Contents 1 Voting 1.1 Ballot types 1.2 Examples of plurality voting 1.2.1 General elections in the United Kingdom 1.2.2 Example 2 Disadvantages 2.1 Tactical voting 2.2 Fewer political parties 2.3 Wasted votes 2.4 Gerrymandering 2.5 Manipulation charges 2.6 Spoiler effect 2.7 Issues specific to particular countries 2.7.1 Solomon Islands 3 Advantages 3.1 Preservation of "one person, one vote" principle 3.2 Advantages compared to proportional representation 4 International examples 4.1 List of countries 5 See also 6 References


Voting[edit] See also: Westminster system Plurality voting is used for local and/or national elections in 43 of the 193 countries that are members of the United Nations. Plurality voting is particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom and former British colonies, including the United States, Canada and India.[2] In single winner plurality voting, each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the winner of the election is whichever candidate represents a plurality of voters, that is, whoever received the largest number of votes. This makes plurality voting among the simplest of all electoral systems for voters and vote counting officials. (However the drawing of district boundary lines can be very contentious in this system.) In an election for a legislative body, with single-member seats, each voter in a given geographically-defined electoral district is entitled to vote for one candidate from a list of candidates competing to represent that district. Under the plurality system, the winner of the election then becomes the representative of the entire electoral district, and serves with representatives of other electoral districts. In an election for a single seat, such as for president in a presidential system, the same style of ballot is used and the winner is the candidate who receives the largest number of votes. In the two-round system, usually the two highest polling candidates in the first ballot progress to the second round Run-off ballot. 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, or for up to n candidates, or maybe some other number. Ballot types[edit] An example of a plurality ballot. Generally plurality ballots can be categorized into two forms. The simplest form is a blank ballot where the name of a candidate(s) is written in by hand. A more structured ballot will list all the candidates and allow a mark to be made next to the name of a single candidate (or more than one, in some cases); however a structured ballot can also include space for a write-in candidate. Examples of plurality voting[edit] General elections in the United Kingdom[edit] The United Kingdom, like the United States and Canada, uses single-member districts as the base for national elections. Each electoral district (constituency) chooses one member of parliament, i.e. the candidate that gets the most votes, whether or not he/she gets 50% or more of the votes cast ("first past the post"). In 1992, for example, a Liberal Democrat in Scotland won a seat with just 26% of the votes. This 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, and that contributes to multi-party systems.) Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland use the first past the post system for UK general elections, but use versions of proportional representation for elections to their own assemblies/parliaments. All of the UK has used a form of proportional representation for European Parliament elections. The countries that inherited the British majoritarian system tend toward two large parties: one left, the other right, such as the U.S. Democrats and Republicans. Canada is an exception, with three major political parties consisting of the New Democratic Party which is to the left, the Conservative Party which is to the right and the Liberal Party which is slightly off center to the left. A fourth party that no longer has major party status is the separatist Bloc Québécois party, which is territorial and concentrated in Quebec. New Zealand used the British system, and it too yielded two large parties. It also left many New Zealanders unhappy, because other viewpoints were ignored, so its parliament in 1993 adopted a new electoral law, modelled on Germany's system of proportional representation (PR) with a partial selection by constituencies. New Zealand soon developed a more complex party system.[3] After the 2015 Elections in the United Kingdom, there were calls from UKIP to change to proportional representation after receiving 3,881,129 votes but only 1 MP.[4] The Green Party was similarly under-represented. This contrasted greatly with the SNP in Scotland who only received 1,454,436 votes but won 56 seats, due to more concentrated support. Example[edit] v t e Imagine that Tennessee is having an election on the location of its capital. The population of Tennessee is concentrated around its four major cities, which are spread throughout the state. For this example, suppose that the entire electorate lives in these four cities and that everyone wants to live as near to the capital as possible. The candidates for the capital are: Memphis, the state's largest city, with 42% of the voters, but located far from the other cities Nashville, with 26% of the voters, near the center of the state Knoxville, with 17% of the voters Chattanooga, with 15% of the voters The preferences of the voters would be divided like this: 42% of voters (close to Memphis) 26% of voters (close to Nashville) 15% of voters (close to Chattanooga) 17% of voters (close to Knoxville) Memphis Nashville Chattanooga Knoxville Nashville Chattanooga Knoxville Memphis Chattanooga Knoxville Nashville Memphis Knoxville Chattanooga Nashville Memphis If each voter in each city naively selects one city on the ballot (Memphis voters select Memphis, Nashville voters select Nashville, and so on), then Memphis will be selected, as it has the most votes (42%). Note that this system does not require that the winner have a majority but only a plurality. Memphis wins because it has the most votes, even though 58% of the voters in this example preferred Memphis least. Notice that this problem does not hold anymore in the two-round system, in which Nashville would have won. (In practice, with FPTP, many voters in Chattanooga and Knoxville are likely to vote tactically for Nashville: see below.)


