Anelectoral orvoting system is a set of rules used to determine the results of an election. Electoral systems are used in politics to elect governments, while non-political elections may take place in business,nonprofit organizations and informal organisations. These rules govern all aspects of the voting process: when elections occur,who is allowed to vote,who can stand as acandidate,how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted, how votes translate into the election outcome, limits oncampaign spending, and other factors that can affect the result. Political electoral systems are defined by constitutions and electoral laws, are typically conducted byelection commissions, and can use multiple types of elections for different offices.
Some electoral systems elect a single winner to a unique position, such as prime minister, president or governor, while others elect multiple winners, such as members of parliament or boards of directors. When electing alegislature, areas may be divided into constituencies with one or more representatives or the electorate may elect representatives as a single unit. Voters may vote directly for an individual candidate or for a list of candidates put forward by apolitical party oralliance. There are many variations in electoral systems.
In all cases, where only a single winner is to be elected, the electoral system is winner-take-all. The same can be said for elections where only one person is elected per district. Since district elections are winner-take-all, the electoral system as a whole produces dis-proportional results. Some systems where multiple winners are elected at once (in the same district), such aplurality block voting are also winner-take-all.
Inparty block voting, voters can only vote for the list of candidates of a single party, with the party receiving the most votes winning all seats, even if that party receives only a minority of votes. This is also described as winner-take-all. This is used in five countries as part of mixed systems.[1]
Plurality voting - first past the post and block voting
Countries that use exclusively first-past-the-post forlower house orunicameral legislatures
Plurality voting is a system in which the candidate(s) with the largest number of votes wins, with no requirement to get a majority of votes. In cases where there is a single position to be filled, it is known asfirst-past-the-post. This is the second most common electoral system for national legislatures (afterproportional representation), with 58 countries using FPTP and single-member districts to elect the national legislative chamber,[1] the vast majority of which are current or former British or American colonies or territories. It is also the second most common system used for presidential elections, being used in 19 countries. Thetwo-round system is the most common system used to elect a president.[1]
In cases where there are multiple positions to be filled, most commonly in cases of multi-member constituencies, there are several types of plurality electoral systems. Underblock voting (also known as multiple non-transferable vote or plurality-at-large), voters have as many votes as there are seats and can vote for any candidate, regardless of party, but give only one vote to each preferred candidate. The most-popular candidates are declared elected, whether they have a majority of votes or not and whether or not that result is proportional to the way votes were cast. Eight countries use this system.[1]
Cumulative voting allows a voter to cast more than one vote for the same candidate, in multi-member districts. Its effect may be proportional to the same degree thatsingle non-transferable voting orlimited voting is, thus it is often called semi-proportional.
Approval voting is a choose-all-you-like voting system that aims to increase the number of candidates that win with majority support.[2] Voters are free to pick as many candidates as they like and each choice has equal weight, independent of the number of candidates a voter supports. The candidate with the most votes wins.[3]
A runoff system is one in which a candidates receives a majority of votes to be elected, either in a runoff election or final round of vote counting. This is sometimes referred to as a way to ensure that a winner must have a majority of votes, although usually only a plurality is required in the last round (when three or more candidates move on to the runoff election), and sometimes even in the first round winners can avoid a second round without achieving a majority. In social choice theory, runoff systems are not called majority voting, as this term refers toCondorcet-methods.
There are two main groups of runoff systems, those in one group use a single round of voting achieved by voters castingranked votes and then using vote transfers if necessary to establish a majority, and those in the other group use two or more rounds of voting, to narrow the field of candidates and to determine a winner who has a majority of the votes. Both are primarily used for single-member constituencies or election of a single position such as mayor.
If a candidate receives a majority of the vote in the first round, then the system is simplefirst past the post voting. But if no one has a majority of votes in first round, the systems respond in different ways.
