An electoral or voting 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, non-profit organisations and informal organisations. These rules govern all aspects of the voting process: when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who can stand as a candidate, how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted, how votes translate into the election outcome, limits on campaign spending, and other factors that can affect the result. Political electoral systems are defined by constitutions and electoral laws, are typically conducted by election 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 a legislature, 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 a political party or alliance. There are many variations in electoral systems. The most common single-winner methods all fall under the plurality-with-runoff family, which includes first-preference plurality, two-round, ranked-choice runoff (RCV), and plurality-with-primaries. Many countries combine two or more electoral systems in superposition.
The mathematical and normative study of voting rules falls under the branches of economics called social choice and mechanism design, but the question has also engendered substantial contributions from political scientists, analytic philosophers, computer scientists, and mathematicians. The field has produced several major results, including Arrow's impossibility theorem (showing that ranked voting cannot eliminate the spoiler effect) and Gibbard's theorem (showing it is impossible to design a straightforward voting system, i.e. one where it is always obvious to a strategic voter which ballot they should cast).
The most common categorizations of electoral systems are: single-winner vs. multi-winner systems and proportional representation vs. winner-take-all systems vs. mixed 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 the district elections are also winner-take-all, therefore the electoral system as a whole is also usually non-proportional. Some systems where multiple winners are elected at once (in the same district) are also winner-take-all.
In party 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. This is used in five countries as part of mixed systems.[1]
Plurality voting is a system in which the candidate(s) with the highest 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 as first-past-the-post; this is the second most common electoral system for national legislatures, with 58 countries using it for this purpose,[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.[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. Under block 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, a system used in eight countries.[1]
Approval voting is a choose-all-you-like voting system which 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 in which candidates must receive a majority of votes to be elected, either in a runoff election or final round of voting. This is sometimes referred to as a type of majority voting, although usually only a plurality is required in the last round, 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 to Condorcet-methods.
There are two main forms of runoff systems, one conducted in a single round of voting using ranked voting and the other using multiple elections, to successively narrow the field of candidates. Both are primarily used for single-member constituencies.
Runoff can be achieved in a single election using instant-runoff voting (IRV), whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference; this system is used for parliamentary elections in Australia and Papua New Guinea. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote in the first round, the second preferences of the lowest-ranked candidate are then added to the totals. This is repeated until a candidate achieves over 50% of the number of valid votes. If not all voters use all their preference votes, then the count may continue until two candidates remain, at which point the winner is the one with the most votes. A modified form of IRV is the contingent vote where voters do not rank all candidates, but have a limited number of preference votes. If no candidate has a majority in the first round, all candidates are excluded except the top two, with the highest remaining preference votes from the votes for the excluded candidates then added to the totals to determine the winner. This system is used in Sri Lankan presidential elections, with voters allowed to give three preferences.[4]
The other main form of runoff system is the two-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 20 countries for electing 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 is decided by plurality voting. Some countries use a modified form of the two-round system, such as Ecuador where a candidate in the presidential election is declared the winner if they receive 40% of the vote and are 10% ahead of their nearest rival,[5] or Argentina (45% plus 10% ahead), where the system is known as ballotage. In some cases, a runoff may be held using a different system, as in contingent elections when no candidate wins a majority of the United States Electoral College.
An exhaustive ballot is not limited to two rounds, but sees the last-placed candidate eliminated in each round of voting. 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 the Swiss Federal Council. In some formats there may be multiple rounds held without any candidates being eliminated until a candidate achieves a majority.
Positional systems like the Borda Count are ranked voting systems that assign a certain number of points to each candidate, weighted by position. The most popular such system is first-preference plurality. Another well-known variant, the Borda 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 in Nauru 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]
Proportional representation is the most widely used electoral system for national legislatures, with the parliaments of over eighty countries elected by various forms of the system.
