Ranked voting system
|Part of the Politics series|
Preferential voting or rank voting describes certain voting systems in which voters rank outcomes in a hierarchy on the ordinal scale. When choosing between more than two options, preferential voting systems provide a number of advantages over first-past-the-post voting (also called plurality voting). This does not mean that preferential voting is always the best system; Arrow's impossibility theorem proves that no method can simultaneously obtain all properties desirable in a voting system.[Mankiw 1] There is likewise no consensus among academics or public servants as to the best electoral system.
There are many types of preferential voting, but currently only instant-runoff voting (alternative vote) and single transferable vote are used in governmental elections. Instant runoff voting is employed in Australia at the state and federal levels, in Ireland for its presidential elections, and by some cities in the United States, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. The single transferable vote is used for national elections in the Republic of Ireland and Malta, for regional and local elections in Northern Ireland, for all local elections in Scotland, and for some local elections in New Zealand and the United States.
Variety of systems
There are many preferential voting systems, so it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between them.
Selection of the Condorcet winner is generally considered by psephologists as the ideal election outcome, so "Condorcet efficiency" is important when evaluating different methods of preferential voting. This choice is also the one that would win every two-way contest against every other alternative.[Mankiw 2]
Another criterion used to gauge the effectiveness of a preferential voting system is its ability to withstand manipulative voting strategies, when voters cast ballots that do not reflect their preferences in the hope of electing their first choice. This can be rated on at least two dimensions—the number of voters needed to game the system and the complexity of the mechanism necessary.
Instant-runoff or preferential voting
Used in national elections in Australia, this system simulates a series of runoff elections. If no candidate is the first choice of more than half of the voters, then all votes cast for the candidate with the fewest number of first choices are added to the totals of the top-ranked candidate still in the race. If this does not result in any candidate receiving a majority, further rounds of redistribution occur.
This method is thought to be resistant to manipulative voting as the only strategies that work against it require voters to highly rank choices they actually want to see lose.[G&F 1] At the same time, this system fails the monotonicity criterion, where ranking a candidate higher can lessen the chances he or she will be elected. Additionally, alternative voting has a lower Condorcet efficiency than similar systems when there are more than four choices.[G&F 2]
In the Borda count, ballots are counted by assigning a point value to each place in each voter's ranking of the candidates, and the choice with the largest number of points overall is elected.[Mankiw 1] This method is named after its inventor, French mathematician Jean-Charles de Borda.[Mankiw 1] Instead of selecting a Condorcet winner, this system may select a choice that reflects an average of the preferences of the constituency.
However, as explained in the main article, in some circumstances the Borda count may degenerate into a first-past-the-post ballot.
This system suffers from the fact that the outcome it selects is dependent on the other choices present[clarification needed]. That is, the Borda count does not exhibit independence of irrelevant alternatives[Mankiw 1] or independence of clones. The implication here is that a Borda count can be easily manipulated simply by including additional candidates.
Single transferable vote
This is currently one of the preferential voting systems most used by countries and states.[notes 1] It uses multi-member constituencies. Any candidates that achieve the number of votes required for election (the "quota") are elected and their surplus votes are redistributed to the voter's next choice candidate.[CEPPS 1] Once this is done, if not all places have been filled then the candidate with the smallest amount of votes is eliminated, and their votes are also redistributed to the voter's next choice. This whole process is repeated until all seats are filled. This method is also called the Hare-Clark system.[CEPPS 1]
- See table in use by polities below
Superiority v. FPTP
||The neutrality of this article is disputed. (July 2012)|
When choosing between more than two options, preferential voting achieves outcomes better than those produced by a first-past-the-post system. When endorsing a switch to a preferential voting system in 2011, British politician Nick Clegg stated, "first-past-the-post leads to a whole host of problems... it means MPs can go about their business without ever having to appeal to a majority of their own constituents...". He also stated that a preferential voting method like instant runoff voting would result in politicians "work[ing] harder to appeal to more people than before". Academic experts have also rejected first-past-the-post; at a 2011 LSE workshop attended by 22 voting theory specialists, none endorsed first-past-the-post as the "best voting procedure".
The first-past-the-post system will indeed occasionally elect a candidate who would have lost out to every other option in a two-way contest (the so-called Condorcet loser) by splitting the opposition vote. It happens even more frequently (for a similar reason) that the winner is not the Condorcet winner.[Mankiw 2]
Many countries use a two-round system (a runoff election) to improve the fairness of the election.
