 1957)
 * 1957: Hank (Blue Note, 1957)
 * 1963: No Room for Squares (Blue Note, 1964)
 * 1963-65: The Turnaround! (Blue Note, 1965)
 * 1963-66: Straight No Filter (Blue Note, 1986)
 * 1967: Far Away Lands (Blue Note, 1984)

With Jackie McLean
 * 1955: Presenting... Jackie McLean (Ad Lib, 1956)
 * 1956: Lights Out! (Prestige, 1956)
 * 1956: 4, 5 and 6 (Prestige, 1956)
 * 1959: New Soil (Blue Note, 1959)
 * 1959: Jackie's Bag (Blue Note, 1961)
 * 1963: Vertigo (Blue Note, 1980)

With Duke Pearson
 * 1962: Hush! (Jazztime, 1962)
 * 1964: Wahoo! (Blue Note, 1965)

With Oscar Pettiford
 * 1955: Another One (Bethlehem, 1955)
 * 1957: Winner's Circle (Bethlehem, 1958)

With Sonny Rollins
 * Sonny Rollins, Volume 1 (Blue Note, 1957) – rec. 1956
 * Don't Stop the Carnival (Milestone, 1978) – live

With Horace Silver
 * 1956: Silver's Blue (Epic, 1957)
 * 1956: 6 Pieces of Silver (Blue Note, 1957)

With Jimmy Smith
 * A Date with Jimmy Smith Volume One (Blue Note, 1957)
 * A Date with Jimmy Smith Volume Two (Blue Note, 1957)

With George Wallington
 * 1955: George Wallington Quintet at The Bohemia (Progressive, 1956) – live
 * 1956: Jazz for the Carriage Trade (Prestige, 1956)
 * 1957: The New York Scene (Prestige, 1957)
 * 1957: Jazz at Hotchkiss (Savoy, 1957)

With others
 * Pepper Adams, 10 to 4 at the 5 Spot (Riverside, 1958) – live
 * Manny Albam, Bill Russo, Teo Macero, Teddy Charles, Something New, Something Blue (Columbia, 1959)
 * Gene Ammons, Jammin' with Gene (Prestige, 1956)
 * Cannonball Adderley, Discoveries (Savoy, 1987) – rec. 1955
 * Robert Barnes Sextette, Black Eyed Peas / Bobbin' At Barbee's (Fortune, 1949)
 * Chris Connor, Ballads of the Sad Cafe (Atlantic, 1959)
 * Walter Davis Jr., Davis Cup (Blue Note, 1959)
 * Kenny Drew, This Is New (Riverside, 1957)
 * Art Farmer, Three Trumpets (Prestige, 1957) – also with Idrees Sulieman
 * Bunky Green, My Babe (Vee-Jay, 1965) – rec. 1960
 * Al Grey, Snap Your Fingers (Argo, 1962)
 * Johnny Griffin, Johnny Griffin Sextet (Riverside, 1958)
 * Gigi Gryce, Gigi Gryce and the Jazz Lab Quintet (Riverside, 1957)
 * Herbie Hancock, My Point of View (Blue Note, 1963)
 * Gene Harris, Tone Tantrum (Blue Note, 1977)
 * Jimmy Heath, Swamp Seed (Riverside, 1963)
 * Elmo Hope, Informal Jazz (Prestige, 1956)
 * Solomon Ilori, African High Life (Blue Note, 1964)
 * Ahmad Jamal, Big Byrd: The Essence Part 2 (Birdology, 1995)
 * Michel Legrand, Legrand Jazz (Columbia, 1958)
 * Mundell Lowe, TV Action Jazz! (RCA Camden, 1959)
 * Thelonious Monk, The Thelonious Monk Orchestra at Town Hall (Riverside, 1959)
 * Wes Montgomery, Goin' Out of My Head (Verve, 1965)
 * Dizzy Reece, Blues in Trinity (Blue Note, 1958)
 * Rita Reys and The Jazz Messengers, The Cool Voice of Rita Reys (Columbia, 1956)
 * Sam Rivers, Dimensions & Extensions (Blue Note, 1967)
 * Art Taylor, Taylor's Wailers (Prestige, 1957)
 * Jim Timmens, Gilbert and Sullivan Revisited (Warner Bros., 1958)
 * Cal Tjader, Soul Sauce (Verve, 1965) – rec. 1964
 * Stanley Turrentine, A Bluish Bag (Blue Note, 2007) – rec. 1967
 * Doug Watkins, Watkins at Large (Transition, 1956)
 * Ernie Wilkins, Top Brass (Savoy, 1956) – rec. 1955
 * Phil Woods, Pairing Off (Prestige, 1956)

title: Donald Byrd