Party-list proportional representation is the single most common electoral system and is used by 80 countries, and involves voters voting for a list of candidates proposed by a party. In closed list systems voters do not have any influence over the candidates put forward by the party, but in open list systems voters are able to both vote for the party list and influence the order in which candidates will be assigned seats. In some countries, notably Israel and the Netherlands, elections are carried out using 'pure' proportional representation, with the votes tallied on a national level before assigning seats to parties. However, in most cases several multi-member constituencies are used rather than a single nationwide constituency, giving an element of geographical representation; but this can result in the distribution of seats not reflecting the national vote totals. As a result, some countries have leveling seats to award to parties whose seat totals are lower than their proportion of the national vote.
In addition to the electoral threshold (the minimum percentage of the vote that a party must obtain to win seats), there are several different ways to allocate seats in proportional systems. There are two main types of systems: highest average and largest remainder. Highest average systems involve dividing the votes received by each party by a divisor or vote average that represents an idealized seats-to-votes ratio, then rounding normally. In the largest remainder system, parties' vote shares are divided by an electoral 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. In STV, multi-member districts are used and each voter casts one vote, being a ranked ballot marked for individual candidates, rather than voting for a party list. STV is used in Malta and the Republic of Ireland. To be certain of being elected, candidates must pass a quota (the Droop quota being the most common). Candidates that pass the quota are elected. If necessary to fill seats, votes are transferred from the least successful candidates. 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 seats.[10]
En el sistema de voto único e intransferible (SNTV), los votantes pueden votar por un solo candidato y los candidatos que reciben más votos son declarados ganadores; este sistema se utiliza en Kuwait , las Islas Pitcairn y Vanuatu . [1]
En varios países se utilizan sistemas mixtos para elegir a los legisladores, como el voto paralelo (también conocido como sistema mayoritario mixto) y el sistema de representación proporcional mixta .
En los sistemas de votación paralela no compensatoria, que se utilizan en 20 países, [1] los miembros de una asamblea legislativa se eligen mediante dos métodos diferentes: una parte de los miembros se elige por pluralidad o mayoría en distritos electorales uninominales y la otra parte por representación proporcional. Los resultados de la votación en distritos electorales no tienen efecto sobre el resultado de la votación proporcional. [10]
En los sistemas compensatorios de representación mixta, los resultados de la votación proporcional se ajustan para equilibrar los escaños obtenidos en la votación por circunscripción. Los sistemas proporcionales de representación mixta , en uso en ocho países, proporcionan suficientes escaños compensatorios para garantizar que los partidos tengan un número de escaños aproximadamente proporcional a su porcentaje de votos. [1]
Otros sistemas pueden no ser lo suficientemente compensatorios, y esto puede dar lugar a escaños excedentes , en los que los partidos obtienen más escaños en el sistema de circunscripciones de los que les corresponderían en función de su porcentaje de votos. Las variaciones de este sistema incluyen el Sistema de Miembro Adicional y el Voto Alternativo Plus , en el que los votantes emiten votos tanto para circunscripciones uninominales como para circunscripciones plurinominales; la asignación de escaños en las circunscripciones plurinominales se ajusta para lograr una asignación general de escaños proporcional al porcentaje de votos de los partidos, teniendo en cuenta el número de escaños obtenidos por los partidos en las circunscripciones uninominales.
Los sistemas mixtos de vinculación de votos también son compensatorios, sin embargo, generalmente utilizan un mecanismo diferente al método de vinculación de escaños (top-up) del MMP y normalmente no son capaces de lograr una representación proporcional.
Some electoral systems feature a majority 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 there is no majority in the first round. The winner of the second round is guaranteed 35 seats in the 60-seat Grand and General Council.[11] In Greece the party receiving the most votes was given an additional 50 seats,[12] a system which was abolished following the 2019 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 in Italy. Primary elections limit the risk of vote splitting by ensuring a single party candidate. In Argentina 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-partisan primary elections.
