Three people stand to lead a neighborhood association. One receives 40 votes, another 35, and the third 25. Under plurality voting, the first candidate wins. No further round is required, even though 60 voters initially chose somebody else.
Its attraction is straightforward: choose one candidate, count the ballots, take the largest total. First-past-the-post elections apply this approach to a single seat. The result can be explained without rankings, transfers, or complicated arithmetic, which reduces the work required of voters and election organizers.
The candidates affect one another
The simplicity of the count does not make the competition simple. Two candidates with overlapping supporters can split those votes and let a less broadly acceptable candidate win. A voter may therefore choose someone they consider viable rather than their actual favorite. Parties and informal factions have incentives to coordinate before the ballot, sometimes moving the decisive contest into nominations.
For a casual choice among equally acceptable outing destinations, that may be a reasonable price for a quick answer. For selecting a representative who will exercise substantial authority, the difference between “largest share” and “more than half” deserves explicit attention. Requiring a runoff or using another ballot changes the bargain; neither is secretly part of plurality voting.