Disadvantages[edit] Tactical voting[edit] 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". Voters are pressured to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if their true preference is neither, because a vote for any other candidate will likely have no impact on the final result. 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 Tennessee example, if all the voters for Chattanooga and Knoxville had instead voted for Nashville, then Nashville would have won (with 58% of the vote); this would only have been the 3rd choice for those voters, but voting for their respective 1st choices (their own cities) actually results in their 4th choice (Memphis) being elected. The difficulty is sometimes summed up, in an extreme form, as "All votes for anyone other than the second place are votes for the winner", because by voting for other candidates, they have denied those votes to the second place candidate who could have won had they received them. It is often claimed by United States Democrats that Democrat Al Gore lost the 2000 Presidential Election to Republican George W. Bush because some voters on the left voted for Ralph Nader of the Green Party, who exit polls indicated would have preferred Gore at 45% to Bush at 27%, with the rest not voting in Nader's absence.[5] Such a mentality is reflected by elections in Puerto Rico and its three principal voter groups: the Independentistas (pro-independence), the Populares (pro-commonwealth), and the Estadistas (pro-statehood). Historically, there has been a tendency for Independentista voters to elect Popular candidates and policies. This phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the Estadistas have the most voters on the island. It is so widely recognised that the Puerto Ricans sometimes call the Independentistas who vote for the Populares "melons", because the fruit is green on the outside but red on the inside (in reference to the party colors). Because voters have to predict in advance who the top two candidates will be, this can cause significant perturbation to the system: Substantial power is given to the media. Some voters will tend to believe the media's assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election. Even voters who distrust the media will know that other voters do believe the media, and therefore those candidates who receive the most media attention will nonetheless be the most popular and thus most likely to be in one of the top two. A newly appointed candidate, who is in fact supported by the majority of voters, may be considered (due to the lack of a track record) to not be likely to become one of the top two candidates; thus, they will receive a reduced number of votes, which will then give them a reputation as a low poller in future elections, compounding the problem. The system may promote votes against more so than votes for. In the UK, entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting against the Conservative party by voting either Labour or Liberal Democrat. For example, in a constituency held by the Conservatives, with the Liberal Democrats as the second-place party and the Labour Party in third, Labour supporters might be urged to vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate (who has a smaller majority to close and more support in the constituency) than their own candidate on the basis that Labour supporters would prefer an MP from a competing left/liberal party than a Conservative one. Similarly in Labour/Lib Dem marginals where the Conservatives are third, Conservative voters may be encouraged or tempted to vote Lib Dem to keep defeat Labour. If enough voters use this tactic, the first-past-the-post system becomes, effectively, runoff voting—a completely different system—where the first round is held in the court of public opinion; a good example of this is the Winchester by-election, 1997. Proponents of other single-winner electoral systems argue that their proposals would reduce the need for tactical voting and reduce the spoiler effect. Examples include the commonly used two-round system of runoffs and instant runoff voting, along with less tested systems such as approval voting, score voting and Condorcet methods. Fewer political parties[edit] This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) A graph showing the difference between the popular vote and the number of seats won by major political parties at the United Kingdom general election, 2005 Duverger's law is a theory that constituencies that use first-past-the-post systems will have a two-party system, given enough time. First-past-the-post tends to reduce the number of political parties to a greater extent than most other methods do, making it more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats. (In the United Kingdom, 21 out of 24 General Elections since 1922 have produced a single-party majority government.) FPTP's tendency toward fewer parties and more frequent one-party rules can also produce government that may not consider as wide a range of perspectives and concerns. It is entirely possible that a voter finds all major parties to have similar views on issues and that a voter does not have a meaningful way of expressing a dissenting opinion through his vote. As fewer choices are offered to voters, voters may vote for a candidate although they disagree with him, because they disagree even more with his opponents. Consequently, candidates will less closely reflect the viewpoints of those who vote for them. Furthermore, one-party rule is more likely to lead to radical changes in government policy even though the changes are favoured only by a plurality or a bare majority of the voters, whereas a multi-party system usually require greater consensus in order to make dramatic changes in policy. Wasted votes[edit] This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. For example, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes—a total of 70% wasted votes. This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. Alternative electoral systems attempt to ensure that almost all votes are effective in influencing the result and the number of wasted votes is consequently minimised. Gerrymandering[edit] Because FPTP permits a high level of wasted vote, an election under FPTP is easily gerrymandered unless safeguards are in place. In gerrymandering, constituencies are deliberately designed to unfairly increase the number of seats won by one party at the expense of another. In brief, suppose that governing party G wishes to reduce the seats that will be won by opposition party O in the next election. It creates a number of constituencies in each of which O has an overwhelming majority of votes. O will win these seats, but a large number of its voters will waste their votes. Then the rest of the constituencies are designed to have small majorities for G. Few G votes are wasted, and G will win a large number of seats by small margins. As a result of the gerrymander, O's seats have cost it more votes than G's seats. Manipulation charges[edit] The presence of spoilers often gives rise to suspicions that 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, inducing charges that such an act was intended from the beginning. Spoiler effect[edit] Main article: Spoiler effect The spoiler effect is the effect of vote splitting between candidates or ballot questions with similar ideologies. One spoiler candidate's presence in the election draws votes from a major candidate with similar politics thereby causing a strong opponent of both or several to win. Smaller parties can disproportionately change the outcome of an FPTP election by swinging what is called the 50-50% balance of two party systems, by creating a faction within one or both ends of the political spectrum which shifts the winner of the election from an absolute majority outcome to a simple majority outcome favouring the previously less favoured party. In comparison, for electoral systems using proportional representation small groups win only their proportional share of representation. Issues specific to particular countries[edit] Solomon Islands[edit] In August 2008, Sir Peter Kenilorea commented on what he perceived as the flaws of a first-past-the-post electoral system in the Solomon Islands: An[...] underlying cause of political instability and poor governance, in my opinion, is our electoral system and its related problems. It has been identified by a number of academics and practitioners that the First Past the Post system is such that a Member elected to Parliament is sometimes elected by a small percentage of voters where there are many candidates in a particular constituency. I believe that this system is part of the reason why voters ignore political parties and why candidates try an appeal to voters' material desires and relationships instead of political parties. [...] Moreover, this system creates a political environment where a Member is elected by a relatively small number of voters with the effect that this Member is then expected to ignore his party’s philosophy and instead look after that core base of voters in terms of their material needs. Another relevant factor that I see in relation to the electoral system is the proven fact that it is rather conducive, and thus has not prevented, corrupt elections practices such as ballot buying.


