Wikipedia

Plurality voting: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Bots
5,042,026 edits
Removed proxy/dead URL that duplicated identifier. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | #UCB_CommandLine
→‎Comparison to non-plurality systems: (disambiguation) redirect for intentional link to dab page, per WP:INTDABLINK
(35 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Splitto|date=May 2024|First past the post|Plurality (voting)}}{{Short description|Type of electoral system}}
{{Use British English|date=June 2013}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2023}}
{{Electoral systems}}
'''Plurality voting''' refers to [[electoral system]]s in which the candidate in an [[electoral district]] who poll more than any other (that is, receive a [[plurality (voting)|plurality]]) are elected.{{sfn | Mudambi | Navarra | Nicosia | 1996 | p=341}}
 
Under single-winner plurality voting, and in systems based on [[single-member district]]s, plurality voting is called single member [district] plurality (SMP),<ref>{{Cite web |title=Single Member Plurality |url=https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/101/SMP.html |access-date=2024-05-14 |website=www.sfu.ca}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=Plurality-Majority Systems |url=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/plurality.htm |access-date=8 May 2010 |publisher=Mtholyoke.edu}}</ref> which is widely known as "[[First-past-the-post voting|first-past-the-post]]". In SMP/FPTP the leading candidate, whether or not they have a majority of votes, is elected.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last1=Cooper |first1=Duane |last2=Zillante |first2=Arthur |date=January 2012 |title=A comparison of cumulative voting and generalized plurality voting |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-010-9707-5 |journal=Public Choice |language=en |volume=150 |issue=1–2 |pages=363–383 |doi=10.1007/s11127-010-9707-5 |issn=0048-5829 |s2cid=154416463}}</ref>
{{merge from|Plurality (voting)|discuss=Talk:Plurality voting#Merge proposal|date=January 2024}}
 
'''PluralityThere voting'''are refersseveral toversions [[electoralof system]]s in which a candidate who polls more than any other (that is, receives a [[plurality (voting)|plurality]]) isfor elected. In systems based on [[singlemulti-member district]]s, it elects just one member per district and may also be referred to as [[first-past-the-post voting|first-past-the-post]] ('''FPTP'''), '''single-member plurality''' ('''SMP/SMDP'''),.<ref name=":0">{{citeCite web |title=Plurality-Majority Electoral Systems — |url=httphttps://wwwaceproject.mtholyoke.eduorg/acadmain/politenglish/damybd/BeginnningReading/pluralitybda01a.htm |access-date=8 May 20102024-05-14 |publisherwebsite=Mtholyokeaceproject.eduorg}}</ref> '''single-choice voting'''{{Citation needed|date=August 2022}} (an imprecise term as non-plurality voting systems may also use a single choice), '''simple plurality''' {{Citation needed|date=August 2022}} or '''relative majority''' (as opposed to an ''absolute majorit''y, where more than half of votes is needed, this is called ''majority voting''). AThe system that elects multiple winners elected at once with the plurality rule and where each voter casts multiple X votes in a multi-seat district is referred to as [[plurality block voting]]. A semi-proportional system that elects multiple winners elected at once with the plurality rule and where each voter casts just one vote in a multi-seat district is known as [[single non-transferable voting]].
 
Plurality voting is widely used throughout the English-speaking world as a result of its spread by the [[British Empire]], including in most of the United States. Outside of the English-speaking world, it is slightly less popular than its close relatives, the [[Runoff voting (disambiguation)|runoff family of methods]].{{Cn|date=May 2024}}
Plurality voting is distinguished from ''majority voting'', in which a winning candidate must receive an [[Majority|absolute majority]] of votes: more than half of all votes (more than all other candidates combined if each voter has one vote). Under single-winner plurality voting, the leading candidate, whether or not they have a majority of votes, is elected.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last1=Cooper |first1=Duane |last2=Zillante |first2=Arthur |date=January 2012 |title=A comparison of cumulative voting and generalized plurality voting |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-010-9707-5 |journal=Public Choice |language=en |volume=150 |issue=1–2 |pages=363–383 |doi=10.1007/s11127-010-9707-5 |issn=0048-5829 |s2cid=154416463}}</ref> Not every single-winner [[Majoritarian representation|winner-takes-all]] system is plurality voting; for example, [[instant-runoff voting]] is a non-plurality winner-takes-all system, because not all votes are taken as initially cast.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Instant Run-Off Voting |url=http://archive.fairvote.org/factshts/irv.htm |access-date=2023-03-16 |website=archive.fairvote.org}}</ref>
 
[[Social choice theory|Social choice theorists]] and [[Electoral reform|electoral reform advocates]] generally oppose plurality voting and its variants, citing major issues such as a high vulnerability to [[Spoiler effect|spoilers]], a [[Duverger's law|tendency towards duopoly]] and [[Sincere favorite criterion|lesser of two evils]] voting, and their bias toward extremist candidates (as a result of failing the [[median voter theorem]]).
Also, some plurality voting methods are close to proportional. For example [[limited voting]] and [[single non-transferable vote]] use plurality rules but are considered [[Semi-proportional representation|semi-proportional]] systems.
 
== Plurality voting procedures ==
Plurality voting is still used to elect members of a legislative assembly or executive officers in only a handful of countries, mostly in the English speaking world, for historical reasons. It is used in most elections in the United States, the lower house ([[Lok Sabha]]) in India and elections to the [[British House of Commons]] and English local elections in the United Kingdom, and federal and provincial elections in Canada. An example for a "winner-take-all" plurality voting is system used at the state-level for election of most of the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]] in [[United States presidential election]]s. This system is called party block voting, also called the [[general ticket]].
 
=== Single-winner and single-member systems ===
Proponents of [[electoral reform]] generally argue against plurality voting systems in favour of either other single winner systems (such as [[Ranked voting|ranked-choice voting]] methods) or [[proportional representation]] (such as the [[single transferable vote]] or [[open list]] PR).
{{See|First-past-the-post voting}}
In single-winner plurality voting ([[First-past-the-post voting|first-past-the-post]]), each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the winner of the election is the candidate who represents a plurality of voters or, in other words, received more votes than any other candidate. In an election for a single seat, such as for [[President (government title)|president]] in a [[presidential system]], voters may vote for one candidate from a list of the candidates who are competing, and the winner is whichever candidate receives the highest number of votes. Compare first-past-the-post to a ''majority'' system, the [[two-round system]], where usually the top two candidates in the first ballot progress to the second round, also called the runoff. A runoff is by default not held, if a candidate already received an absolute majority in the first ballot (more than half of votes), and in the second ballot, where there are only two candidates, one of the candidates will (except for a tie) receive a majority. Under plurality rules, the candidates are not at any point in the election required to have majority support.
 