Underinstant-runoff voting (IRV), when no one wins a majority in first round, runoff is achieved through vote transfers made possible by voters having ranked the candidates in order of preference, with lower preferences used as back-up preferences. This system is used for parliamentary elections inAustralia andPapua New Guinea. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote in the first round, the votes of the least-popular candidate are transferred as per marked second preferences and added to the totals of surviving candidates. This is repeated until a candidate achieves a majority. The count ends any time one candidate has a majority of votes but it may continue until only two candidates remain, at which point one or other of the candidates will take a majority of votes still in play.
A different form of single-winner preferential voting is thecontingent vote where voters do not rank all candidates, but rank just two or three. If no candidate has a majority in the first round, all candidates are excluded except the top two. If the voter gave first preference to one of the excluded candidates, the votes is transferred to the next usable back-up preferences if possible, or otherwise put in the exhausted pile. The resulting vote totals are used to determine the winner by plurality. This system is used inSri Lankan presidential elections, with voters allowed to give three preferences.[4]
The other main form of runoff system is thetwo-round system, which is the most common system used for presidential elections around the world, being used in 88 countries. It is also used, in conjunction with single-member districts, in 20 countries for electing members of the legislature.[1] If no candidate achieves a majority of votes in the first round of voting, a second round is held to determine the winner. In most cases the second round is limited to the top two candidates from the first round, although in some elections more than two candidates may choose to contest the second round; in these cases the second-round winner is not required to have a majority of votes, but may be elected by having a plurality of votes.
Some countries use a modified form of the two-round system, so going to a second round happens less often. InEcuador a candidate in the presidential election is declared the winner if they receive more than 50 percent of the vote or 40% of the vote and are 10% ahead of their nearest rival,[5] In Argentina, where the system is known asballotage, election is achieved by those with majority or if they have 45% and a 10% lead.
In some cases, where a certain level of support is required, a runoff may be held using a different system. InU.S. presidential elections, when no candidate wins a majority of theUnited States Electoral College (using seat count, not votes cast, as is used in the majoritarian systems described above), acontingent election is held by the House of Representatives, not the voters themselves. The House contingency election sees three candidates go on to the last round and each state's Representatives vote as a single unit, not as individuals.
Anexhaustive ballot sees multiple rounds of voting (where no one has majority in first round). The number of rounds is not limited to two rounds, but sees the last-placed candidate eliminated in each round of voting, repeated until one candidate has majority of votes. Due to the potentially large number of rounds, this system is not used in any major popular elections, but is used to elect the Speakers of parliament in several countries and members of theSwiss Federal Council.
In some systems, such as election of the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, there may be multiple rounds held without any candidates being eliminated until a candidate achieves a majority.
Positional systems like theBorda Count are ranked voting systems that assign a certain number of points to each candidate, weighted by position. The most popular such system isfirst-preference plurality. Another well-known variant, theBorda count, each candidate is given a number of points equal to their rank, and the candidate with the least points wins. This system is intended to elect broadly acceptable options or candidates, rather than those preferred by a majority.[6] This system is used to elect the ethnic minority representatives seats in the Slovenian parliament.[7][8]
The Dowdall system is used inNauru for parliamentary elections and sees voters rank the candidates. First preference votes are counted as whole numbers, the second preferences by two, third preferences by three, and so on; this continues to the lowest possible ranking.[9] The totals for each candidate determine the winners.[10]
Multi-winner systems include both proportional systems and non-proportional multi-winner systems, such asparty block voting and plurality block voting.
Countries by proportional electoral system (lower house or unicameral legislature):
Party list (closed list)
Party list (open list)
Party list (partly-open list)
Panachage party list (open list)
Mixed-member proportional (seat linkage) type compensatory, some additional compensation for overhang seats (New Zealand)
Mixed-member proportional (seat linkage) type compensatory, no additional compensation for overhang seats
Personalized proportional (Germany)
Single transferable vote
Proportional representation is the most widely used electoral system for national legislatures, with the parliaments of over eighty countries elected by a form of the system. These systems elect multiple members in one contest, whether that is at-large, as in a city-wide election at the city level or state-wide or nation-wide at those levels, or in multi-member districts at any level.
Party-list proportional representation is the single most common electoral system and is used by 80 countries, and involves seats being allocated to parties based on party vote share.
