Content deleted Content added
→top: Expanding article Tag: harv-error |
ShelfSkewed (talk | contribs) →Comparison to non-plurality systems: (disambiguation) redirect for intentional link to dab page, per WP:INTDABLINK |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Splitto|date=May 2024|First past the post|Plurality (voting)}}{{Short description|Type of electoral system}}
{{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}}
There are several versions of plurality voting for multi-member district.<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> The system that elects multiple winners 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 cousin, the [[Runoff voting (disambiguation)|runoff family of methods]].▼
▲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
[[Social choice theory|Social choice theorists]] and [[Electoral reform|electoral reform advocates]] are generally opposed to 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]]).▼
▲[[Social choice theory|Social choice theorists]] and [[Electoral reform|electoral reform advocates]]
== Plurality voting procedures ==
Line 15 ⟶ 16:
=== Single-winner and single-member systems ===
{{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
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.
Line 22 ⟶ 23:
=== Multi-winner systems ===
{{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.
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
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.
Line 314 ⟶ 316:
==== 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
Another ==== 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.
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 341 ⟶ 345:
{{Main|Spoiler effect}}
The spoiler effect is
==== 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.
=== In single-member plurality ===▼
==== Gerrymandering ====
Line 387 ⟶ 389:
==== Simplicity and 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
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}}
Another counter-argument is that plurality voting is partially considered simple because of
==== Ease of balloting ====
Line 400 ⟶ 402:
==== 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.
{{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 ==
Line 423 ⟶ 429:
!Ballot type (number of votes)
!Representation
![[Majority favorite criterion|Majority criterion]]
![[Independence of clones criterion|Independence of clones]]
!No favorite betrayal
Line 445 ⟶ 451:
|-
| rowspan="5" |'''Multi-winner'''
|Candidate
|'''mark at most as many as seats'''
Line 453 ⟶ 459:
|'''No'''
|-
|Candidate
|'''mark k'''
Line 461 ⟶ 467:
|'''No'''
|-
|Candidate
|'''mark 1'''
Line 479 ⟶ 485:
|[[Cumulative voting]]
|Candidate
|distribute fixed
|[[Semi-proportional representation|Semi-proportional]]
|
Line 487 ⟶ 493:
=== 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
Line 500 ⟶ 507:
|
|-
|[[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,
Line 527 ⟶ 534:
| rowspan="9" |'''Multi-winner'''
| rowspan="6" |Candidate-based plurality voting:
'''[[Plurality block voting
|[[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).
Line 572 ⟶ 579:
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>
===
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.
Line 583 ⟶ 590:
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]].
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 611 ⟶ 618:
*[[Congo (Brazzaville)]]
*[[Cook Islands]]
*[[
*[[Dominica]]
*[[Eritrea]]
Line 672 ⟶ 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}}
| |||