Advantages[edit] This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Preservation of "one person, one vote" principle[edit] The arguments for plurality voting rely on the preservation of the "one person, one vote" principle (also "one man, one vote", or OMOV, or more recently "one member, one vote"), as cited by the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein each voter is only able to cast one vote in a given election, where that vote can only go to one candidate. Plurality voting elects the candidate who is preferred first by the largest number of voters, although this need not be an absolute majority. Other electoral systems, such as instant-runoff voting, party-list proportional representation or single transferable vote also preserve OMOV, but it is not as obvious that they do so, because they rely on lower voter preference to enable a candidate to earn either an absolute majority (single member district) or a quota (multi-member district), respectively.[citation needed] Advantages compared to proportional representation[edit] Plurality is often conflated with single-winner electoral systems in general, in order to contrast it with proportional representation. In this context, it shares advantages, such as local accountability, with other single-winner systems.


International examples[edit] 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 in the late 1990s. After the formation of a new coalition government in 2010, it was announced as part of the coalition agreement that a referendum would be held on switching to the alternative vote system. However the alternative vote system was rejected 2-1 by British voters in a referendum held on 5 May 2011. Canada also uses FPTP for national and 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 system after the 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. An October 2007 referendum in the Canadian province of Ontario on adopting a Mixed Member Proportional system, also requiring 60% approval, failed with only 36.9% voting in favour. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, Australia and New Zealand are notable examples of countries within the UK, or with previous links to it, that use non-FPTP electoral systems (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales use FPTP in United Kingdom general elections, however). Nations which have undergone democratic reforms since 1990 but have not adopted the FPTP system include South Africa, almost all of the former Eastern bloc nations, Russia, Afghanistan and Iraq. List of countries[edit] See also: List of electoral systems by country Countries that use plurality voting to elect the lower or only house of their legislature include:[6] Antigua and Barbuda Azerbaijan Bahamas Barbados Bangladesh Belize Bermuda Bhutan Botswana Canada Congo (Brazzaville) Cote d'Ivoire Cook Islands Comoros Dominica Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Grenada Ghana Gambia India Iran Jamaica Kenya Kuwait Lebanon Lao People's Democratic Republic Saint Lucia Liberia Marshall Islands Burma (Myanmar) Maldives Malawi Malaysia Micronesia Nigeria Niue Oman Palau Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa Solomon Islands Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Swaziland Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tuvalu Uganda United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United States Yemen Zambia