Inclosed list systems voters do not have any influence over which candidates are elected to fill the party seats, but inopen list systems voters are able to both vote for the party list and for candidates (or only for candidates). Voters thus have means to sometimes influence the order in which party candidates will be assigned seats. In some countries, notablyIsrael and theNetherlands, elections are carried out using 'pure' proportional representation, with the votes tallied on a national level before assigning seats to parties. (There are no district seats, only at-large.) However, in most cases several multi-member constituencies are used rather than a single nationwide constituency, giving an element of geographical or local representation. Such may result in the distribution of seats not reflecting the national vote totals of parties. As a result, some countries that use districts haveleveling seats that are awarded to some of the parties whose seat proportion is lower than their proportion of the vote. Levelling seats are either used at the regional level or at the national level. Suchmixed member proportional systems are used in New Zealand and in Scotland. (They are discussed below.)
List PR systems usually set anelectoral threshold, the minimum percentage of the vote that a party must obtain to win levelling seats or to win seats at all. Some systems allow a go around of this rule. For instance, if a party takes a district seat, the party may be eligible for top-up seats even if its percentage of the votes is below the threshold.
There are different methods of allocating seats in proportional representation systems. There are two main methods:highest average andlargest remainder. Highest average systems involve dividing the votes received by each party by adivisor orvote average that represents an idealizedseats-to-votes ratio, then rounding normally. In the largest remainder system, parties' vote shares are divided by anelectoral quota. This usually leaves some seats unallocated, which are awarded to parties based on which parties have the largest number of "leftover" votes.
Single transferable vote (STV) is another form of proportional representation. Like list PR, STV is designed to elect multiple winners. In STV, multi-member districts or multi-winner at-large contests are used. Each voter casts one vote, being aranked ballot marked for individual candidates, rather than voting for a party list. STV is used inMalta, theRepublic of Ireland and Australia (partially). To be certain of being elected, candidates must pass a quota (theDroop quota being the most common). Candidates that achieve the quota are elected. If necessary to fill seats, the least-successful candidate is eliminated and their voters transferred in accordance with the rankings marked by the voter. Surplus votes held by successful candidates may also be transferred. Eventually all seats are filled by candidates who have passed the quota or there are only as many remaining candidates as the number of remaining open seats.[10]
Undersingle non-transferable vote (SNTV), multi-member districts are used. Each voter can vote for only one candidate, with the candidates receiving the most votes declared the winners, whether any of them have a majority of votes or not. Despite its simplicity, its results are very close to those of STV and list PR - every district elects a mixed, balanced multi-party group of representatives.[citation needed] This system is used inKuwait, thePitcairn Islands andVanuatu.[1]
In non-compensatory, parallel voting systems, which are used in 20 countries,[1] members of a legislature are elected by two different methods; part of the membership is elected by a plurality or majoritarian election system in single-member constituencies and the other part by proportional representation. The results of the constituency contests have no effect on the outcome of the proportional vote.[10]
In compensatorymixed-member systems levelling seats are allocated to balance nation-wide or regional disproportionality produced by the way seats are won in constituency contests. Themixed-member proportional systems, in use in eight countries, provide enough compensatory seats to ensure that many parties have a share of seats approximately proportional to their vote share.[1] Most of the MMP countries use a PR system at the district level, thus lowering the number of levelling seats that are needed to produce proportional results. Of the MMP countries, only New Zeland and Lesotho use single-winnerfirst-past-the-post voting in their districts. Scotland uses a regionalized MMP system where levelling seats are allocated in each region to balance the disproportionality produced in single-winner districts within the region. Variations of this include theAdditional Member System, andAlternative Vote Plus, in which voters cast votes for both single-member constituencies and multi-member constituencies; the allocation of seats in the multi-member constituencies is adjusted to achieve an overall seat allocation proportional to parties' vote share by taking into account the number of seats won by parties in the single-member constituencies.
