Draft:History and use of electoral systems

An electoral system is a set of rules that determine how elections and referendums are conducted and how their results are determined. Elections and referendums have been organized by governments, business, non-profit organisations and informal organizations. There are many variations in electoral systems, with the most common systems being first-past-the-post voting, the two-round (runoff) system, and proportional representation.

The study of electoral methods is called social choice theory or voting theory, and this study can take place within the field of political science, economics, or mathematics, and specifically within the subfields of game theory and mechanism design.

Timeline

edit

A chronological list of discovery, invention, development, description, or first known adoption and major use of electoral systems.

Pre-Arrovian

edit

Premodern

edit

18th century

edit

19th century

edit

Post-Arrovian (Modern social choice)

edit

21st century

edit

History and use of major systems

edit

Plurality voting and winner-take-all

edit

First-past-the-post

edit

Block voting and general ticket

edit

Two-round system

edit

Instant-runoff voting

edit

Condorcet systems

edit

Approval voting

edit

Proportional and semi-proportional systems

edit

Single transferable vote

edit

Historically, the single transferable vote (STV) was the first electoral system designed to achieve proportional representation.

It has seen a series of relatively modest periods of usage and disusage throughout the world; however, today it is seeing increasing popularity among proponents of electoral reform as a method of proportional or semi-proportional representation. This is especially prominent in the English speaking world, where reformers advocate for STV due to its similarity to FPTP in that voters primarily vote for candidates, not party-lists. By contrast, countries which developed or reformed their electoral systems later, without the long-lasting tradition of plurality or majoritarian voting (often implemented before modern party systems), list PR was more likely to be adopted.

STV has been used in many different local, regional and national electoral systems, as well as in various other types of bodies, around the world, notably in Australia, Ireland and Malta.

List PR

edit

Party-list PR is the newer and by far the most common version of proportional representation, although it is relatively less common in English speaking world, where majoritarian representation via first-past-the-post is still often dominant. The historical reason for the is the Westminster system of government and it's influence among former colonies of the United Kingdom.[citation needed]

Electoral reform in list PR systems often focuses on implementing open lists, instead of closed lists, giving voters more control on which candidates get elected. However, there are parties which promote majoritarian systems for various reasons, ranging from simplicity, governability, and personalised representation. An example is the Dutch Democrats 66 party. Others campaign for the opposite, increasing proportionality by larger constituencies (sometimes a single, national constituency) and abolishment of electoral thresholds.

Limited voting

edit

Mixed systems

edit

Use by country

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ Doron, Gideon; Kronick, Richard (1977). "Single Transferrable Vote: An Example of a Perverse Social Choice Function". American Journal of Political Science. 21 (2): 303–311. doi:10.2307/2110496. ISSN 0092-5853.
  2. ^ "Divisor methods for proportional representation systems: An optimization approach to vector and matrix apportionment problems". Mathematical Social Sciences. 56 (2): 166–184. 2008-09-01. doi:10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2008.01.004. ISSN 0165-4896.
  3. ^ Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform (September 29, 2016). "Meeting No. 33 Evidence".
  4. ^ "Score Runoff Voting: The New Voting Method that Could Save Our Democratic Process". Independent Voter Network. 2016-12-08. Retrieved 2017-04-05.
  5. ^ Fabre, Adrien (2021). "Tie‐breaking the highest median: alternatives to the majority judgment". Social Choice and Welfare. 56: 101–124. doi:10.1007/s00355-020-01269-9. S2CID 226196615 – via Springer Link.

*