|
==== 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 didn't get elected. Some amount of wasted votes by this definition are virtuallypractically sureunavoidable, tobut loseplurality systems suffer from higher amounts of wasted votes. For example, in athe [[safe2005 seatUnited Kingdom general election|UK general election of 2005]], and52% of votes were cast for winninglosing candidates inand 18% were excess votes, a total of 70% wasted votes. That is perhaps the numbermost requiredfundamental forcriticism victoryof FPTP, the single-member plurality system since at least since at least half the votes are always wasted in a district. PluralityIt is in practice similar in plurality block voting, systemsalso functionoperating onunder athe "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 |issn=2543-8042 |s2cid=236980393 |doi-access=free}}</ref> For example, inEven the [[2005single Unitednon Kingdomtransferable generalvote election|UKcan generalresult electionin ofvery 2005]],inefficient 52%results ofif votesmany werecandidates castwith forsmall losingsupport compete or certain candidates andgain 18%a werelarge excess of votes. This is because like other plurality systems, ain totalloser ofand 70%surplus wastedvote STNV votes. Thatare isnot perhapstransferred.
A theanother mostway fundamentalto criticismcount ofwasted FPTPvotes, sinceis ato largesee majoritythe ofones votesthat 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 [[Proportionalproportional 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 |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 a systemsystems decreases disproportionality in election results and isare 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 ====
{{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.
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-membersome plurality systems ===
==== Gerrymandering ====
'''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 ====
| 