Some MMP systems are insufficiently compensatory, and this may result inoverhang seats, where parties win more seats in the constituency system than they would be entitled to based on their vote share. Some MMP systems have mechanism (another form of top-up) where additional seats are awarded to the other parties to balance out the effect of the overhang. Germany in 2024 passed a new election law where district overhang seats may be denied, over-riding the district result in the pursuit of overall proportionality.[11]
Vote linkage mixed systems are also compensatory, however they usually use different mechanism than seat linkage (top-up) method of MMP and usually aren't able to achieve proportional representation.
Some electoral systems feature amajority bonus system to either ensure one party or coalition gains a majority in the legislature, or to give the party receiving the most votes a clear advantage in terms of the number of seats.San Marino has a modified two-round system, which sees a second round of voting featuring the top two parties or coalitions if no party takes a majority of votes in the first round. The winner of the second round is guaranteed 35 seats in the 60-seatGrand and General Council.[12] InGreece the party receiving the most votes was given an additional 50 seats,[13] a system which was abolished following the2019 elections.
Primary elections are a feature of some electoral systems, either as a formal part of the electoral system or informally by choice of individual political parties as a method of selecting candidates, as is the case inItaly. Primary elections limit the possible adverse effect ofvote splitting by ensuring that a party puts forward only one party candidate. InArgentina they are a formal part of the electoral system and take place two months before the main elections; any party receiving less than 1.5% of the vote is not permitted to contest the main elections.
In the United States, there are both partisan and non-partisanprimary elections. In non-partisan primaries, the most-popular nominees, even if only one party, are put forward to the election.
Some elections feature anindirect electoral system, whereby there is either no popular vote, or the popular vote is only one stage of the election; in these systems the final vote is usually taken by anelectoral college. In several countries, such asMauritius orTrinidad and Tobago, the post of President is elected by the legislature. In others likeIndia, the vote is taken by an electoral college consisting of the national legislature and state legislatures. In theUnited States, the president is indirectly elected using a two-stage process; a popular vote in each state elects members to theelectoral college that in turn elects the President. This can result in a situation where a candidate who receives the most votes nationwide does not win the electoral college vote, as most recently happened in2000 and2016.
In addition to the current electoral systems used for political elections, there are numerous other systems that have been used in the past, are currently used only in private organizations (such as electing board members of corporations or student organizations), or have never been fully implemented.
Historically,weighted voting systems were used in some countries. These allocated a greater weight to the votes of some voters than others, either indirectly by allocating more seats to certain groups (such as thePrussian three-class franchise), or by weighting the results of the vote. The latter system was used in colonialRhodesia for the1962 and1965 elections. The elections featured two voter rolls (the 'A' roll being largely European and the 'B' roll largely African); the seats of the House Assembly were divided into 50 constituency seats and 15 district seats. Although all voters could vote for both types of seats, 'A' roll votes were given greater weight for the constituency seats and 'B' roll votes greater weight for the district seats. Weighted systems are still used in corporate elections, with votes weighted to reflect stock ownership.
Dual-member proportional representation is a proposed system with two candidates elected in each constituency, one with the most votes and one to ensure proportionality of the combined results.Biproportional apportionment is a system where the total number of votes is used to calculate the number of seats each party is due, followed by a calculation of the constituencies in which the seats should be awarded in order to achieve the total due to them.
Compulsory voting, enforced Compulsory voting, not enforced Compulsory voting, enforced (only men) Compulsory voting, not enforced (only men) Historical: the country had compulsory voting in the past.
Electoral rules place limits on suffrage and candidacy. Most countries's electorates are characterised byuniversal suffrage, but there are differences on theage at which people are allowed to vote, with the youngest being 16 and the oldest 21. People may be disenfranchised for a range of reasons, such as being a serving prisoner, being declared bankrupt, having committed certain crimes or being a serving member of the armed forces. Similar limits are placed on candidacy (also known as passive suffrage), and in many cases the age limit for candidates is higher than the voting age. A total of 21 countries havecompulsory voting, although in some there is an upper age limit on enforcement of the law.[14] Many countries also have thenone of the above option on their ballot papers.