See also[edit] Texas gubernatorial election, 2006 - Example of an incumbent governor, Rick Perry, winning re-election despite gaining less than 40 percent of the vote Cube rule Deviation from proportionality Plurality-at-large voting List of democracy and elections-related topics Instant-runoff voting Approval Voting Score voting Single non-transferable vote Single transferable vote Runoff voting


References[edit] ^ "Plurality-Majority Systems". Mtholyoke.edu. Retrieved 2010-05-08.  ^ "The Global Distribution of Electoral Systems". Aceproject.org. 2008-05-20. Retrieved 2010-05-08.  ^ Roskin, Michael, Countries and Concepts (2007) ^ "Reckless Out Amid UKIP Frustration At System". Retrieved 2015-05-08.  ^ Rosenbaum, David E. (2004-02-24). "THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE INDEPENDENT; Relax, Nader Advises Alarmed Democrats, but the 2000 Math Counsels Otherwise". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-08.  ^ "Electoral Systems". ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. Retrieved 2015-11-03.  v t e Electoral systems Part of the politics and election series Single-winner voting system Approval voting Borda count Bucklin voting Contingent vote Coombs' method Copeland's method Dodgson's method Exhaustive ballot First-past-the-post voting Instant-runoff voting Kemeny–Young method Majority judgment Simple majoritarianism Minimax Condorcet Nanson's method Plurality Positional voting system Range voting Ranked pairs Schulze method Two-round system Proportional representation Mixed-member Party-list Single transferable vote Schulze STV CPO-STV Highest averages method Sainte-Laguë D'Hondt Largest remainder method Alternative vote Plus Closed list Open list Overhang seat Underhang seat Semi-proportional representation Parallel voting Single non-transferable vote Cumulative voting Limited voting Proportional approval voting Sequential proportional approval voting Satisfaction approval voting Usage Table of voting systems by country Voting system criteria Comparison Condorcet criterion Condorcet loser criterion Consistency criterion Independence of clones Independence of irrelevant alternatives Independence of Smith-dominated alternatives Later-no-harm criterion Majority criterion Majority loser criterion Monotonicity criterion Mutual majority criterion Pareto efficiency Participation criterion Plurality criterion Resolvability criterion Reversal symmetry Smith criterion Voting system quotas Droop quota Hagenbach-Bischoff quota Hare quota Imperiali quota Other Ballot Election threshold First-preference votes Spoilt vote Sortition Portal — Project Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plurality_voting&oldid=824741886" Categories: Electoral systemsHidden categories: Articles to be merged from February 2018All articles to be mergedUse dmy dates from June 2013Use British English from June 2013Articles needing additional references from September 2015All articles needing additional referencesArticles needing additional references from June 2007Articles needing additional references from October 2013All articles with unsourced statementsArticles with unsourced statements from June 2015Pages using div col with deprecated parameters


Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces ArticleTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this page Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages AzərbaycancaБългарскиCatalàČeštinaCymraeg한국어Bahasa Indonesia日本語PortuguêsРусскийSlovenčinaТоҷикӣTürkçeУкраїнська中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 9 February 2018, at 05:24. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.312","walltime":"0.654","ppvisitednodes":{"value":1588,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":69997,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":2992,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":12,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":8,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 530.349 1 -total"," 20.24% 107.340 2 Template:DMCA"," 20.02% 106.193 1 Template:Use_British_English"," 19.91% 105.578 2 Template:Dated_maintenance_category"," 18.96% 100.568 1 Template:Merge"," 15.76% 83.568 1 Template:Reflist"," 13.10% 69.481 5 Template:Cite_web"," 11.71% 62.080 1 Template:Mbox"," 9.30% 49.323 3 Template:Unreferenced_section"," 6.93% 36.778 3 Template:Unreferenced"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.119","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":3841643,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1271","timestamp":"20180222020914","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":77,"wgHostname":"mw1325"});});