In an election for a legislative body with single-member seats, each voter in a geographically defined [[constituency|electoral district]] may vote for one candidate from a list of the candidates who are competing to represent that district. Under the plurality system, the winner of the election then becomes the representative of the whole electoral district and serves with representatives of other electoral districts. That makes plurality voting among the simplest of all electoral systems for voters and vote counting officials;<ref name=":7" /> however, the drawing of district boundary lines can be [[Gerrymandering|contentious]] in the plurality system (see [[gerrymandering]]). The system is also independent of parties; the party with the most votes may not win the most seats ([[electoral inversion]]). Note that issues arising from single-member districts are still in place with majority voting systems, like the two-round system and [[instant-runoff voting]] too.
==Voting==
In single-winner plurality voting, each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the winner of the election is the candidate who represents a plurality of voters or, in other words, received more votes than any other candidate. That makes plurality voting among the simplest of all electoral systems for voters and vote counting officials;<ref name=":7" /> however, the drawing of district boundary lines can be [[Gerrymandering|contentious]] in the plurality system.
 
The same principle used in single-winner plurality voting (electing the candidate with the most votes) is also used in [[approval voting]], however with very different effects, as voters can choose to support as many or few candidates as they choose, not just one. For this reason, approval voting is usually distinguished from plurality voting, while technically being a sub-type of it.
In an election for a legislative body with single-member seats, each voter in a geographically defined [[constituency|electoral district]] may vote for one candidate from a list of the candidates who are competing to represent that district. Under the plurality system, the winner of the election then becomes the representative of the whole electoral district and serves with representatives of other electoral districts.
 
=== Multi-winner systems ===
In an election for a single seat, such as for [[President (government title)|president]] in a [[presidential system]], the same style of ballot is used, and the winner is whichever candidate receives the highest number of votes.
{{See|Single non-transferable vote|Multiple non-transferable vote|Limited voting}}
 
Multi-member plurality elections are only slightly more complicated. The ''n'' candidates who get more votes than the others are elected.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dulay |first1=Dean |last2=Go |first2=Laurence |date=2021-08-01 |title=First among equals: The first place effect and political promotion in multi-member plurality elections |journal=Journal of Public Economics |language=en |volume=200 |pages=104455 |doi=10.1016/j.jpubeco.2021.104455 |issn=0047-2727 |s2cid=236254332 |doi-access=free}}</ref> In a multiple-member plurality election with ''n'' seats available, the winners are the ''n'' candidates with the highest numbers of votes. The rules may allow the voter to vote for one candidate, up to ''n'' candidate, or some other number.
In the [[two-round system]], usually the top two candidates in the first ballot progress to the second round, also called the runoff.
 
When voters may vote for only one candidate, it is called the [[single non-transferable vote]]. While seemingly most similar to [[First-past-the-post voting|first-past-the-post]], in effect it is a semi-proportional system allowing for representation of electoral minorities within a district. When voters can vote for one or more candidates, but in total less than the number of winners, it is called [[limited voting]].
In a multiple-member plurality election with ''n'' seats available, the winners are the ''n'' candidates with the highest numbers of votes. The rules may allow the voter to vote for one candidate, up to ''n'' candidates, or some other number.
 
The multi-winner version considered to be the extension of first-past-the-post to multi-winner cases is [[plurality block voting]]. Here voters may vote for as many candidates as there are winners, which means usually candidates from the same party will fill all the seats in the district. The party-list version of plurality voting in multi-member districts is called [[party block voting]]. Here the party receiving a plurality of votes gets all of the seats available by default.
=== Single-member vs multi-member plurality voting ===
Single-member plurality voting systems, often known as [[First-past-the-post voting|first past the post]], is a simple system to use. The candidate who gets more votes than any of the other candidate(s) is the winning candidate.  Depending on the number of candidates and their popularity within the community, it often happens that the winning candidate gets fewer votes than all the other candidates combined. This is sometimes called the spoiler effect.
 
=== Ballot types ===
Multi-member plurality elections are only slightly more complicated. The ''n'' candidates who get more votes than the others are elected.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dulay |first1=Dean |last2=Go |first2=Laurence |date=2021-08-01 |title=First among equals: The first place effect and political promotion in multi-member plurality elections |journal=Journal of Public Economics |language=en |volume=200 |pages=104455 |doi=10.1016/j.jpubeco.2021.104455 |s2cid=236254332 |issn=0047-2727|doi-access=free }}</ref>
 
===Ballot types===
[[File:Plurality ballot.svg|thumb|right|An example of a plurality ballot]]
Generally, plurality ballots can be categorized into two forms. The simplest form is a blank ballot in which the name of a candidate(s) is written in by hand. A more structured ballot will list all the candidates and allow a mark to be made next to the name of a single candidate (or more than one, in some cases); however, a structured ballot can also include space for a [[write-in candidate]].
 
=== Examples of plurality voting===
{{Expand section|date=July 2022}}
Plurality voting is used for local and/or national elections in 43 of the 193 countries that are members of the [[United Nations]]. It is particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and India.<ref>{{cite web |date=20 May 2008 |title=The Global Distribution of Electoral Systems |url=http://aceproject.org/epic-en/es#ES05 |access-date=8 May 2010 |publisher=Aceproject.org}}</ref>
 
==== Single-winner ====
====General elections in the United Kingdom====
This is a general example for single-winner plurality voting ("first-past-the-post"), using population percentages taken from one [[U.S. state|state]] for illustrative purposes.
The United Kingdom, like the United States and Canada, uses single-member districts as the base for [[UK general election|national elections]]. Each electoral district (constituency) chooses one [[member of parliament]], the candidate who gets the most votes, whether or not they get at least 50% of the votes cast ("first past the post"). In 1992, for example, a [[Scottish Liberal Democrats|Liberal Democrat in Scotland]] won a seat ([[Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections|Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber]]) with just 26% of the votes. The system of single-member districts with plurality winners tends to produce two large political parties. In countries with proportional representation there is not such a great incentive to vote for a large party, which contributes to [[multi-party system]]s.
{{Tenn voting example}}
 
If each voter in each city naively selects one city on the ballot (Memphis voters select Memphis, Nashville voters select Nashville, and so on), Memphis will be selected, as it has the most votes 42%. The system does not require that the winner have a [[majority]], only a plurality. Memphis wins because it has the most votes even though 58% of the voters in the example preferred Memphis least. That problem does not arise with the [[two-round system]] in which Nashville would have won. (In practice, with FPTP, many voters in Chattanooga and Knoxville are likely to vote tactically for Nashville: see below.)
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland use the first-past-the-post system for UK general elections but versions of proportional representation for elections to their own assemblies and parliaments. All of the UK used one form or another of proportional representation for European Parliament elections.
 