In systems that useconstituencies,apportionment or districting defines the area covered by each constituency. Where constituency boundaries are drawn has a strong influence on the likely outcome of elections in the constituency due to the geographic distribution of voters. Political parties may seek to gain an advantage duringredistricting by ensuring their voter base has a majority in as many constituencies as possible, a process known asgerrymandering. Historicallyrotten and pocket boroughs, constituencies with unusually small populations, were used by wealthy families to gain parliamentary representation.
Some countries have minimum turnout requirements for elections to be valid. In Serbia this rule caused multiple re-runs of presidential elections, with the 1997 election re-run once and the 2002 elections re-run three times due insufficient turnout in thefirst,second andthird attempts to run the election. The turnout requirement was scrapped prior to thefourth vote in 2004.[15] Similar problems inBelarus led to the1995 parliamentary elections going to a fourth round of voting before enough parliamentarians were elected to make aquorum.[16]
Reserved seats are used in many countries to ensure representation for ethnic minorities, women, young people or the disabled. These seats are separate from general seats, and may be elected separately (such as in Morocco where a separate ballot is used to elect the 60 seats reserved for women and 30 seats reserved for young people in the House of Representatives), or be allocated to parties based on the results of the election; inJordan the reserved seats for women are given to the female candidates who failed to win constituency seats but with the highest number of votes, whilst inKenya the Senate seats reserved for women, young people and the disabled are allocated to parties based on how many seats they won in the general vote. Some countries achieve minority representation by other means, including requirements for a certain proportion of candidates to be women, or by exempting minority parties from the electoral threshold, as is done inPoland,[17]Romania andSerbia.[18]
Inancient Greece andItaly, the institution of suffrage already existed in a rudimentary form at the outset of the historical period. In the earlymonarchies it was customary for the king to invite pronouncements of his people on matters in which it was prudent to secure its assent beforehand. In these assemblies the people recorded their opinion by clamouring (a method which survived inSparta as late as the 4th century BCE), or by the clashing ofspears onshields.[19]
Voting has been used as a feature of democracy since the 6th century BCE, when democracy was introduced by theAthenian democracy. However, in Athenian democracy, voting was seen as the least democratic among methods used for selecting public officials, and was little used, because elections were believed to inherently favor the wealthy and well-known over average citizens. Viewed as more democratic were assemblies open to all citizens, andselection by lot, as well as rotation of office.
Generally, the taking of votes was effected in the form of a poll. The practice of the Athenians, which is shown by inscriptions to have been widely followed in the other states of Greece, was to hold a show of hands, except on questions affecting the status of individuals: these latter, which included alllawsuits and proposals ofostracism, in which voters chose the citizen they most wanted to exile for ten years, were determined by secret ballot (one of the earliest recorded elections in Athens was aplurality vote that it was undesirable to win, namely an ostracism vote). AtRome the method which prevailed up to the 2nd century BCE was that of division (discessio). But the system became subject to intimidation and corruption. Hence a series of laws enacted between 139 and 107 BCE prescribed the use of the ballot (tabella), a slip of wood coated with wax, for all business done in the assemblies of the people.For the purpose of carrying resolutions a simple majority of votes was deemed sufficient. As a general rule equal value was made to attach to each vote; but in the popular assemblies at Rome a system of voting by groups was in force until the middle of the 3rd century BCE by which the richer classes secured a decisive preponderance.[19]
Most elections in the earlyhistory of democracy were held using plurality voting or some variant, but as an exception, the state ofVenice in the 13th century adopted approval voting to elect their Great Council.[20]
The Venetians' method forelecting the Doge was a particularly convoluted process, consisting of five rounds of drawing lots (sortition) and five rounds of approval voting. By drawing lots, a body of 30 electors was chosen, which was further reduced to nine electors by drawing lots again. Anelectoral college of nine members elected 40 people by approval voting; those 40 were reduced to form a second electoral college of 12 members by drawing lots again. The second electoral college elected 25 people by approval voting, which were reduced to form a third electoral college of nine members by drawing lots. The third electoral college elected 45 people, which were reduced to form a fourth electoral college of 11 by drawing lots. They in turn elected a final electoral body of 41 members, who ultimately elected the Doge. Despite its complexity, the method had certain desirable properties such as being hard to game and ensuring that the winner reflected the opinions of both majority and minority factions.[21] This process, with slight modifications, was central to the politics of theRepublic of Venice throughout its remarkable lifespan of over 500 years, from 1268 to 1797.