Some elections feature an indirect 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 an electoral college. In several countries, such as Mauritius or Trinidad and Tobago, the post of President is elected by the legislature. In others like India, the vote is taken by an electoral college consisting of the national legislature and state legislatures. In the United States, the president is indirectly elected using a two-stage process; a popular vote in each state elects members to the electoral 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 in 2000 and 2016.
In addition to the various electoral systems in use in the political sphere, there are numerous others, some of which are proposals and some of which have been adopted for usage in business (such as electing corporate board members) or for organisations but not for public elections.
Ranked systems include Bucklin voting, the various Condorcet methods (Copeland's, Dodgson's, Kemeny-Young, Maximal lotteries, Minimax, Nanson's, Ranked pairs, Schulze), the Coombs' method and positional voting. There are also several variants of single transferable vote, including CPO-STV, Schulze STV and the Wright system. 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.
Cardinal electoral systems allow voters to evaluate candidates independently. The complexity ranges from approval voting where voters simply state whether they approve of a candidate or not to range voting, where a candidate is scored from a set range of numbers. Other cardinal systems include proportional approval voting, sequential proportional approval voting, satisfaction approval voting, highest median rules (including the majority judgment), and the D21 – Janeček method where voters can cast positive and negative votes.
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 the Prussian three-class franchise), or by weighting the results of the vote. The latter system was used in colonial Rhodesia for the 1962 and 1965 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.
In addition to the specific method of electing candidates, electoral systems are also characterised by their wider rules and regulations, which are usually set out in a country's constitution or electoral law. Participatory rules determine candidate nomination and voter registration, in addition to the location of polling places and the availability of online voting, postal voting, and absentee voting. Other regulations include the selection of voting devices such as paper ballots, machine voting or open ballot systems, and consequently the type of vote counting systems, verification and auditing used.
Electoral rules place limits on suffrage and candidacy. Most countries's electorates are characterised by universal suffrage, but there are differences on the age 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 have compulsory voting, although in some there is an upper age limit on enforcement of the law.[13] Many countries also have the none of the above option on their ballot papers.
In systems that use constituencies, 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 during redistricting by ensuring their voter base has a majority in as many constituencies as possible, a process known as gerrymandering. Historically rotten 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 the first, second and third attempts to run the election. The turnout requirement was scrapped prior to the fourth vote in 2004.[14] Similar problems in Belarus led to the 1995 parliamentary elections going to a fourth round of voting before enough parliamentarians were elected to make a quorum.[15]
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; in Jordan 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 in Kenya 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 in Poland,[16] Romania and Serbia.[17]
In ancient Greece and Italy, the institution of suffrage already existed in a rudimentary form at the outset of the historical period. In the early monarchies 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 in Sparta as late as the 4th century BCE), or by the clashing of spears on shields.[18]
El voto se ha utilizado como una característica de la democracia desde el siglo VI a. C., cuando la democracia ateniense introdujo la democracia . Sin embargo, en la democracia ateniense, el voto se consideraba el menos democrático de los métodos utilizados para seleccionar a los funcionarios públicos y se utilizaba poco, porque se creía que las elecciones favorecían inherentemente a los ricos y conocidos por sobre los ciudadanos promedio. Se consideraban más democráticas las asambleas abiertas a todos los ciudadanos y la selección por sorteo , así como la rotación de cargos.