Many arguments for preferential voting being superior to first-past-the-post rely to some extent on several assumptions: that voters have single peaked preferences over a single dimension (e.g. liberal v. conservative), that choices can be placed on a continuum, and that voters know accurately where each candidate lies on that continuum. However even if these assumptions are only partially true, the first-past-the-post system is still likely to be less fair.
Uniqueness of votes
If there are a large number of candidates, which is quite common in Single transferable vote elections, then it is likely that many preference voting patterns will be unique to individual voters. For example, in the Irish general election, 2002, the electronic votes were published for the Dublin North constituency. There were 12 candidates and almost 44,000 votes cast. The most common pattern (for the three candidates from one party in a particular order) was chosen by only 800 voters, and more than 16,000 patterns were chosen by just one voter each.
In the case common to IRV in which no ties are allowed, except for unranked candidates who are tied for last place, the number of possible rankings for N candidates is precisely
Use by polities
|This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2012)|
|Nation||Year of first use||Type||Notes|
|Australia||1918||single transferable vote, alternative vote||From 1949, the single transferable vote method has been used for upper house legislative elections.[Sawer 1] Alternative vote is used for lower house elections.[CEPPS 2]|
|Colombia[CEPPS 3]||x||open list||Political parties choose between open list and closed list|
|Czech Republic[CEPPS 4]||x||contingent vote||only used to decide lower house legislative elections|
|Estonia||x||open list[CEPPS 5]||As of 2001 single transferable vote had been in use since 1990 to decide legislative elections.[Sawer 1] This is no longer the case.[CEPPS 5] Estonia's current open list system may not actually be a preferential voting system as it may be that voters cast only one preference vote.|
|Greece||1975-1984, 1996||open list|
|Hong Kong||1998||alternative vote||alternative vote is only used in the 4 smallest of Hong Kong's 29 functional constituencies. Officially called preferential elimination voting, the system is identical to the alternative vote.|
|Indonesia||2004||open list||only used to decided the elections of one legislative chamber[CEPPS 6]|
|Ireland[Sawer 1]||1922||alternative vote, single transferable vote||Single transferable vote is used to decide legislative elections only.[Sawer 1] Since 1937 Ireland has used the alternative vote to decide presidential elections.[Sawer 1]|
|Latvia[CEPPS 7]||x||open list||only used to decide legislative elections|
|Luxembourg||1945||open list[CEPPS 8]|
|Malta[Sawer 1]||1921||single transferable vote|
|Nauru||1968[Sawer 1]||Borda count[CEPPS 9]||Nauru uses the Dowdall system, which is an improved version of the Borda count.[CEPPS 9]|
|Netherlands||1945||open list[CEPPS 10]||only used to decide lower house legislative elections[CEPPS 10]|
|New Zealand||x||single transferable vote||alternative vote is used in only some elections, such as district health boards as well as some city and district councils.|
|Northern Ireland||1973[Sawer 1]||single transferable vote|
|Norway||1945||open list[CEPPS 11]|
|Papua New Guinea||2007||alternative vote[G&F 3]||Between 1964 and 1975 PNG used a system that allowed voters the option of ranking candidates.[Sawer 1] Currently, voters must rank only their top three choices.|
|San Marino||x||open list|
|Slovakia[CEPPS 12]||x||open list||only used to decide legislative elections|
|Slovenia||2000||open list[CEPPS 13]||Open list is only used to decide lower house legislative elections, and two seats, which are reserved for Hungarian and Italian minorities, are decided using a Borda count.[CEPPS 13]|
|Sri Lanka[Sawer 2]||1978||contingent vote and open list[CEPPS 14]||In Sri Lanka contingent vote is used to decide presidential elections[Sawer 1] and legislative elections, open list.[CEPPS 14]|
|Zimbabwe||1979-1985||alternative vote||only used for white candidates|
- Federated states
|Province/state||Country||Years in use||Type||Notes|
|Alberta[Sawer 1]||Canada||1952-1954||open list|
|Australian Capital Territory[Sawer 1]||Australia||1993–present||single transferable vote|
|British Columbia[Sawer 1]||Canada||1926-1955||open list|
|Manitoba[Sawer 1]||Canada||1927-1936||open list|