==== Multi-winner ====
The countries that inherited the British majoritarian system tend toward two large parties: one left and the other right, such as the U.S. Democrats and Republicans. Canada is an exception, with three major political parties consisting of the New Democratic Party, which is to the left; the Conservative Party, which is to the right; and the Liberal Party, which is slightly off-centre but to the left. A fourth party that no longer has major party status is the separatist Bloc Québécois party, which is territorial and runs only in Quebec. New Zealand once used the British system, which yielded two large parties as well. It also left many New Zealanders unhappy because other viewpoints were ignored, which made the [[New Zealand Parliament]] in 1993 adopt a new electoral law modelled on [[Elections in Germany#Election system|Germany's system]] of proportional representation (PR) with a partial selection by constituencies. New Zealand soon developed a more complex party system.<ref>[[Michael Roskin|Roskin, Michael]], ''Countries and Concepts'' (2007)</ref>
Candidates are running in a 3-member district of 10 000 voters. Under non-transferable (and non-cumulative) plurality voting, voters may not cast a more than one vote for a single candidate.
 
* Under [[Plurality block voting|block voting]], the standard multiple non-transferable vote, voters may cast 3 votes (but do not have to)
After the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015 UK general election]], there were calls from [[UKIP]] for a switch to the use of proportional representation after it received 3,881,129 votes that produced only one MP.<ref>{{cite web |title=Reckless Out Amid UKIP Frustration at System |url=http://news.sky.com/story/1479845/reckless-out-amid-ukip-frustration-at-system |publisher=[[Sky News]] |access-date=8 May 2015}}</ref> The Green Party was similarly underrepresented, which contrasted greatly with the SNP, a Scottish separatist party that received only 1,454,436 votes but won 56 seats because of more geographically concentrated support.
* Under [[limited voting]], voters may cast 2 votes maximum
* Under the single non-transferable vote, voters may cast 1 vote
 
Party A has about 35% support among the electorate (with one particularly well-liked candidate), Party B around 25% (with two well-liked candidates) and the remaining voters primarily support independent candidates, but mostly lean towards party B if they have to choose between the two parties. All voters [[Sincere voting|vote sincerely]]; there is no tactical voting. (Percentage of votes under MNTV and Limited Voting is the percentage of voters who voted for the candidate, not the percentage of votes cast.)
====Example====
{| class="wikitable"
This is a general example, using population percentages taken from one [[U.S. state|state]] for illustrative purposes.
! rowspan="3" |Candidate
{{Tenn voting example}}
! colspan="2" rowspan="3" |Party
! colspan="8" |Multiple non-transferable vote
! colspan="4" rowspan="2" |Single non-transferable vote
|-
! colspan="4" |Plurality block voting
! colspan="4" |Limited voting
|-
!Votes
!%
! colspan="2" |Elected?
!Votes
!%
! colspan="2" |Elected?
!Votes
!%
! colspan="2" |Elected?
|-
|Candidate A1
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|'''3700'''
|'''37%'''
|'''1.'''
|'''Yes'''
|'''3500'''
|'''35%'''
|'''1.'''
|'''Yes'''
|'''2000'''
|'''20%'''
|'''1.'''
|'''Yes'''
|-
|Candidate A2
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|'''3600'''
|'''36%'''
|'''2.'''
|'''Yes'''
|'''1900'''
|'''19%'''
|'''2.'''
|'''Yes'''
|800
|8%
|4.
|
|-
|Candidate A3
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|'''3555'''
|'''36%'''
|'''3.'''
|'''Yes'''
|1800
|18%
|4.
|
|700
|7%
|7.
|
|-
|Candidate B1
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|2600
|26%
|4.
|
|'''1950'''
|'''20%'''
|'''3.'''
|'''Yes'''
|'''1100'''
|'''11%'''
|'''2.'''
|'''Yes'''
|-
|Candidate B2
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|2500
|25%
|5.
|
|1750
|18%
|4.
|
|'''900'''
|'''9%'''
|'''3.'''
|'''Yes'''
|-
|Candidate B3
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|2400
|24%
|6.
|
|1425
|14%
|7.
|
|400
|4%
|12.
|
|-
|Candidate I1
|
|Independent
|2300
|23%
|8.
|
|1400
|14%
|8.
|
|800
|8%
|4.
|
|-
|Candidate I2
|
|Independent
|2395
|24%
|7.
|
|1500
|15%
|6.
|
|800
|8%
|4.
|
|-
|Candidate I3
|
|Independent
|1900
|19%
|9.
|
|1300
|13%
|9.
|
|700
|7%
|7.
|
|-
|Candidate I4
|
|Independent
|1800
|15%
|10
|
|1200
|12%
|10.
|
|700
|7%
|7.
|
|-
|Candidate I5
|
|Independent
|650
|7%
|11.
|
|625
|6%
|11.
|
|600
|6%
|10.
|
|-
|Candidate I6
|
|Independent
|600
|6%
|12.
|
|550
|6%
|12.
|
|500
|5%
|11.
|
|-
| colspan="3" |''TOTAL votes cast''
|28000
|
|
|
|19000
|
|
|
|10000
|
|
|
|-
| colspan="3" |TOTAL possible votes
|30000
|
|
|
|20000
|
|
|
|10000
|
|
|
|-
| colspan="3" |Voters
|10000
|100%
|
|
|10000
|100%
|
|
|10000
|100%
|
|
|}
Under all three versions of multi-winner plurality voting, the three most popular candidates according to voters' first preferences are elected, regardless of party affiliation, but with three different results.
 
* Under block voting ([[Plurality block voting]]), the three candidates of the most popular party are elected if its supporters vote along party lines. In this case a party with only 35 percent support took all the seats.
If each voter in each city naively selects one city on the ballot (Memphis voters select Memphis, Nashville voters select Nashville, and so on), Memphis will be selected, as it has the most votes 42%. The system does not require that the winner have a [[majority]], only a plurality. Memphis wins because it has the most votes even though 58% of the voters in the example preferred Memphis least. That problem does not arise with the [[two-round system]] in which Nashville would have won. (In practice, with FPTP, many voters in Chattanooga and Knoxville are likely to vote tactically for Nashville: see below.)
* Under limited voting, it is most likely that the party with a plurality takes two seats (or the same number of seats as the number of votes each voter has), and another less-popular party receives the remaining seat(s).
* Under the single non-transferable vote (like in the other two methods) the number of seats are sometimes not proportionately allocated. Over-optimism (running too many candidates) and vote splitting is harshly punished. But each popular party that runs one candidate is assured of success to that degree anyway. In this case, even though the most-popular party ran three and risked vote splitting, it did elect one member.
 
