 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Plurality block voting" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(January 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| A jointPolitics andEconomics series |
| Social choice andelectoral systems |
|---|
 |
Single vote -plurality methods |
By results of combination By mechanism of combination By ballot type |
 Mathematics portal |
Plurality block voting is a type ofblock voting method formulti-winner elections. Each voter may cast as many votes as the number of seats to be filled.[1] The candidates with the most votes are elected. The usual result when the candidates divide into parties is that the most-popular party in the district sees its fullslate of candidates elected, even if the party does not have support of majority of the voters.[2]
The termpluralityat-large is in common usage in elections for representative members of a body who are elected or appointed to represent the whole membership of the body (for example, a city, state or province, nation, club or association). Where the system is used in a territory divided into multi-memberelectoral districts the system is commonly referred to as "block voting" or the "bloc vote". These systems are usually based on a single round of voting.
Theparty-list version of block voting is party block voting (PBV), also called thegeneral ticket, which also elects members byplurality in multi-member districts. In such a system, each party puts forward a slate of candidates, a voter casts just one vote, and the party winning a plurality of votes sees its whole slate elected, winning all the seats.
Plurality block voting is distinct fromparty block voting.
In a block voting election, all candidates run against each other form number of positions, wherem is commonly called the district magnitude. Each voter selects up tom candidates on the ballot. Each of the voters havem votes, and are able to cast no more than one per candidate. They cannot vote for the same candidate more than once, as is permitted incumulative voting.[3]
Voters are permitted to cast their votes across candidates of different parties (ticket splitting).[4]
Them candidates with the most votes (who may or may not obtain a majority of available votes or support from the majority of the voters) are declared elected and will fill the positions.
Due to multiple voting, when a party runs more than one candidate, it is impossible to know if the party had support of as many voters as the party tally of votes (up to number of voters participating in the election) or if it had support of just the number of voters equivalent to the votes received by the most popular candidate and the other candidates of that party merely received votes from subset of that group.
Candidates are running in a three-member district; each of the 10,000 voters may cast three votes (but do not have to). Voters may not cast more than one vote for a single candidate.
Party A has about 35% support among the electorate, Party B around 25% and the remaining voters primarily support independent candidates.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Elected? | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate A1 | Party A | 3555 | 36% | 3. | Yes | |
| Candidate A2 | Party A | 3700 | 37% | 1. | Yes | |
| Candidate A3 | Party A | 3600 | 36% | 2. | Yes | |
| Candidate B1 | Party B | 2600 | 26% | 4. | ||
| Candidate B2 | Party B | 2500 | 25% | 5. | ||
| Candidate B3 | Party B | 2400 | 24% | 6. | ||
| Candidate I1 | Independent | 2300 | 23% | 8. | ||
| Candidate I2 | Independent | 2395 | 20% | 7. | ||
| Candidate I3 | Independent | 1900 | 19% | 9. | ||
| Candidate I4 | Independent | 1800 | 15% | 10 | ||
| Candidate I5 | Independent | 650 | 7% | 11. | ||
| Candidate I6 | Independent | 600 | 6% | 12. | ||
| TOTAL | 28,000 | |||||
| TOTAL possible votes (3 per voter) | 30,000 | |||||
| Voters | 10,000 | 100% | ||||
Candidates of Party A won in a landslide, even though they only received a plurality (35–37%) among the voters (10,000). This is because most parties run as many candidates as there are open seats and voters of a party usually do not split their ticket, but vote for all candidates of that party.
By contrast, asingle transferable vote system would likely elect 1 candidate from party A, 1 candidate from party B and 1 independent candidate in this scenario.
The block voting system has a number of features which can make it unrepresentative of the voters' intentions. Block voting regularly produces completelandslide majorities for the group of candidates with the highest level of support. Additionally, likefirst past the post methods, if there are many parties running and voters do not engage intactical voting, a small cohesive group of voters, making up only a minority of the voters, can elect all the open seats by merely constituting aplurality.
Under block voting, a slate ofclones of the top-place candidate may win every available seat. A voter does have the option to vote for candidates of different political parties if they wish, but if the largest group of voters have strong party loyalty, there is nothing the other voters or parties can do to prevent a landslide.
While many criticize block voting's tendency to create landslide victories, some cite it as a strength. Since the winners of a block voting election generally represent the same slate or group of voters, there is greater agreement among those elected, potentially leading to a reduction in politicalgridlock.