Plurality_voting - Photos and All Basic Informations

Plurality_voting More Links

Wikipedia:MergingFirst-past-the-post VotingTalk:Plurality VotingWinner-takes-all (disambiguation)Category:PoliticsElectoral SystemFirst-past-the-post VotingSingle Non-transferable VoteLimited VotingPlurality-at-large VotingGeneral TicketTwo-round SystemExhaustive BallotRanked VotingInstant-runoff VotingContingent VoteCoombs' MethodCondorcet MethodCopeland's MethodDodgson's MethodKemeny–Young MethodMinimax CondorcetNanson's MethodRanked PairsSchulze MethodBorda CountBucklin VotingOklahoma Primary Electoral SystemPreferential Block VotingCardinal VotingRange VotingApproval VotingProportional Approval VotingSequential Proportional Approval VotingSatisfaction Approval VotingMajority JudgmentProportional RepresentationParty-list Proportional RepresentationOpen ListClosed ListLocalized ListHighest Averages MethodD'Hondt MethodWebster/Sainte-Laguë MethodHuntington–Hill MethodLargest Remainder MethodHare QuotaDroop QuotaImperiali QuotaHagenbach-Bischoff QuotaSingle Transferable VoteCPO-STVGregory MethodSchulze STVWright SystemBiproportional ApportionmentFair Majority VotingMixed Electoral SystemMixed-member Proportional RepresentationAdditional Member SystemParallel VotingScorporoMajority Bonus SystemAlternative Vote PlusDual-member Proportional RepresentationCumulative VotingBinomial VotingProxy VotingProxy VotingSortitionRandom BallotComparison Of Electoral SystemsSocial Choice TheoryArrow's Impossibility TheoremGibbard–Satterthwaite TheoremPublic Choice TheoryPortal:PoliticsTemplate:Electoral SystemsTemplate Talk:Electoral SystemsElectoral SystemPlurality (voting)Single-member DistrictFirst-past-the-postWinner-takes-allPlurality-at-large VotingLok SabhaAbsolute MajoritySingle-member DistrictLouisianaGeorgia (U.S. State)Two-round SystemPolitical ScienceProportional RepresentationWestminster SystemUnited NationsPlurality (voting)ConstituencyPresidentPresidential SystemTwo-round SystemTwo-round SystemEnlargeWrite-in CandidateUK General ElectionMember Of ParliamentInverness, Nairn And Lochaber (UK Parliament Constituency)Multi-party SystemElections In GermanyUnited Kingdom General Election, 2015UKIPTemplate:Tenn Voting ExampleTemplate Talk:Tenn Voting ExampleTennesseeCapital (political)ConstituencyMemphis, TennesseeNashville, TennesseeKnoxville, TennesseeChattanooga, TennesseeMajorityPlurality (voting)Two-round SystemTactical VotingTactical VotingPlurality VotingDemocratic Party (United States)Al GoreU.S. Presidential Election, 2000Republican Party (United States)George W. BushRalph NaderGreen Party Of The United StatesPuerto RicoPuerto Rican Independence PartyPopular Democratic Party Of Puerto RicoCommonwealth (U.S. Insular Area)New Progressive Party Of Puerto RicoU.S. StateConservative Party (UK)Labour Party (UK)Liberal Democrats (UK)United Kingdom ConstituenciesTwo-round SystemWinchester By-election, 1997Spoiler EffectTwo-round SystemInstant-runoff VotingApproval VotingScore VotingCondorcet MethodsWikipedia:Citing SourcesWikipedia:VerifiabilityHelp:Introduction To Referencing With Wiki Markup/1Wikipedia:VerifiabilityHelp:Maintenance Template RemovalEnlargeUnited Kingdom General Election, 2005Duverger's LawTwo-party SystemUnited KingdomWikipedia:Citing SourcesWikipedia:VerifiabilityHelp:Introduction To Referencing With Wiki Markup/1Wikipedia:VerifiabilityHelp:Maintenance Template RemovalWasted VoteUK General Election Of 2005Wasted VoteGerrymanderingSpoiler (politician)Strategic NominationSpoiler EffectPolitical FactionPolitical SpectrumAbsolute MajorityPlurality (voting)Proportional RepresentationPeter KeniloreaSolomon IslandsWikipedia:Citing SourcesWikipedia:VerifiabilityHelp:Introduction To Referencing With Wiki Markup/1Wikipedia:VerifiabilityHelp:Maintenance Template RemovalReynolds V. SimsSupreme Court Of The United StatesInstant-runoff VotingParty-list Proportional RepresentationSingle Transferable VoteAbsolute MajorityElectoral DistrictElection