En general, la votación se hacía en forma de escrutinio. La práctica de los atenienses, que según las inscripciones se siguió ampliamente en los demás estados de Grecia, consistía en levantar la mano, excepto en cuestiones que afectaban al estatus de las personas: estas últimas, que incluían todos los pleitos y propuestas de ostracismo , en las que los votantes elegían al ciudadano que más querían exiliar durante diez años, se determinaban mediante votación secreta (una de las primeras elecciones registradas en Atenas fue una votación por mayoría relativa que no era deseable ganar, es decir, una votación de ostracismo). En Roma, el método que prevaleció hasta el siglo II a. C. fue el de la división ( discessio ), pero el sistema se vio sujeto a la intimidación y la corrupción. Por ello, una serie de leyes promulgadas entre 139 y 107 a. C. prescribían el uso de la papeleta ( tabla ), una tira de madera recubierta de cera, para todos los asuntos que se hicieran en las asambleas del pueblo. Para aprobar resoluciones se consideraba suficiente una mayoría simple de votos. Por regla general, se atribuía a cada voto el mismo valor, pero en las asambleas populares de Roma estuvo en vigor hasta mediados del siglo III a. C. un sistema de votación por grupos, mediante el cual las clases más ricas consiguieron una preponderancia decisiva. [18]
La mayoría de las elecciones en la historia temprana de la democracia se llevaron a cabo mediante votación pluralista o alguna variante, pero como excepción, el estado de Venecia en el siglo XIII adoptó la votación de aprobación para elegir su Gran Consejo. [19]
The Venetians' method for electing 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. An electoral 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.[20] This process, with slight modifications, was central to the politics of the Republic of Venice throughout its remarkable lifespan of over 500 years, from 1268 to 1797.
Jean-Charles de Borda proposed the Borda count in 1770 as a method for electing members to the French Academy of Sciences. His method was opposed by the Marquis de Condorcet, who proposed instead the method of pairwise comparison that he had devised. Implementations of this method are known as Condorcet methods. He also wrote about the Condorcet paradox, which he called the intransitivity of majority preferences. However, recent research has shown that the philosopher Ramon 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.[21]
Later in the 18th century, apportionment methods came to prominence due to the United States Constitution, which mandated that seats in the United States House of Representatives had to be allocated among the states proportionally to their population, but did not specify how to do so.[22] A variety of methods were proposed by statesmen such as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Daniel 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 the D'Hondt method, as is Webster's method to the Sainte-Laguë method, while Hamilton's method is identical to the Hare largest remainder method.[22]
The single transferable vote (STV) method was devised by Carl Andræ in Denmark in 1855 and in the United Kingdom by Thomas Hare in 1857. STV elections were first held in Denmark in 1856, and in Tasmania in 1896 after its use was promoted by Andrew Inglis Clark. Party-list proportional representation began to be used to elect European legislatures in the early 20th century, with Belgium the first to implement it for its 1900 general elections. Since then, proportional and semi-proportional methods have come to be used in almost all democratic countries, with most exceptions being former British and French colonies.[23]
Perhaps influenced by the rapid development of multiple-winner electoral systems, theorists began to publish new findings about single-winner methods in the late 19th century. This began around 1870, when William Robert Ware proposed applying STV to single-winner elections, yielding instant-runoff voting (IRV).[24] 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 called Nanson's method. Charles Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll, proposed the straightforward Condorcet method known as Dodgson'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 through proxy voting.[25]
Ranked voting electoral systems eventually gathered enough support to be adopted for use in government elections. In Australia, IRV was first adopted in 1893 and STV in 1896 (Tasmania). IRV continues to be used along with STV today.
In the United States in the early-20th-century progressive era, some municipalities began to use instant-runoff voting and Bucklin voting. However, a series of court decisions ruling Bucklin to be unconstitutional caused a , while instant-runoff voting was soon repealed in every city that had implemented it over a combination of high costs and pathologies in the system.[26] Since the turn away from Bucklin, STV was adopted by more than 20 cities in the U.S. and many cities elsewhere, and by Ireland and Malta for their national elections.[27]
The use of game theory to analyze electoral systems led to discoveries about the effects of certain methods. Earlier developments such as Arrow's impossibility theorem had already shown the issues with ranked voting systems. Research led Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn to formally define and promote the use of approval voting in 1977.[28] Political scientists of the 20th century published many studies on the effects that the electoral systems have on voters' choices and political parties,[29][30][31] and on political stability.[32][33] A few scholars also studied which effects caused a nation to switch to a particular electoral system.[34][35][36][37][38]
The study of electoral systems influenced a new push for electoral reform beginning around the 1990s, when proposals were made to replace plurality voting in governmental elections with other methods. New Zealand adopted mixed-member proportional representation for the 1996 general elections, having been approved in a 1993 referendum.[39] After plurality voting was a factor in the contested results of the 2000 presidential elections in the United States, various municipalities in the United States have begun to adopt instant-runoff voting.
