Since it usually means the party in government has a) a majority of seats and b) enough of the popular vote to justify being in government. See the USA, a two-party system which effectively has weighted FPTP in the electoral college.
I don't know whether you really want to use the US as an example, considering 2000.
You also need to have some areas that support party 1 and some that support party 2, with a few marginal constituencies which switch allegiances every so often. Otherwise you get situations like what happened in Lesotho in 1998, where one of the parties got 24.5% of the vote but only 1 seat out of 80 – this started a mini civil war which ended in a form of mixed PR being introduced.
The problems arise when party number three starts being taken seriously. You're seeing that happen now – you're probably used to it in countries where they let lots of little parties in, but it's a bit of a novelty for us.
See, what really strikes me as scary about the first past the post is precisely that there are only two viable choices. And that in most of the country you don't really have a choice at all.
Now, as a classroom exercise, design an electoral system where seats are allocated fairly according to how many votes each party gets, but where extremist parties like the BNP find it very hard to get seats, and where it's actually possible for someone to form a government without ending up with a coalition that nobody voted for. Answers on a postcard to Nick Clegg, who'll give a knighthood to whoever can find a solution.
People might be less likely to vote BNP if there was a chance that they would get in.
Also, Norway does have a crazy right-wing party which I think is getting way too many votes. But they are nowhere near as crazy as yours. I think Legolas may be right that the possibility of participation makes them less extreme.
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
structured procrastinator
British politics is ... like a basket of crazy muffins. But they taste nice.
- 26/04/2010 09:34:57 AM
788 Views
British politics or muffins taste nice? Or both?
- 26/04/2010 10:52:35 AM
503 Views
- 26/04/2010 10:52:35 AM
503 Views
Both 
- 26/04/2010 05:11:54 PM
674 Views
- 26/04/2010 05:11:54 PM
674 Views
Indeed
- 26/04/2010 11:01:30 AM
564 Views
Re: Indeed
- 26/04/2010 11:06:10 AM
496 Views
Didn't mean to put the effectively in there
- 26/04/2010 11:17:20 AM
450 Views
That makes more sense
- 26/04/2010 11:24:33 AM
586 Views
- 26/04/2010 11:24:33 AM
586 Views
Yeah, I follow elections in lots of countries.
- 26/04/2010 11:11:28 AM
616 Views
Re: Yeah, I follow elections in lots of countries.
- 26/04/2010 05:17:55 PM
554 Views
It's all very entertaining.
- 26/04/2010 01:46:25 PM
544 Views
Re: It's all very entertaining.
- 26/04/2010 05:21:25 PM
645 Views
- 28/04/2010 02:49:51 PM
590 Views
- 28/04/2010 02:49:51 PM
590 Views
It works alright when you have a two- or 2½-party system with support divided geographically.
- 26/04/2010 04:40:31 PM
467 Views
Would it really be so bad if the BNP gained seats?
- 26/04/2010 05:03:06 PM
578 Views
I don't have a problem with it as such (I dow ith the fact that people want to vote for them)
- 26/04/2010 05:15:02 PM
612 Views
Depends on your definition of "alright", I think.
- 26/04/2010 05:26:19 PM
499 Views
Re: It works alright when you have a two- or 2½-party system with support divided geographically.
- 26/04/2010 06:14:44 PM
493 Views
Big fucking deal. Coalitions of less than 5 parties = LAME *NM*
- 28/04/2010 12:03:36 AM
214 Views
Rather a bigger deal when it happens in a first past the post system. *NM*
- 28/04/2010 08:20:42 AM
355 Views