|New South Wales[Sawer 1]||Australia||1918–present||single transferable vote (1918-1926), contingent vote (1926-1928), alternative vote (1929-1980), open list (1981–present)||Since 1978, NSW has used the single transferable vote method to decide upper house legislative elections only.|
|Northern Territory[Sawer 1]||Australia||1980 only||x|
|Queensland[Sawer 1]||Australia||1892-1942, 1962–present||contingent vote (1892-1942), alternative vote (1962-1992), open list (1992–present)|
|South Australia[Sawer 1]||Australia||1929-1935, 1982–present||Alternative vote in multi-member districts (1929-1935), single transferable vote (1982–present)||used to decide upper house legislative elections only|
|Tasmania[Sawer 1]||Australia||1907–present||single transferable vote||Since 1909, alternative vote voting has been used in Tasmania to decide upper house legislative elections.|
|Victoria[Sawer 1]||Australia||1911–present||open list (1911-1915), alternative vote (1916–present)||Prior to 1916, Victoria did not use any preferential voting method to decide upper house legislative elections.|
|Western Australia[Sawer 1]||Australia||1907–present||open list (1907-1911), alternative vote (1912–present)||Since 1989, Western Australia has used the single transferable vote method to decide upper house legislative elections|
- International organizations
|Organization||Year of first use||Type||Notes|
|European Union[CEPPS 15]||x||option to use single transferable vote||Member countries can use either proportional representation (not a type of preferential voting) or single transferable vote to elect MEPs|
|City/town||Years in use||Type||Notes|
|Ann Arbor, MI||1975 only||alternative vote|
|Aspen, CO||2009 only||alternative vote|
|Berkeley, CA||2010–present||alternative vote|
|Burlington, VT||2005-2010||alternative vote|
|Hendersonville, NC||2007–present||alternative vote||part of a statewide pilot program|
|Memphis, TN||2011–present||alternative vote|
|Minneapolis, MN||2009–present||alternative vote|
|Oakland, CA||2010–present||alternative vote|
|Portland, ME||2011–present||alternative vote|
|San Francisco||2004-present||alternative vote|
|San Leandro, CA||2010–present||alternative vote|
|St. Paul, MN||2011-present||alternative vote|
|Takoma Park, MD||2006–present||alternative vote|
|Telluride, CO||2011–present||alternative vote|
- Brent, Peter, A Short History of Preferential Voting (in Australia) Mumble Blog, The Australian. 17 April 2011.
- "Electoral Systems in Europe: An Overview". European Parliament in Brussels: European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation. October 2000. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
- Saari, Donald (1995). Basic Geometry of Voting. Springer. p. 46. ISBN 9783540600640.
- Gofman and Feld, 2004, pp. 649
- Gofman and Feld, 2004, pp. 647
- Gofman and Feld, 2004, pp. 652
- Bialik, Carl (May 14, 2011). "Latest Issue on the Ballot: How to Hold a Vote". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- Nick Clegg (18 February 2011 09:18 ET). Votes referendum: Deputy PM Nick Clegg's speech in full. BBC.
- "Voting experts unanimously reject First Past the Post". London School of Economics and Political Science. 21 April 2011. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- Election database 1st February 2004
- Irish Commission on Electronic Voting 2004
- Dublin County Returning Officer complete table of votes cast Dublin North (zip file)
- Wilf, Herbert S. (January 1994) . "Chapter 5: Analytic and asymptotic methods". generatingfunctionology (Second Edition ed.). Academic Press. pp. 175–176. ISBN 0-12-751956-4. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
- OEIS A007526
- "Our electoral system". About Australia. Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. May 2008. Retrieved June 28, 2012.
- Kaare Ström, Wolfgang C. Müller, Torbjörn Bergman - 2006 (2006). Parliamentary Democracy: Promise and Problems. Oxford University Press. pp. 131–133.
- Mainwaring, Scott (October 1991). "Politicians, Parties, and Electoral Systems: Brazil in Comparative Perspective". Comparative Politics 24 (1): 21–43.
- "Section 54: Voting and other matters". Constitution of Fiji. International Constitutional Law Project. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- The fact that Hong Kong began using preferential voting in 1998 can be seen from two sources:
- Minutes from a 1997 LegCo meeting include a proposal to use "preferential elimination voting" for the three smallest functional constituencies. See, "Legislative Council Bill (Minutes) 11 Sept 97". The Legislative Council Commission. Retrieved July 2, 2012.