Jean-Charles de Borda proposed theBorda count in 1770 as a method for electing members to theFrench Academy of Sciences. His method was opposed by theMarquis de Condorcet, who proposed instead the method of pairwise comparison that he had devised. Implementations of this method are known asCondorcet methods. He also wrote about theCondorcet paradox, which he called theintransitivity of majority preferences. However, recent research has shown that the philosopherRamon Llull devised both the Borda count and a pairwise method that satisfied the Condorcet criterion in the 13th century. The manuscripts in which he described these methods had been lost to history until they were rediscovered in 2001.[22]
Later in the 18th century,apportionment methods came to prominence due to theUnited States Constitution, which mandated that seats in theUnited States House of Representatives had to be allocated among the states proportionally to their population, but did not specify how to do so.[23] A variety of methods were proposed by statesmen such asAlexander Hamilton,Thomas Jefferson, andDaniel Webster. Some of the apportionment methods devised in the United States were in a sense rediscovered in Europe in the 19th century, as seat allocation methods for the newly proposed method of party-list proportional representation. The result is that many apportionment methods have two names;Jefferson's method is equivalent to theD'Hondt method, as isWebster's method to theSainte-Laguë method, whileHamilton's method is identical to the Hare largest remainder method.[23]
Thesingle transferable vote (STV) method was devised byCarl Andræ inDenmark in 1855 and in theUnited Kingdom byThomas Hare in 1857. STV elections were first held in Denmark in 1856, and inTasmania in 1896 after its use was promoted byAndrew Inglis Clark. Over the course of the 20th century, STV was subsequently adopted by Ireland and Malta for their national elections, in Australia for theirSenate elections, as well as by many municipal elections around the world.[24]
Party-list proportional representation began to be used to elect European legislatures in the early 20th century, withBelgium the first to implement it for its1900 general elections. Since then, proportional and semi-proportional methods have come to be used in almost all democratic countries, with most exceptions being formerBritish andFrench colonies.[25]
Perhaps influenced by the rapid development of multiple-winner STV, theorists published new findings about single-winner methods in the late 19th century. Around 1870,William Robert Ware proposed applying STV to single-winner elections, yieldinginstant-runoff voting (IRV).[26] Soon, mathematicians began to revisit Condorcet's ideas and invent new methods for Condorcet completion;Edward J. Nanson combined the newly described instant runoff voting with the Borda count to yield a new Condorcet method calledNanson's method. Charles Dodgson, better known asLewis Carroll, proposed the straightforward Condorcet method known asDodgson's method. He also proposed a proportional representation system based on multi-member districts, quotas as minimum requirements to take seats, and votes transferable by candidates throughproxy voting.[27]
Ranked voting electoral systems eventually gathered enough support to be adopted for use in government elections. InAustralia, IRV was first adopted in 1893 and STV in 1896 (Tasmania). IRV continues to be used along with STV today.
In the United States, during the early 20th-centuryprogressive era some municipalities began to usesupplementary voting andBucklin voting. However, a series of court decisions ruled Bucklin to be unconstitutional, while supplementary voting was soon repealed in every city that had implemented it.[28]
The use ofgame theory to analyze electoral systems led to discoveries about the effects of certain methods. Earlier developments such asArrow's impossibility theorem had already shown the issues withranked voting systems. Research ledSteven Brams andPeter Fishburn to formally define and promote the use ofapproval voting in 1977.[29] Political scientists of the 20th century published many studies on the effects that the electoral systems have on voters' choices and political parties,[30][31][32] and on political stability.[33][34] A few scholars also studied which effects caused a nation to switch to a particular electoral system.[35][36][37][38][39]
A new push forelectoral reform occurred in the 1990s, when proposals were made to replace plurality voting in governmental elections with other methods.New Zealand adopted mixed-member proportional representation for the1996 general elections, having been approved in a1993 referendum.[40] After plurality voting was a factor in the contested results of the2000 presidential elections in the United States, various municipalities in the United States have begun to adoptinstant-runoff voting. In 2020 a referendum adoptingapproval voting inSt. Louis passed with 70% support.[41]
Some cities that adopted instant-runoff voting subsequently returned tofirst-past-the-post. Studies have found voter satisfaction with IRV falls dramatically the first time a race produces a result different from first-past-the-post.[42] The United Kingdom used a form ofinstant-runoff voting for local elections prior to 2022, before returning tofirst-past-the-post over concerns regarding the system's complexity.[43] Ranked-choice voting has been implemented in two states and banned in 10 others[44] (in addition to other states with constitutional prohibitions on the rule).
