| | Pathology | Explanation/details |
| N | Frustrated majority | The frustrated majority paradox occurs when a majority of voters prefer some candidate Brighton to every other candidate, but Brighton still loses the election. First-past-the-post is vulnerable to this paradox because of vote-splitting. |
| N | Condorcet loser paradox | The Condorcet loser paradox happens when a majority of voters prefer every other candidate to Brighton, but Brighton still wins. First-past-the-post is vulnerable to this paradox because of vote-splitting. |
| N | Center squeeze | The center squeeze describes a type of violation of Independence of irrelevant alternatives primarily affecting voting rules in the Plurality-rule family where the Condorcet winner is eliminated in an early round or otherwise due to a lack of first-preference support. |
| N | Spoiler effect | A spoiler effect is when the results of an election between A and B is affected by voters' opinions on an unrelated candidate C. First-past-the-post does not meet this criterion, which makes it vulnerable to spoilers. |
| N | Cloning paradox | The cloning paradox is a particular kind of spoiler effect that involves several perfect copies, or "clones", of a candidate. Candidate-cloning causes vote-splitting in FPP. |
| N | Best-is-worst paradox | The best-is-worst paradox occurs when an electoral system declares the same candidate to be in first and last place, depending on whether voters rank candidates from best-to-worst or worst-to-best. FPP demonstrates this pathology, because a candidate can be both the FPP winner and also the anti-plurality loser. |
| N | Lesser-evil voting | Lesser-evil voting occurs when voters are forced to support a "lesser of two evils" by rating them higher than their actual favorite candidate. FPP is vulnerable to this pathology. |
| Y | Later-no-harm | Since plurality does not consider later preferences on the ballot at all, it is impossible to either harm or help a favorite candidate by marking later preferences. Thus it passes both Later-No-Harm and Later-No-Help. |
| Y | Later-no-help |
| Y | Multiple-districts paradox | The multiple-districts paradox refers to a particularly egregious kind of gerrymander, when it is possible to draw a map where a candidate who loses the election nevertheless manages to win in every electoral district. This is not possible under FPP, or other positional voting methods. |
| Y | Perverse response | Perverse response occurs when a candidate loses as a result of receiving too much support from some voters, i.e. it is possible for a candidate to lose by receiving too many votes. FPP is not affected by this pathology. |
| Y | No-show paradox | The no-show paradox is a situation where a candidate loses as a result of having too many supporters. In other words, adding a voter who supports A over B can cause A to lose to B. FPP is not affected by this pathology. |