- 1998 is the first year "preferential elimination voting" can be found in the Hong Kong yearbook. See, "The Electoral System: b. Functional Constituency". Hong Kong Yearbook 1998. Government Information Centre of Hong Kong. Retrieved July 2, 2012.
- "Ch. 3, FUNCTIONAL CONSTITUENCIES: The Preferential Elimination System of the 4 SFCs". Guidelines on Election-related Activities in respect of the Legislative Council Election. Hong Kong Electoral Affairs Comisson. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "Functional Constituency Elections". 2000 Legislative Council Elections. Hong Kong Electoral Affairs Commission. 2000. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "Indonesia: Continuity, Deals and Consensus". Electoral Systems. ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
- Bruno, Greg (February 5, 2009). "Reshuffling the Political Deck". Backgrounder: Iraq's Political Landscape. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
- Miriam A. Golden, Lucio Picci (April 2008). "Pork-Barrel Politics in Postwar Italy, 1953-94". American Journal of Political Science 52 (2).
- "STV - It's Simple To Vote". New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs. 2010. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "Frequently Asked Questions - PR/STV Voting System". Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. 2006. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- Blackwell, Eoin (June 20, 2012). "Observers urge peaceful PNG election". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "Voting". Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea. 2011. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Article 80: The National Assembly; Composition and Election". Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. United Nations Public Administration Network. pp. 47–48. Retrieved July 3, 2012.
- "Negotiations". Administration and Cost of Elections Project. ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
- "Instant Runoff Voting (IRV): History of Use in Ann Arbor". Green Party of Michigan. 1998. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- Urquhart, Janet (June 28, 2012). "Marks prevails in lawsuit over Aspen election ballots". The Aspen Times. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "Ranked-Choice Voting". Alameda County Registrar of Voters. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- McCrea, Lynne (03/03/10). vote-voting/ "Burlington Voters Repeal Instant Runoff Voting". Vermont Public Radio. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "New Voting Method for November 6, 2007: Hendersonville Pilots Instant Runoff Voting". Henderson County Board of Elections. 2007. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- Harbin, John (April 8, 2011). "Hendersonville votes to keep instant runoff ballots". BlueRidgeNow.com. Times-News. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "London's elections: How the voting works". BBC. 3 May 2000. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "Voting systems in the UK". Parliament of the United Kingdom. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- Gilbert, Curtis (November 2, 2009). "Instant runoff voting FAQ". Minnesota Public Radio. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- Poundstone, William (2009). Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (And What We Can Do About It). Macmillan. p. 170. ISBN 9780809048922.
- Baran, Madeleine (November 7, 2011). "Election Day in St. Paul Tuesday". Minnesota Public Radio. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "Ranked Voting Information". Ramsey County. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "CITY OF TAKOMA PARK ELECTION 2011". City Of Takoma Park. 2011. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "Instant Runoff Voting Brochure". Town of Telluride. 2011. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- "Glossary". ElectionGuide. Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening. Retrieved July 1, 2012.
- "Country Profile: Australia". 07/26/2010. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Country Profile: Colombia". 06/19/2012. Retrieved 07/08/2012.
- "Country Profile: Czech Republic". 04/25/2012. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Country Profile: Estonia". 04/15/2011. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Country Profile: Indonesia". 11/26/2010. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Country Profile: Latvia". 08/05/2011. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Country Profile: Luxembourg". 02/04/2010. Retrieved 07/08/2012.
- "Country Profile: Nauru". 11/16/2011. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Country Profile: Netherlands". 10/14/2010. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Country Profile: Norway". 03/18/2011. Retrieved 07/08/2012.
- "Country Profile: Slovakia". 02/01/2012. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Country Profile: Slovenia". 02/28/2012. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Country Profile: Sri Lanka". 02/18/2010. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- "Country Profile: European Union". 02/04/2010. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
- Gofman and Feld, 2004, pp. 652
- Gofman and Feld, 2004, pp. 647
- Bernard Grofman, Scott L. Feld (2004). "If you like the alternative vote (a.k.a. the instant runoﬀ), then you ought to know about the Coombs rule". Electoral Studies 23: 653.