Block plurality voting, like single-winnerplurality voting, is particularly vulnerable totactical voting. Supporters of relatively unpopularthird parties have a substantial incentive to avoidwasted votes by casting all of their votes for a slate of candidates from a major party.
Parties in block voting systems can also benefit fromstrategic nomination. Coalitions are actively hurt when they have more candidates than there are seats to fill, asvote-splitting will occur. Similarly, a coalition has a substantial incentive to nominate a full slate of candidates, as otherwise supporting voters may cast some of their remaining votes for opposing candidates.
Bullet voting is a strategy in which a voter only votes for a single candidate in an attempt to stop them being beaten by additional choices. Because the voter is essentially wasting a portion of their vote, bullet voting is only a good strategy when the voter has a strong preference for their favorite and is unsure of, and/or indifferent to, the other candidates' relative chances of winning, for example, if the voter supports an independent candidate or a minor party which has only nominated one candidate. Thus, block voting may look likesingle non-transferable voting.
This system sometimes fosters the creation of anelectoral alliance between political parties or groups as opposed to acoalition. This has been the case in theNational Assembly of Mauritius; theNew Hampshire House of Representatives, with the election of multipleFree State Project as well asNew Hampshire Liberty Alliance members; and in theVermont Senate, with the elections ofVermont Progressive Party membersTim Ashe andAnthony Pollina.[5] Historically, similar situations arose within themulti-member constituencies in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Block voting, or block plurality voting, is often compared withpreferential block voting as both systems tend to produce landslide victories for similar candidates. Instead of a series of checkboxes, preferential block voting uses apreferential ballot. A slate of clones of the top preferred candidate will win every seat under both systems, however in preferential block voting this is instead theinstant-runoff winner.
In Brazil, where Senatorial elections alternate between FPTP and block voting, each main candidate is registered along with two substitutes. Votes in either election are cast and counted based on these three-candidate slates; when a Senator leaves office before their eight-year term ends, the first substitute takes their place, and then the second if needed.
On the other hand, in political systems with a culture of by-elections, filling vacancies under Block Voting can be harder than in other voting methods. This is because by-elections to fill a single seat in a multi-member district can be expensive. In the Philippine Senate that hasstaggered elections, the seat is filled up on the next scheduled election, such as in 1951, 1955 and 2001.
There are alternative ways of selecting a replacement in such systems: one way is to fill any seat that becomes empty by appointing the most popular unsuccessful candidate in the last election, i.e. acountback. This was used in the City of Edmonton (Canada) following the1905 Edmonton municipal election.[6]
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Plurality block voting" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(May 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Block voting used for electing national legislatures |
|---|
 |
Block voting (BV) or mixed FPTP and BV Block voting (BV) or mixed FPTP and BV only for upper house of legislature Parallel voting mixed BV and party-list PR |
ThePhilippines is the country with the most extensive experience in plurality-at-large voting. Positions where there are multiple winners usually use plurality-at-large voting, the exception is the election for sectoral representatives in theHouse of Representatives. The members of theSenate and all local legislatures are elected via this method. The members of theInterim Batasang Pambansa (the parliament) were also elected under this method in1978.