==Issues==
 
=== In all plurality systems ===
 
==== Wasted votes ====
[[File:Vote 12345-en.svg|thumb|A ballot with a potential wasted vote goes into the voting box]]
[[Wasted vote]]s are those cast for candidates or parties who did not get elected. Some number of wasted votes by this definition is practically unavoidable, but plurality systems suffer from higher numbers of wasted votes. For example, in the [[2005 United Kingdom general election|UK general election of 2005]], 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes, a total of 70% wasted votes. That is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, the single-member plurality system since at least since at least half the votes are always wasted in a district. It is in practice similar in plurality block voting, also operating under the "winner-takes-all" principle, which means that the party of the losing candidate in each riding receives no representation, regardless of the number of votes they received.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Verma |first=Dhruv |date=2021-01-01 |title=Reflecting People's Will: Evaluating elections with computer aided simulations |journal=Open Political Science |language=en |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=228–237 |doi=10.1515/openps-2021-0021 |issn=2543-8042 |s2cid=236980393 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Even the single non transferable vote can result in very inefficient results if many candidates with small support compete or certain candidates gain a large excess of votes. This is because like other plurality systems, in loser and surplus vote STNV votes are not transferred.
 
Another way to count wasted votes, is to see the ones that may play no part in determining the outcome.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Whitelock |first1=Amy |last2=Whitelock |first2=Jeryl |last3=van Heerde |first3=Jennifer |date=2010-04-06 |editor-last=Harris |editor-first=Phil |title=The influence of promotional activity and different electoral systems on voter turnout: A study of the UK and German Euro elections |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090561011020499/full/html |journal=European Journal of Marketing |language=en |volume=44 |issue=3/4 |pages=401–420 |doi=10.1108/03090561011020499 |issn=0309-0566}}</ref> Under FPTP for example, usually only votes for the top two candidates can be seen as really competing for the position, other votes can be considered wasted. Alternative electoral systems, such as [[proportional representation]], attempt to ensure that almost all of the votes are effective in influencing the result, which minimizes vote wastage.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Blais |first1=André |title=Voter Turnout |date=2013-06-25 |work=Political Science |url=https://oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0066.xml |access-date=2022-04-15 |publisher=Oxford University Press |language=en |doi=10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0066 |isbn=978-0-19-975622-3 |last2=Anduiza |first2=Eva |doi-access=free}}</ref> Such systems decreases disproportionality in election results and are also credited for increasing voter turnout.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Blais |first=André |date=2006-06-01 |title=What affects voter turnout? |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=111–125 |doi=10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105121 |issn=1094-2939 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Many districts are known to have [[safe seat|safe seats]], where a candidate or party has a near 100% chance that they win the seats. Most seats are considered in plurality systems, however the same is almost any electoral system on a large scale, except for the ones containing an element of randomness.
 
==== Tactical voting ====
==Disadvantages==
===Tactical voting===
{{more citations needed|section|date=February 2019}}
{{see also|Tactical voting#Plurality voting}}
To a much greater extent than many other electoral methods, plurality electoral systems encourage [[tactical voting]] techniques like "compromising".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dolez |first1=Bernard |last2=Laurent |first2=Annie |last3=Blais |first3=André |date=2017-04-01 |title=Strategic voting in the second round of a two-round system: The 2014 French municipal elections |url=https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-016-0010-9 |journal=French Politics |language=en |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=27–42 |doi=10.1057/s41253-016-0010-9 |s2cid=151584816 |issn=1476-3427}}</ref> Voters are under pressure to vote for one of the two candidates most likely to win, even if their true preference is neither of them; because a vote for any other candidate is unlikely to lead to the preferred candidate being elected. ThisIn single-member plurality, this will instead reduce support for the one of the two major candidates whom the voter might prefer to the other. Electors who prefer not to waste their vote by voting for a candidate with a very low chance of winning their constituency vote for their lesser preferred candidate who has a higher chance of winning.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Blais |first1=André |last2=Nadeau |first2=Richard |last3=Gidengil |first3=Elisabeth |last4=Nevitte |first4=Neil |date=2001-09-01 |title=Measuring strategic voting in multiparty plurality elections |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379400000172 |journal=Electoral Studies |language=en |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=343–352 |doi=10.1016/S0261-3794(00)00017-2 |issn=0261-3794}}</ref> The minority party will then simply take votes away from one of the major parties, which could change the outcome and gain nothing for the voters. Any other party will typically need to build up its votes and credibility over a series of elections before it is seen as electable.
 
In the [[#Example|Tennessee example]], if all the voters for Chattanooga and Knoxville had instead voted for Nashville, Nashville would have won (with 58% of the vote). That would have only been the third choice for those voters, but voting for their respective first choices (their own cities) actually results in their fourth choice (Memphis) being elected.
Line 76 ⟶ 340:
Proponents of other single-winner electoral systems argue that their proposals would reduce the need for tactical voting and reduce the [[spoiler effect]]. Other systems include the commonly used [[two-round system]] of runoffs and [[instant-runoff voting]], along with less-tested and perhaps less-understood systems such as [[approval voting]], [[score voting]] and [[Condorcet methods]].
 
This is when a voter decides to vote in a way that does not represent their true preference or choice, motivated by an intent to influence election outcomes.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hartvigsen |first=David |date=2008 |title=The Manipulation of Voting Systems |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41219187 |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=13–21 |doi=10.1007/s10551-007-9438-9 |issn=0167-4544 |jstor=41219187 |s2cid=153895999}}</ref> Strategic behaviour by voters can and does influence the outcome of voting in different plurality voting systems. Strategic behaviour is when a voter casts their vote for a different party or alternative district/constituency/riding{{clarify|date=August 2023}} in order to induce, in their opinion, a better outcome. An example of this is when a person really likes party A but votes for party B because they do not like party C or D or because they believe that party A has little to no chance of winning.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Bassi |first1=Anna |year=2015 |title=Voting Systems and Strategic Manipulation: an Experimental Study |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228632824 |journal=Journal of Theoretical Politics |language=en |volume=27 |pages=58–85 |doi=10.1177/0951629813514300 |s2cid=4471874}}</ref> This can cause the outcome of very close votes to be swayed for the wrong reason. This might have had an impact on the [[2000 United States presidential election|2000 United States election]] that was essentially decided by fewer than 600 votes, with the winner being [[George W. Bush|President Bush]]. When voters behave in a strategic way and expect others to do the same, they end up voting for one of the two leading candidates, making the Condorcet alternative more likely to be elected.<ref name=":1" /> The prevalence of strategic voting in an election makes it difficult to evaluate the true political state of the population, as their true political ideologies are not reflected in their votes.<ref name=":5" />
===Fewer political parties===
 
==== Spoiler effect ====
{{Main|Spoiler effect}}
 
The spoiler effect is especially severe in plurality voting, where candidates with similar ideologies are forced to split the vote with each other.<ref name=":4" /> One spoiler candidate's presence in the election draws votes from a major candidate with similar politics, which causes a strong opponent of both or several to win.<ref name=":4" /> Even extremely small parties with very little first-preference support can therefore affect the outcome of an FPTP election.<ref name=":4" />
 
==== Manipulation charges ====
The presence of [[spoiler (politician)|spoilers]] often gives rise to suspicions that [[strategic nomination|manipulation of the slate]] has taken place. The spoiler may have received incentives to run. A spoiler may also drop out at the last moment, which induces charges that such an act was intended from the beginning. Voters who are uninformed do not have a comparable opportunity to manipulate their votes as voters who understand all opposing sides, understand the pros and cons of voting for each party.
 