In November 2024, voters in the U.S. decided on 10 ballot measures related to electoral systems. Nine of the ballot measures aimed to change existing electoral systems, and voters rejected each proposal. One, in Missouri, which banned ranked-choice voting (RCV), was approved. Voters rejected ballot measures to enact ranked-choice voting and other electoral system changes in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon, as well as in Montana and South Dakota. In Alaska, voters rejected a ballot initiative 50.1% to 49.9% to repeal the state's top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting general elections, a system that was adopted via ballot measure in 2020.[45]
Electoral systems can be compared by different means:
Define criteria mathematically, such that any electoral system either passes or fails. This gives perfectly objective results, but their practical relevance is still arguable.
Define ideal criteria and use simulated elections to see how often or how close various methods fail to meet the selected criteria. This gives results which are practically relevant, but the method of generating the sample of simulated elections can still be arguably biased.
A 2019 peer-reviewedmeta-analysis based on 1,037 regressions in 46 studies finds that countries with majoritary kind of electoral rules would be more "fiscally virtuous" since they would exhibit better fiscal balances in the pre-electoral period, which may be explained by less spending distortion.[49] The meta-analysis also notes that countries with proportional kind of electoral rules would have bigger pre-electoral revenue cuts than other countries.[50]
The process isdictatorial, i.e. there is a single voter whose vote chooses the outcome.
The process limits the possible outcomes to two options only.
The process is not straightforward; the optimal ballot for a voter "requiresstrategic voting", i.e. it depends on their beliefs about other voters' ballots.
According to a 2006 survey of electoral system experts, their preferred electoral systems were in order of preference:[51]
Partly elected byelectoral college or local/regional legislatures and appointed by head of state
Partly elected byelectoral college or local/regional legislatures, partly elected in single-member districts by FPTP, and partly appointed by head of state
^"What is Approval Voting?".Election Science. The Center for Election Science. Retrieved2024-05-24.Voters can vote for as many candidates as they want. The votes are tallied, and the candidate with the most votes wins!
^Douglas W. Rae (1971)The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, Yale University PressISBN0-300-01517-8
^Rein Taagapera and Matthew S. Shugart (1989)Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems, Yale University Press
^Ferdinand A. Hermens (1941)Democracy or Anarchy? A Study of Proportional Representation, University of Notre Dame.
^Arend Lijphart (1994)Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990 Oxford University PressISBN0-19-828054-8
^Arend Lijphart (1985) "The Field of Electoral Systems Research: A Critical Survey" Electoral Studies, Vol. 4
^Arend Lijphart (1992) "Democratization and Constitutional Choices in Czecho-Slovakia, Hungary and Poland, 1989–1991"Journal of Theoretical Politics Vol. 4 (2), pp. 207–223
^Stein Rokkan (1970)Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Process of Development, Universitetsforlaget
^Ronald Rogowski (1987) "Trade and the Variety of Democratic Institutions",International Organization Vol. 41, pp. 203–24
^Carles Boix (1999) "Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies",American Political Science Review Vol. 93 (3), pp. 609–624
^Blais, Andre (1990). "Does proportional representation foster voter turnout?".European Journal of Political Research.18 (2):167–181.doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1990.tb00227.x.