ThresholdWikipedia:Citation NeededProportional RepresentationUnited KingdomJenkins Commission (UK)Conservative-Liberal Democrat CoalitionConservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition AgreementUnited Kingdom Alternative Vote Referendum, 2011Instant-runoff VotingUnited Kingdom Alternative Vote Referendum, 2011CanadaProvinces And Territories Of CanadaBritish ColumbiaSingle Transferable VoteCitizens' Assembly On Electoral Reform (British Columbia)Ontario Electoral Reform Referendum, 2007OntarioMixed-member Proportional RepresentationNorthern IrelandScotlandWalesRepublic Of IrelandAustraliaNew ZealandSouth AfricaEastern BlocRussiaAfghanistanIraqList Of Electoral Systems By CountryAntigua And BarbudaAzerbaijanBahamasBarbadosBangladeshBelizeBermudaBhutanBotswanaCanadaCongo (Brazzaville)Cote D'IvoireCook IslandsComorosDominicaEritreaEthiopiaGabonGrenadaGhanaGambiaIndiaIranJamaicaKenyaKuwaitLebanonLao People's Democratic RepublicSaint LuciaLiberiaMarshall IslandsBurma (Myanmar)MaldivesMalawiMalaysiaMicronesiaNigeriaNiueOmanPalauSaint Kitts And NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent And The GrenadinesSamoaSolomon IslandsSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSwazilandTanzaniaTongaTrinidad And TobagoTuvaluUgandaUnited Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern IrelandUnited StatesYemenZambiaTexas Gubernatorial Election, 2006Rick PerryCube RuleDeviation From ProportionalityPlurality-at-large VotingPortal:PoliticsInstant-runoff VotingApproval VotingScore VotingSingle Non-transferable VoteSingle Transferable VoteTwo-round SystemMichael RoskinTemplate:Voting SystemsTemplate Talk:Voting SystemsElectoral SystemPoliticsElectionSingle-winner Voting SystemApproval VotingBorda CountBucklin VotingContingent VoteCoombs' MethodCopeland's MethodDodgson's MethodExhaustive BallotFirst-past-the-post VotingInstant-runoff VotingKemeny–Young MethodMajority JudgmentMajority RuleMinimax CondorcetNanson's MethodPlurality Voting SystemPositional Voting SystemRange VotingRanked PairsSchulze MethodTwo-round SystemProportional RepresentationMixed-member Proportional RepresentationParty-list Proportional RepresentationSingle Transferable VoteSchulze STVCPO-STVHighest Averages MethodSainte-Laguë MethodD'Hondt MethodLargest Remainder MethodAlternative Vote PlusClosed ListOpen ListOverhang SeatUnderhang SeatSemi-proportional RepresentationParallel VotingSingle Non-transferable VoteCumulative VotingLimited VotingProportional Approval VotingSequential Proportional Approval VotingSatisfaction Approval VotingTable Of Voting Systems By CountryComparison Of Electoral SystemsCondorcet CriterionCondorcet Loser CriterionConsistency CriterionIndependence Of Clones CriterionIndependence Of Irrelevant AlternativesIndependence Of Smith-dominated AlternativesLater-no-harm CriterionMajority CriterionMajority Loser CriterionMonotonicity CriterionMutual Majority CriterionPareto EfficiencyParticipation CriterionPlurality CriterionResolvability CriterionReversal SymmetrySmith CriterionDroop QuotaHagenbach-Bischoff QuotaHare QuotaImperiali QuotaBallotElection ThresholdFirst-preference VotesSpoilt VoteSortitionPortal:PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsHelp:CategoryCategory:Electoral SystemsCategory:Articles To Be Merged From February 2018Category:All Articles To Be MergedCategory:Use Dmy Dates From June 2013Category:Use British English From June 2013Category:Articles Needing Additional References From September 2015Category:All Articles Needing Additional ReferencesCategory:Articles Needing Additional References From June 2007Category:Articles Needing Additional References From October 2013Category:All Articles With Unsourced StatementsCategory:Articles With Unsourced Statements From June 2015Category:Pages Using Div Col With Deprecated ParametersDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Content Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer



view link view link view link view link view link