==== Gerrymandering ====
Because FPTP permits a high level of wasted votes, an election under FPTP is easily gerrymandered unless safeguards are in place.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Johnston |first1=Ron |last2=Rossiter |first2=David |last3=Pattie |first3=Charles |last4=Dorling |first4=Danny |date=2002 |title=Labour electoral landslides and the changing efficiency of voting distributions |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-5661.00058 |journal=Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers |language=en |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=336–361 |bibcode=2002TrIBG..27..336J |doi=10.1111/1475-5661.00058 |issn=1475-5661}}</ref> In [[gerrymandering]], a party in power deliberately manipulates constituency boundaries to increase the number of seats that it wins unfairly.
 
In brief, if a governing party G wishes to reduce the seats that will be won by opposition party O in the next election, it can create a number of constituencies in each of which O has an overwhelming majority of votes. O will win these seats, but many of its voters will waste their votes. Then, the rest of the constituencies are designed to have small majorities for G. Few G votes are wasted, and G will win many seats by small margins. As a result of the gerrymander, O's seats have cost it more votes than G's seats.
 
'''Efficiency gap''': The ''[[efficiency gap]]'' measures gerrymandering and has been scrutinized in the Supreme Court of the United States.<ref>{{cite news |title=Here's how the Supreme Court could decide whether your vote will count |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/courts-law/gerrymander/ |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=McGhee |first1=Eric |year=2020 |title=Partisan Gerrymandering and Political Science |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |volume=23 |pages=171–185 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-060118-045351 |doi-access=free}}</ref> The efficiency gap is the difference between the two parties' wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes.<ref name="82UofCLawReview">{{Cite journal |last1=Stephanopoulos |first1=Nicholas |last2=McGhee |first2=Eric |year=2014 |title=Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap |journal=University of Chicago Law Review |volume=82 |pages=831–900 |ssrn=2457468}} Wasted votes and efficiency gap are defined pp. 850–852.</ref><ref name="NewRepublic20140702">{{Cite magazine |last=Stephanopoulos |first=Nicholas |date=2 July 2014 |title=Here's How We Can End Gerrymandering Once and for All |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/118534/gerrymandering-efficiency-gap-better-way-measure-gerrymandering |access-date=2016-11-22 |magazine=The New Republic}}</ref>
 
=== In some plurality systems ===
 
==== Fewer political parties ====
{{more citations needed section|date=October 2018}}
[[File:Percentage graph UK POLITICS 2005.png|right|thumb|A graph showing the difference between the popular vote and the number of seats won by major political parties at the [[2005 United Kingdom general election]]]]
Line 90 ⟶ 373:
Furthermore, one-party rule is more likely to lead to radical changes in government policy even though the changes are favoured only by a plurality or a bare majority of the voters, but a multi-party system usually requires more consensus to make dramatic changes in policy.
 
===Wasted= votesVoter turnout ====
{{Unreferenced section|date=June 2007}}
[[File:Vote 12345-en.svg|thumb|A ballot with a potential wasted vote goes into the voting box]]
[[Wasted vote]]s are those cast for candidates who are virtually sure to lose in a [[safe seat]], and votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. Plurality voting systems function on a "winner-takes-all" principle, which means that the party of the losing candidate in each riding receives no representation in government, regardless of the number of votes they received.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Verma |first=Dhruv |date=2021-01-01 |title=Reflecting People's Will: Evaluating elections with computer aided simulations |journal=Open Political Science |language=en |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=228–237 |doi=10.1515/openps-2021-0021 |s2cid=236980393 |issn=2543-8042|doi-access=free }}</ref> For example, in the [[2005 United Kingdom general election|UK general election of 2005]], 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes, a total of 70% wasted votes. That is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP since a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Whitelock |first1=Amy |last2=Whitelock |first2=Jeryl |last3=van Heerde |first3=Jennifer |date=2010-04-06 |editor-last=Harris |editor-first=Phil |title=The influence of promotional activity and different electoral systems on voter turnout: A study of the UK and German Euro elections |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090561011020499/full/html |journal=European Journal of Marketing |language=en |volume=44 |issue=3/4 |pages=401–420 |doi=10.1108/03090561011020499 |issn=0309-0566}}</ref> Alternative electoral systems, such as [[Proportional representation|Proportional Representation]], attempt to ensure that almost all of the votes are effective in influencing the result, which minimizes vote wastage.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Blais |first1=André |title=Voter Turnout |date=2013-06-25 |url=https://oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0066.xml |work=Political Science |publisher=Oxford University Press |language=en |doi=10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0066 |isbn=978-0-19-975622-3 |access-date=2022-04-15 |last2=Anduiza |first2=Eva|doi-access=free }}</ref> Such a system decreases disproportionality in election results and is credited for increasing voter turnout.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Blais |first=André |date=2006-06-01 |title=What affects voter turnout? |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=111–125 |doi=10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105121 |issn=1094-2939|doi-access=free }}</ref>
 
=== Voter turnout ===
[[Political apathy]] is prevalent in plurality voting systems such as [[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Kwiatkowska |first1=Agnieszka |last2=Cześnik |first2=Mikołaj |date=2020-12-16 |title=Electoral System, Political Knowledge and Voter Turnout— Complex Liaisons |url=https://polish-sociological-review.eu/Electoral-System-Political-Knowledge-and-Voter-Turnout-nComplex-Liaisons,131723,0,2.html |journal=Polish Sociological Review |language=english |volume=212 |issue=4 |pages=425–444 |doi=10.26412/psr212.03 |issn=1231-1413}}</ref> Studies suggest that plurality voting system fails to incentivize citizens to vote, which results in very low [[voter turnout]]s.<ref name=":3" /> Under this system, many people feel that voting is an empty ritual that has no influence on the composition of legislature.<ref name=":2" /> Voters are not assured that the number of seats that political parties are accorded will reflect the popular vote, which disincentivizes them from voting and sends the message that their votes are not valued, and participation in elections does not seem necessary.<ref name=":3" />
 