The following countries use block plurality voting (not includingparty block voting using plurality) in their national electoral systems:
| Country | Legislative body | Latest election (year) | Type of system | Seats per constituency | Electoral system | Total seats | Constituencies | Governmental system | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Brazil | Senate | 2022 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1 or 2 (staggered elections) | Block plurality voting (BV) andFirst-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) | 81 | States and theFederal district | Presidential system | |
 Islamic Republic of Iran | Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis) | 2024 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1–30[citation needed] | Modifiedtwo-round block voting (BV) in multi-member districts, modifiedtwo-round system (TRS) in single-member districts (25% of votes required to win in 1st round in every constituency) | 290 (285 directly elected) | electoral districts[citation needed] | Presidential system | |
| Assembly of Experts | 2024 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1–16 | Block plurality voting (BV) | Presidential system | ||||
 Kiribati | House of Assembly | 2024 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1–3 | Two-round block voting (BV) in multi-member districts,two-round system (TRS) in single-member districts (50% of votes required to win in 1st round in every constituency) | 46 (44 directly elected + 1 delegate from Banaba Island and 1 ex officio) | electoral districts[citation needed] | [citation needed] | |
 Laos | National Assembly | 2021 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 5–19 | Block plurality voting (BV) | 164 (149 directly elected)[citation needed] | provinces | ||
 Mali | National Assembly | 2020 | block voting via multi-winner districts | Two-round block voting (BV) in multi-member districts,two-round system (TRS) in single-member districts (50% of votes required to win in 1st round in every constituency) | 147[citation needed] | electoral districts[citation needed] | |||
 Marshall Islands | Legislature | 2023 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1–5 | First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in single-member constituencies (19 seats) and Block plurality voting (BV) in multi-member constituencies (14 seats) | 33 | electoral districts[citation needed] | [citation needed] | |
 Mauritania | National Assembly | 2023 | mixed-member majoritarian | 1–3 (local districts), 40 (nationwide constituency) | Coexistence+superposition (parallel)supermixed/hybrid: Two-round system (TRS) in single-member districts,two-round block voting (BV) in dual-member districts, andList PR (simple quota largest remainder; closed-list) in larger districts + twice 20 nationallyList PR (one set of 20 reserved for women) | 157 | electoral districts[citation needed] | Semi-presidential system | |
 Mauritius | National Assembly | 2024 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 3 (for 20 constituencies) and 2 (for the constituency ofRodrigues) | Block plurality voting (BV) | 70 (62 directly elected + a maximum of 8Best Losers appointed) | electoral districts[citation needed] | Parliamentary system | |
 Monaco | National Council | 2023 | mixed-member majoritarian | 24 | Superposition / Mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) using a single (panachage) ballot: Block plurality voting (BV) in single nationwide constituency for 16 seats;D'Hondt method (8 seats) | 24 | single nationwide constituency | Parliamentary system[citation needed] | |
 Mongolia | State Great Assembly (Khural) | 2024 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1–5 | Two round block plurality voting (BV) candidates have to get at least 28% of the votes in a district to get elected. If there are unfilled seat, a runoff is held with twice the number of candidates as there are unfilled seats[7] | 76 | electoral districts[citation needed] | Semi-presidential system | |
 Realm of New Zealand |  NiueAssembly | 2023 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1 (local districts), 6 (nationwide constituency) | Parallel voting /superposition: First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) 14 seats + Block plurality voting 6 seats | 20 | |||
 Oman | Consultative Assembly | 2023 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1–2 | First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in single-member districts and Block plurality voting (BV) in two-seat districts | 86 | electoral districts[citation needed] | ||
 Palau | Senate | 2024 | single-winner districts | 13 | Block plurality voting (BV) | 13 | single nationwide constituency | Presidential system | |
 Philippines | Senate | 2022 | block voting at-large | 12 (staggered elections) | Block plurality voting (BV) | 24 | single nationwide constituency | Presidential system | |
 Switzerland | Council of States All cantons, except: | 2023 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1–2 | One-round (plurality) or two-round (majority) block voting[citation needed] | 46 | Cantons | ||
 Tuvalu | Parliament | 2024 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 2 | Block plurality voting (BV) | 16 | electoral districts[citation needed] | Parliamentary system | |
 Crown dependencies and British Overseas territories |  AnguillaHouse of Assembly | 2020 | single-winner districts | 1 (local districts), 4 (nationwide constituency) | Majoritarian parallel voting /superposition: First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in local constituencies + Block plurality voting (BV) nationwide | 13 (Including 2ex officio) | electoral districts[citation needed] and a single nationwide constituency | Parliamentary system | |
 Falkland IslandsLegislative Assembly | 2021 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 3–5 | Block plurality voting (BV) | 8 | Stanley constituency andCamp constituency | Parliamentary system | ||
 GuernseyStates of Deliberation | 2020 | block voting at-large | 38 | Block plurality voting, each voter has up to 38 votes | 40 (38 directly elected) | single nationwide constituency | Parliamentary system | ||