Many cities which adopted instant-runoff voting have subsequently returned to first-past-the-post after encountering difficulties or dissatisfaction with IRV; studies have found voter satisfaction with IRV tends to fall dramatically the first time a race produces a result different from first-past-the-post.[40] This may be a result of the high rate of pathologies in IRV, or of the difficulties involved in explaining how the rule works. In Canada, despite a three-decade-long reform and education movement, three separate referenda on the single transferable vote have failed (in 2005, 2009, and 2018). The 2020 Massachusetts Question 2, which attempted to expand instant-runoff voting into Massachusetts, was defeated by a 10-point margin. In the United Kingdom, a 2011 referendum on IRV saw the proposal rejected by a two-to-one margin over concerns about cost and complexity. The United Kingdom used instant-runoff voting for most local elections up until 2022, before returning to first-past-the-post over concerns regarding the system's complexity.[41]
Other referenda have had different results; a 2020 vote on approval voting in St. Louis passed with 70% support,[42] despite opposition from politicians on the city council who confused it with the unrelated ranked-choice voting rule.[42] A ballot initiative that would prohibit both approval voting and ranked-choice has been placed on the Missouri ballot, as a result of a similar conflation and backlash to the results of the 2022 Alaska at-large special election.[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).
Los sistemas electorales se pueden comparar por diferentes medios. Las actitudes hacia los sistemas están muy influidas por el impacto de los sistemas en los grupos que uno apoya o se opone, lo que puede dificultar la comparación objetiva de los sistemas de votación. Hay varias formas de abordar este problema. Un enfoque es definir criterios matemáticos, de modo que cualquier sistema electoral apruebe o repruebe. Esto da resultados perfectamente objetivos, pero su relevancia práctica todavía es discutible. Otro enfoque es definir criterios ideales que ningún sistema electoral apruebe perfectamente, y luego ver con qué frecuencia o qué tan cerca de aprobar están varios métodos en una gran muestra de elecciones simuladas. Esto da resultados que son prácticamente relevantes, pero el método de generar la muestra de elecciones simuladas todavía puede ser discutiblemente sesgado. Un enfoque final es considerar criterios prácticos y luego asignar un organismo neutral para evaluar cada método de acuerdo con estos criterios o evaluar el desempeño de los países con estos sistemas electorales. Los criterios prácticos incluyen fragmentación política , participación electoral , votos desperdiciados , complejidad del recuento de votos y barreras de entrada para nuevos movimientos políticos. [45] La calidad de los sistemas electorales se puede medir en función de resultados como la participación electoral , [46] [47] y la reducción de la apatía política . Este enfoque puede examinar aspectos de los sistemas electorales que los otros dos enfoques pasan por alto, pero tanto las definiciones de estos criterios como las evaluaciones de los métodos siguen siendo inevitablemente subjetivas.
El teorema de Arrow y el teorema de Gibbard-Satterthwaite demuestran que ningún sistema de ganador único que utilice votación por orden de preferencia puede cumplir todos esos criterios simultáneamente, mientras que el teorema de Gibbard demuestra lo mismo para todos los métodos de votación deterministas de ganador único.
Según una encuesta realizada en 2006 a expertos en sistemas electorales, sus sistemas electorales preferidos fueron, por orden de preferencia: [48]
Voters can vote for as many candidates as they want. The votes are tallied, and the candidate with the most votes wins!