==== StrategicSpoiled votingballots ====
{{Expand section|date=April 2024}}
This is when a voter decides to vote in a way that does not represent their true preference or choice, motivated by an intent to influence election outcomes.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hartvigsen |first=David |date=2008 |title=The Manipulation of Voting Systems |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41219187 |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=13–21 |doi=10.1007/s10551-007-9438-9 |jstor=41219187 |s2cid=153895999 |issn=0167-4544}}</ref> Strategic behaviour by voters can and does influence the outcome of voting in different plurality voting systems. Strategic behaviour is when a voter casts their vote for a different party or alternative district/constituency/riding{{clarify|date=August 2023}} in order to induce, in their opinion, a better outcome. An example of this is when a person really likes party A but votes for party B because they do not like party C or D or because they believe that party A has little to no chance of winning.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |title=Voting Systems and Strategic Manipulation: an Experimental Study |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228632824 |journal= Journal of Theoretical Politics|year=2015 |language=en |doi=10.1177/0951629813514300|last1=Bassi |first1=Anna |volume=27 |pages=58–85 |s2cid=4471874 }}</ref> This can cause the outcome of very close votes to be swayed for the wrong reason. This might have had an impact on the [[2000 United States presidential election|2000 United States election]] that was essentially decided by fewer than 600 votes, with the winner being [[George W. Bush|President Bush]]. When voters behave in a strategic way and expect others to do the same, they end up voting for one of the two leading candidates, making the Condorcet alternative more likely to be elected.<ref name=":1" /> The prevalence of strategic voting in an election makes it difficult to evaluate the true political state of the population, as their true political ideologies are not reflected in their votes.<ref name=":5" />
 
===Issues specific to particular countries===
===Gerrymandering===
====Solomon Islands====
Because FPTP permits a high level of wasted votes, an election under FPTP is easily gerrymandered unless safeguards are in place.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Johnston|first1=Ron|last2=Rossiter|first2=David|last3=Pattie|first3=Charles|last4=Dorling|first4=Danny|date=2002|title=Labour electoral landslides and the changing efficiency of voting distributions|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-5661.00058|journal=Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers|language=en|volume=27|issue=3|pages=336–361|doi=10.1111/1475-5661.00058|bibcode=2002TrIBG..27..336J |issn=1475-5661}}</ref> In [[gerrymandering]], a party in power deliberately manipulates constituency boundaries to increase the number of seats that it wins unfairly.
In August 2008, Sir [[Peter Kenilorea]] commented on what he perceived as the flaws of a first-past-the-post electoral system in the [[Solomon Islands]]:
{{Blockquote|''An... underlying cause of political instability and poor governance, in my opinion, is our electoral system and its related problems. It has been identified by a number of academics and practitioners that the First Past the Post system is such that a Member elected to Parliament is sometimes elected by a small percentage of voters where there are many candidates in a particular constituency. I believe that this system is part of the reason why voters ignore political parties and why candidates try an appeal to voters' material desires and relationships instead of political parties.... Moreover, this system creates a political environment where a Member is elected by a relatively small number of voters with the effect that this Member is then expected to ignore his party's philosophy and instead look after that core base of voters in terms of their material needs. Another relevant factor that I see in relation to the electoral system is the proven fact that it is rather conducive, and thus has not prevented, corrupt elections practices such as ballot buying.''|author=[http://solomonstarnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3184&change=103&changeown=89&Itemid=45 "Realising political stability"], Sir Peter Kenilorea, ''Solomon Star'', 30 August 2008}}
 
=== Arguments for plurality voting ===
In brief, if a governing party G wishes to reduce the seats that will be won by opposition party O in the next election, it can create a number of constituencies in each of which O has an overwhelming majority of votes. O will win these seats, but many of its voters will waste their votes. Then, the rest of the constituencies are designed to have small majorities for G. Few G votes are wasted, and G will win many seats by small margins. As a result of the gerrymander, O's seats have cost it more votes than G's seats.
{{Expand section|date=April 2024}}
Notwithstanding all the above mentioned issues with plurality-based voting systems, they are still commonly used in English-speaking countries even for high offices. For less consequential elections, it is even more common that organizations are set up to use plurality voting. Many legally recognized entities, such as companies, statutes may require majority voting, [[Supermajority|supermajorities]] or [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]] for decisions on certain issues{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}}. In the absence of such requirements, plurality voting is often the default option for a number of reasons.
 
==== EfficiencySimplicity gapand familiarity ====
Plurality voting is generally considered one of the simplest methods and of the most widely known.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Plurality Electoral Systems — |url=https://aceproject.org/main/english/bd/bda01a.htm |access-date=2024-05-14 |website=aceproject.org}}</ref> Because of its widespread use, in situations where people become voters, it will not be a new concept for most and may even be expected. Other systems may specifically need to be explained to the voters and may be perceived as more complicated.
The ''[[efficiency gap]]'' measures gerrymandering and has been scrutinized in the Supreme Court of the United States.<ref>{{cite news | url =https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/courts-law/gerrymander/| title =Here's how the Supreme Court could decide whether your vote will count| newspaper =[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-060118-045351|doi-access=free|title=Partisan Gerrymandering and Political Science|year=2020|last1=McGhee|first1=Eric|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=23|pages=171–185}}</ref> The efficiency gap is the difference between the two parties' wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes.<ref name="82UofCLawReview">{{Cite journal |last1=Stephanopoulos |first1=Nicholas |last2=McGhee |first2=Eric |year=2014 |title=Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap |ssrn=2457468 |journal=University of Chicago Law Review |volume=82 |pages=831–900 }} Wasted votes and efficiency gap are defined pp. 850–852.</ref><ref name="NewRepublic20140702">{{Cite magazine |last=Stephanopoulos |first=Nicholas |date=2 July 2014 |title=Here's How We Can End Gerrymandering Once and for All |magazine=The New Republic |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/118534/gerrymandering-efficiency-gap-better-way-measure-gerrymandering |access-date=2016-11-22}}</ref>
 
Widespread familiarity with the system does not imply widespread familiarity with the effects. Voters may not be aware of the issues in plurality voting, therefore they may vote sincerely even in situations where voting theory would suggest they should vote tactically, thereby voting against their rational interests. {{Citation needed|date=April 2024}}
===Manipulation charges===
The presence of [[spoiler (politician)|spoilers]] often gives rise to suspicions that [[strategic nomination|manipulation of the slate]] has taken place. The spoiler may have received incentives to run. A spoiler may also drop out at the last moment, which induces charges that such an act was intended from the beginning. Voters who are uninformed do not have a comparable opportunity to manipulate their votes as voters who understand all opposing sides, understand the pros and cons of voting for each party.
 
Another counter-argument is that plurality voting is partially considered simple because of its familiarity, which in turn results from its prevalence. Such argument is made by proponents of another plurality-based system, approval voting, where unlike usual plurality voting, voters may vote for any number of candidates. If approval voting is default, plurality voting (where voters only cast one otherwise fixed number of votes) would be seen at least equally unfamiliar to voters.
===Spoiler effect===
{{Main|Spoiler effect}}
The spoiler effect is the effect of [[vote splitting]] between candidates or ballot questions with similar ideologies.<ref name=":4" /> One spoiler candidate's presence in the election draws votes from a major candidate with similar politics, which causes a strong opponent of both or several to win.<ref name=":4" /> Smaller parties can disproportionately change the outcome of an FPTP election by swinging what is called the 50-50% balance of two party systems by creating a [[political faction|faction]] within one or both ends of the [[political spectrum]]. This shifts the winner of the election from an [[Majority|absolute majority]] outcome to a [[plurality (voting)|plurality]] outcome. Due to the spoiler effect, the party that holds the unfavourable ideology by the majority will win, as the majority of the population would be split between the two parties with the similar ideology.<ref name=":4" /> In comparison, electoral systems that use [[proportional representation]] have small groups win only their proportional share of representation.
 