 Isle of ManHouse of Keys | 2021 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 2 | Block plurality voting (BV) | 24 | 12 constituencies, partly based on historical parishes | Parliamentary system | ||
 JerseyStates Assembly | 2022 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1–4 (local districts), 4 (nationwide constituency) | Majoritarian parallel voting /superposition: First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in single-member districts, Block plurality voting (BV) in multi-member districts seats + Block plurality voting (BV) nationwide | 49 | electoral districts[citation needed] and a single nationwide constituency | Parliamentary system | ||
 MontserratLegislative Assembly | 2024 | block voting at-large | 9 | Block plurality voting, each voter has up to 9 votes | 11 (9 directly elected) | single nationwide constituency | Parliamentary system | ||
 Saint HelenaLegislative Council | 2021 | block voting at-large | 12 | Block plurality voting, each voter has up to 12 votes | 15 (12 directly elected) | single nationwide constituency | Parliamentary system | ||
 Turks and Caicos IslandsParliament | 2025 | block voting via multi-winner districts | 1 (local districts), 9 (nationwide constituency) | Majoritarian parallel voting /superposition: First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in single-member districts + Block plurality voting (BV) nationwide | 21 (19 directly elected) | electoral districts[citation needed] and a single nationwide constituency | Parliamentary system | ||
 British Virgin IslandsHouse of Assembly | 2023 | single-winner districts | 1 (local districts), 4 (nationwide constituency) | Majoritarian parallel voting /superposition: First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in single-member districts + Block plurality voting (BV) nationwide | 13 | electoral districts[citation needed] and a single nationwide constituency | Parliamentary system |
Other countries using block voting:
InFrance, the election of municipal councilors takes place by majority vote[9] plurinominal, in two rounds withpanachage:
InBritish Columbia, Canada, all local governments are elected using bloc voting for city councils and for other multi-member bodies (there called "at-large" voting). In other Canadian provinces, smaller cities are generally elected under plurality-at-large, while larger cities are generally elected under the "ward system" which is a municipal adaptation of single member plurality. The sole exception is London, Ontario which has recently changed to theAlternative Vote. When Toronto was amalgamated in 1997, the new entity'sfirst election used a similar rule. From 1871 to 1988, British Columbia had some multi-member ridings using plurality-at-large, and others elected undersingle member plurality, with the number of each varying from one election to the next. Other Canadian provincial legislatures have in the past used plurality-at-large orsingle transferable vote, but now all members of provincial legislatures are exclusively elected under single-member plurality.[citation needed]
InHong Kong, block voting is used for a tiny proportion of the territory's population to elect the members of theElection Committee, which is responsible for selecting the territory's Chief Executive.[citation needed]
Block voting was used in theAustralian Senate from 1901 to 1948 (from 1918, this was preferential block voting). Block voting was also once used inSouth Australia.[11] It was used for multi-member constituencies inparliamentary elections in the United Kingdom until their abolition, and remains in use throughoutEngland and Wales for somelocal elections. It is also used inJersey,Guernsey, theIsle of Man, theCayman Islands (until 2013, FPTP since 2017), theFalkland Islands andSaint Helena.[12]
Block plurality voting is or was also used in the election of theSenate of Poland (until 2011), theArgentine Chamber of Deputies (between 1854 and 1902, and between 1906 and 1910), of theParliament of Lebanon, the plurality seats in thePalestinian Legislative Council and for theNational Assembly of Mauritius. In some Lebanese and Palestinian constituencies, there is only one seat to be filled; in thePalestinian election of 1996 there were only plurality seats, but in2006 half the seats were elected by plurality (two by first past the post; the others by block voting, in districts that ranged in size from two to nine seats); half by proportional representation nationwide. (The usual one-party sweep produced by block voting is seen in Hebron in the 2006 election where one party took all the district's nine seats.)[13]
A form of block plurality voting was used for the elections of both houses of Parliament inBelgium before proportional representation was implemented in 1900. The system, however, was combined with a system similar to arunoff election; when not enough candidates had the majority of the votes in the first round to fill the seats, a second round was held between the highest ranked candidates of the first round (with two times as many candidates as seats to be filled). In some constituencies there was only one seat to be filled. A similar system to elect part of theMongolian parliament. 48 Representatives are elected from districts with 1–3 members, the representatives are required to achieve at least 28% of the vote in a district to be elected, if there are unfilled seats after the first round of voting, a second round similar to the Belgian system is held to fill the remaining seat. The remaining representatives are elected separately using party list proportional representation on the national level.[7]
Block voting was used in some constituencies for theHouse of Representatives of Japan in the first six general elections between 1890 and 1898: while the majority of seats was elected by plurality in 214 single-member districts, there were 43 two-member districts that elected their representatives by block voting.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)