===Issues= specificEase toof particularballoting countries====
Under plurality voting, ballots use simple marks instead of ranking or scoring, which can make especially paper-based ballots simpler.{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}} However, non-plurality systems such as [[closed list]] PR may also use just as simple ballots.
====Solomon Islands====
 
In August 2008, Sir [[Peter Kenilorea]] commented on what he perceived as the flaws of a first-past-the-post electoral system in the [[Solomon Islands]]:
In cases without ballots, such as open voting by raised hands, for example, there are simpler methods that don't require checking for people who voted more than they are allowed to, for example, [[approval voting]].
{{Blockquote|''An... underlying cause of political instability and poor governance, in my opinion, is our electoral system and its related problems. It has been identified by a number of academics and practitioners that the First Past the Post system is such that a Member elected to Parliament is sometimes elected by a small percentage of voters where there are many candidates in a particular constituency. I believe that this system is part of the reason why voters ignore political parties and why candidates try an appeal to voters' material desires and relationships instead of political parties.... Moreover, this system creates a political environment where a Member is elected by a relatively small number of voters with the effect that this Member is then expected to ignore his party's philosophy and instead look after that core base of voters in terms of their material needs. Another relevant factor that I see in relation to the electoral system is the proven fact that it is rather conducive, and thus has not prevented, corrupt elections practices such as ballot buying.''|author=[http://solomonstarnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3184&change=103&changeown=89&Itemid=45 "Realising political stability"], Sir Peter Kenilorea, ''Solomon Star'', 30 August 2008}}
 
==== Ease of counting ====
With plurality voting, counting and summing up votes is generally an easy process, and this may be done on a precinct level and then summed up for a total with the same results. Some alternative methods, such as [[Instant-runoff voting|instant-runoff-voting]] don't work this way and either counting has to take place centrally, or complete (non-aggregated) results from precincts need to be submitted to the central authority for results.
 
==== Arguments for single-member plurality ====
{{See|First-past-the-post voting}}
Common arguments for specifically the single-winner variant of plurality voting are constituency representation (which all other single-winner systems provide to the same degree) and governmental stability (which is dependent on other factors as well).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Plurality Electoral Systems — |url=https://aceproject.org/main/english/bd/bda01a.htm |access-date=2024-05-14 |website=aceproject.org}}</ref> These arguments can be made for some multi-member versions and plurality voting in general too.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Single member and multi member districts — |url=https://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/archive/questions/replies/577511787 |access-date=2024-05-14 |website=aceproject.org}}</ref>
 
== Voting system attributes and comparison to non-plurality systems ==
 
=== Attributes and criteria ===
'''Majority criterion:''' Will a candidate always win who is ranked as the unique favorite by a majority of voters?
 
; <dfn>[[Independence of clones criterion|Independence of clone alternatives]] (cloneproof)</dfn>
: Does the outcome never change if non-winning candidates similar to an existing candidate are added? There are three different phenomena which could cause a method to fail this criterion:
:; [[Vote-splitting|Spoilers]]
:: Candidates which decrease the chance of any of the similar or clone candidates winning, also known as a [[spoiler effect]].
:; Teams
:: Sets of similar candidates whose mere presence helps the chances of any of them winning.
:; Crowds
:: Additional candidates who affect the outcome of an election without either helping or harming the chances of their factional group, but instead affecting another group.
 
'''No favorite betrayal:''' Can voters be sure that they do not need to rank any other candidate above their favorite in order to obtain a result they prefer?
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Number of winners
!System
!Candidate/list
!Ballot type (number of votes)
!Representation
![[Majority favorite criterion|Majority criterion]]
![[Independence of clones criterion|Independence of clones]]
!No favorite betrayal
|-
| rowspan="2" |'''Single-winner'''
|[[First-past-the-post voting|'''First-past-the-post''']]
|Candidate
|'''mark 1'''
|[[Majoritarian representation|'''Majoritarian''']]
|'''Yes'''
|'''No (spoilers)'''
|'''No'''
|-
|[[Approval voting]]
|Candidate
|mark any number
|[[Majoritarian representation|Majoritarian]]
|Yes
|Yes
|No
|-
| rowspan="5" |'''Multi-winner'''
|'''[[Plurality block voting]]'''
|Candidate
|'''mark at most as many as seats'''
|[[Majoritarian representation|'''Majoritarian''']]
|'''Yes'''
|'''No (spoilers, crowds)'''
|'''No'''
|-
|'''[[Limited voting]]'''
|Candidate
|'''mark k'''
|[[Semi-proportional representation|'''Semi-proportional''']]
|'''Yes'''
|'''No (spoilers, crowds)'''
|'''No'''
|-
|'''[[Single non-transferable vote]]'''
|Candidate
|'''mark 1'''
|[[Semi-proportional representation|'''Semi-proportional''']]
|'''Yes'''
|'''No (spoilers, crowds)'''
|'''No'''
|-
|[[General ticket|'''Party block voting/General ticket (plurality)''']]
|List
|'''mark 1'''
|[[Majoritarian representation|'''Majoritarian''']]
|'''Yes'''
|'''No (spoilers)'''
|'''No'''
|-
|[[Cumulative voting]]
|Candidate
|distribute fixed number of votes
|[[Semi-proportional representation|Semi-proportional]]
|
|'''No (spoilers, crowds)'''
|
|}
 
=== Comparison to non-plurality systems ===
Plurality voting is often contrasted with (absolute) majority voting<ref>{{Cite web |title=Election - Plurality, Majority, Systems {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/election-political-science/Plurality-and-majority-systems |access-date=2024-05-14 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref> where variant of runoff voting (multi-round voting) are also classified. However, in formal social choice theory, the term majority voting has a different definition, and runoff voting methods could also be classified under plurality{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}.
{| class="wikitable"
!Number of winners
!Plurality-based systems
!Non-plurality systems
!Explanation (what makes non-plurality system fundamentally different)
!
|-
| rowspan="6" |'''Single-winner'''
| rowspan="6" |[[First-past-the-post voting|'''First-past-the-post''']], [[approval voting]]
|[[Anti-plurality voting|Anti-plurality]]
|Voters mark one candidate they don't want elected, the candidate with least votes wins
|
|-
|[[Runoff voting (disambiguation)|Multi-round voting]]
|Usually majority rule in first round (candidate wins only if they have more than half of the votes),
typically plurality voting (technically: SNTV) determines which candidates compete in second round,
majority rule for second round (with only two candidates).
|
|-
|[[Ranked voting|Ranked systems]]
|Voters may rank candidates.
Some ranked systems simulate multi-round voting.
Some ranked systems use plurality rule with weighted (positional) inputs ([[Borda count]]), but are not considered plurality voting.
|
|-
|[[Score voting]]
|Voters may score candidates on a scale.
Approval voting, while using the plurality rule is also technically a score voting system.
|
|-
|[[Random ballot]]
|Winner gets sorted randomly from ballots
|
|-
|[[Sortition]]
|Doesn't use ballots
|
|-
| rowspan="9" |'''Multi-winner'''
| rowspan="6" |Candidate-based plurality voting:
'''[[Plurality block voting]]''', '''[[limited voting]]''', [[Single non-transferable vote|'''sigle non-transferable vote''']]
|[[Single transferable vote|Single-transferable vote]]
|Voters may rank candidates. Quota determines who gets elected (and which votes get transferred), not plurality rule (except last seats).
|
|-
|[[Score voting]]
|Voters may score candidates on a scale.
[[Multiwinner approval voting|Approval block voting]], while using the plurality rule is also technically a score voting system.
|
|-
|[[Proportional approval voting]]
|
|
|-
|Multiple random ballots
|Winners get sorted randomly from ballots
|
|-
|[[Sortition]]
|Doesn't use ballots
|
|-
| rowspan="2" |Panachage
| rowspan="2" |While voters vote only for candidates (and may vote across party lines), the seat allocation is primarily based on list-PR, in an open list-system.
|
|-
| rowspan="3" |List-based plurality voting:
[[General ticket|'''Party block voting/General ticket (plurality)''']]
|
|-
|[[Open list]] proportional representation
([[Party-list proportional representation|list-PR)]]
|While voters may vote only for candidates (or lists) within lists, the seat allocation is primarily based on [[Party-list proportional representation|list-PR]].
The candidate votes change ranking within list (usually with plurality rule).
|
|-
|[[Closed list]] proportional representation
([[Party-list proportional representation|list-PR)]]
|Voters usually can vote for just one party, but seat allocation is proportional, not by plurality rule.
|
|}
 
==International examples==
Plurality voting is used for local and/or national elections in 43 of the 193 countries that are members of the [[United Nations]]. It is particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and India.<ref>{{cite web |date=20 May 2008 |title=The Global Distribution of Electoral Systems |url=http://aceproject.org/epic-en/es#ES05 |access-date=8 May 2010 |publisher=Aceproject.org}}</ref>
 
=== General elections in the United Kingdom ===
The United Kingdom, like the United States and Canada, uses single-member districts as the base for [[UK general election|national elections]]. Each electoral district (constituency) chooses one [[member of parliament]], the candidate who gets the most votes, whether or not they get at least 50% of the votes cast ("first past the post"). In 1992, for example, a [[Scottish Liberal Democrats|Liberal Democrat in Scotland]] won a seat ([[Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections|Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber]]) with just 26% of the votes. The system of single-member districts with plurality winners tends to produce two large political parties. In countries with proportional representation there is not such a great incentive to vote for a large party, which contributes to [[multi-party system]]s.
 
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland use the first-past-the-post system for UK general elections but versions of proportional representation for elections to their own assemblies and parliaments. All of the UK used one form or [[Party-list proportional representation|another of proportional representation]] for European Parliament elections.
 
The countries that inherited the British majoritarian system tend toward two large parties: one left and the other right, such as the U.S. Democrats and Republicans. Canada is an exception, with three major political parties consisting of the New Democratic Party, which is to the left; the Conservative Party, which is to the right; and the Liberal Party, which is slightly off-centre but to the left. A fourth party that no longer has major party status is the separatist Bloc Québécois party, which is territorial and runs only in Quebec. New Zealand once used the British system, which yielded two large parties as well. It also left many New Zealanders unhappy because other viewpoints were ignored, which made the [[New Zealand Parliament]] in 1993 adopt a new electoral law modelled on [[Elections in Germany#Election system|Germany's system]] of proportional representation (PR) with a partial selection by constituencies. New Zealand soon developed a more complex party system.<ref>[[Michael Roskin|Roskin, Michael]], ''Countries and Concepts'' (2007)</ref>
 
After the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015 UK general election]], there were calls from [[UKIP]] for a switch to the use of proportional representation after it received 3,881,129 votes that produced only one MP.<ref>{{cite web |title=Reckless Out Amid UKIP Frustration at System |url=http://news.sky.com/story/1479845/reckless-out-amid-ukip-frustration-at-system |access-date=8 May 2015 |publisher=[[Sky News]]}}</ref> The Green Party was similarly underrepresented, which contrasted greatly with the SNP, a Scottish separatist party that received only 1,454,436 votes but won 56 seats because of more geographically concentrated support.
 
The United Kingdom continues to use the first-past-the-post electoral system for general elections, and for local government elections in England and Wales. Changes to the UK system have been proposed, and alternatives were examined by the [[Jenkins Commission (UK)|Jenkins Commission]] in the late 1990s. After the formation of a new [[Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition|coalition government]] in 2010, it was announced as part of the [[Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement|coalition agreement]] that a [[2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum|referendum]] would be held on switching to the [[Instant-runoff voting|alternative vote system]]. However the alternative vote system was rejected 2-1 by British voters in a [[2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum|referendum held on 5 May 2011]].
 
=== Outside the United Kingdom ===
Canada also uses FPTP for national and [[Provinces and territories of Canada|provincial]] elections. In May 2005 the Canadian province of [[British Columbia]] had a referendum on abolishing single-member district plurality in favour of multi-member districts with the [[Single transferable vote|Single Transferable Vote]] system after the [[Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia)|Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform]] made a recommendation for the reform. The referendum obtained 57% of the vote, but failed to meet the 60% requirement for passing. A second referendum was held in May 2009, this time the province's voters defeated the change with 39% voting in favour.
 
Line 152 ⟶ 618:
*[[Congo (Brazzaville)]]
*[[Cook Islands]]
*[[CoteCôte d'Ivoire]]
*[[Dominica]]
*[[Eritrea]]
Line 213 ⟶ 679:
{{Reflist}}
[http://www.prsa.org.au/pluralit.htm The fatal flaws of Plurality (first-past-the-post) electoral systems] – Proportional Representation Society of Australia
 
== Sources ==
* {{cite journal | last1=Mudambi | first1=Ram | last2=Navarra | first2=Pietro | last3=Nicosia | first3=Carmela | title=Plurality versus Proportional Representation: An Analysis of Sicilian Elections | journal=Public Choice | publisher=Springer | volume=86 | issue=3/4 | year=1996 | issn=1573-7101 | jstor=30027122 | pages=341–357 | doi=10.1007/BF00136525 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30027122 | access-date=2024-04-19}}
 
{{voting systems}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting"