Get complete information on the majoritarian system

A majoritarian electoral system is one which is based on a “winner take all” principle. This is in contrast to the proportional representation (PR) family of electoral systems, which split the mandates in rough proportion with votes gained by each party. The term is used particularly in the famous studies of Arend Lijphart.

It is more or less synonymous with a plurality voting system. Single-member constituencies (SMC) are often, though not exclusively, used in majoritarian systems. In SMC only one member can win each constituency, which therefore means the number of votes won nationally does not equal the number of seats in the parliament. For instance, a party which wins 50% + 1 of the vote in all constituencies will win 100% of seats, but only 50% +1 of votes.

Often in SMC a two-round system is used (TRS), especially in the countries of former Soviet Union. Under TRS, the candidate has to obtain at least 50%+1 vote in order to win outright. If no candidate obtains the majority votes, two top candidates run against each other in the second round. This system is often used for presidential elections as well (eg. in France). Other variations of majoritarian system include Block Vote (BV) and Party Block Vote (PBV).

Under BV voters vote in multi-mandate constituencies for as many candidates as there are seats to be filled. The candidates with the most votes win outright. With PBV, parties nominate a “block” of candidates for eagh multi-mandate constituency. Voters vote for the party, not individual candidates, and the party which wins the most votes wins all the mandates in the constituency. In the simplest majoritarian system, “first past the post”, the winner does not even need a majority in a constituency. This can be demonstrated in a hypothetical constituency election result, first-past-the-post system (simple majority system).

The plurality voting system is a single-winner voting system often used to elect executive officers or to elect members of a legislative assembly which is based on single-member constituencies.

The most common system, used in Canada, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States, is simple plurality, first past the post or winner-takes- all. In this voting system the single winner is the person with the most votes; there is no requirement that the winner gain an absolute majority of votes.

In some countries such as France (as well as in some jurisdictions of the United States, such as Louisiana and Georgia) a similar system is used, but there are two rounds: the “two-ballot” or “runoff election” plurality system. If any candidate in the first round gains a majority of votes, then there is no second round; otherwise, the two highest-voted candidates of the first round compete in a two-candidate second round or all candidates above a certain threshold in the first round compete in a two-, three- or four-candidate second round.

In political science, the use of the plurality voting system alongside multiple, single-winner constituencies to elect a multi-member body is often referred to as single-member district plurality or SMDP. Plurality voting is also variously referred to as winner-takes-all or relative/simple majority voting; however, these terms can also refer to elections for multiple winners in a particular constituency using bloc voting.

The works of Arend Lijphart use the term “majoritarian” systems, where a plurality voting system is one of the defining variables. These terms are thus sometimes used almost synonymously. The term first past the post (abbreviated FPTP or FPP) was coined as an analogy to horse racing, where the winner of the race is the first to pass a particular point on the track (in this case a plurality of votes), after which all other runners automatically and completely lose (that is, the payoff is “winner-takes-all”).

There is, however, no “post” that the winning candidate must pass in order to win, as they are only required to receive the largest number of votes in their favour. This sometimes results in the alternative name “furthest past the post”.

Historically, FPTP has been a contentious electoral system, giving rise to the concept of electoral reform and a multiplicity of different voting systems intended to address perceived weaknesses of plurality voting.

Plurality voting is used for local and/or national elections in 43 of the 191 countries of the United Nations, as well as in the Republic of China (Taiwan). Plurality voting is particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom and former British colonies, including the United States, Canada and India. 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 the plurality voting system among the simplest of all voting systems for voters and vote counting officials (it is however very contentious to draw district boundary lines in this system).

In an election for a legislative body, each voter in a given geographically- defined electoral district votes for one candidate from a list of candidates competing to represent that district. Under the plurality system, the winner of the election acts as representative of the entire electoral district, and serves with representatives of other electoral districts.

In an election for a single seat, such as president in a presidential system, the same style of ballot is used and the candidate who receives the largest number of votes represents the entire population. (The President of the United States is indirectly elected by such a rule; but by an Electoral College.

Second ballot system

The two-round system (also known as the second ballot, runoff voting or ballot age) is a voting system used to elect a single winner. Under runoff voting, the voter simply casts a single vote for their favorite candidate. However, if no candidate receives an absolute majority of votes, then all candidates, except the two with the most votes, are eliminated, and a second round of voting occurs. Runoff voting is widely used around the world for the election of legislative bodies and directly elected presidents.

For example, it is used in French presidential, legislative, and cantonal elections, and also to elect the presidents of Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Indonesia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, and Zimbabwe-

Two rounds of voting constitute the practical limit for mass elections, and there are two methods that are based on this two-ballot, or double-ballot, format: the mixed majority-plurality method and the majority-runoff method. 1) The mixed majority-plurality method requires a majority for election on the first ballot; if no candidate has received such a majority, a second ballot (polling on a subsequent date) is conducted, and the winner is the candidate who wins largest number of the votes. The major example is the electoral system for the French National Assembly.

Other methods

Two additional majoritarian methods that are less commonly practiced but highly recommended by experts on electoral process are: 1) Limited Vote Plan, invented by political scientist Steven J. Brams, entails a slight amendment to the plurality rule: voters can cast votes for as many candidates as they like instead of only for their most preferred candidate. For instance, if there are five seats, voters can vote for one, two, three, or four of these candidates but not for five candidates?

(Voting for all five would be tantamount to not voting at all). If many voters make use of the opportunity to cast two or more votes, the winner is likely to be a majority winner, even when the field of candidates is relatively large.

Limited Vote Plan, also called Approval voting, has been adopted by several private associations but has not yet been used for the election of public officials. In the 1990 parliamentary elections in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, however, the electoral formula (inherited from the former Soviet Union) asked the voters to strike out the names of candidates of whom they disapproved; this method of disapproval voting is logically equivalent to approval voting.

The difference in these elections was that additional rules specified that the winner needed to win an absolute majority of the votes and that the turnout had to be 50 per cent or higher – with the election to be repeated if one or both of these requirements was not n»et.

2) The Condorcet method, invented by the Marquis de Condorcet, an eighteenth- century French mathematician, disaggregates a multicandidate contest into a series of two-candidate contests. It asks the voters to choose between each of the possible pairs of candidates. For instance, when there are three candidates – A, B, and C- voters are asked to choose between A and B, these pair wise between A and C, and between B and C.

The Condorcet winner is the candidate who defeats all other candidates in contests. For instance, if a majority of the voters prefers A to B and also A to C, candidate A wins. For some the Condorcet method is the most accurate and fairest majoritarian methods but this method also has some drawbacks. The most serious of these is the possibility, discovered by Condorcet himself, that there may not be a single Condorcet winner.

The standard illustration of this problem involves three voters and three candidates. The first voter has the preference order A- B-C (that is, the first voter prefers A to B, B to C, and A to C): the second voter’s preference order is B-C-A, and the third voter’s is C-A-B collectively, the three voters prefer A to B, B to C, and C to A (in each case by a 2-1 majority). Such examples of not occur often, however, and in case they can be resolved by some additional rule like the alternative vote. Another problem appears to be that the Condorcet method is very complicated for both voters and vote counters.

When there are three candidates in an election, there are only three pairs of candidates, and the decisions are fairly simple. But when, for instance, eight candidates compete, there are twenty- eight pairs to be compared. Voters need not pock their favorites from all possible pairs of candidates, however; they need only indicate their preference orders among all the candidates. Then their preferences in each pair wise contest can be logically deduced. The counting can be performed easily by computer.

Shortcomings of majoritarian systems:

One of the serious shortcomings of majoritarian electoral system has been that when an entire legislature is elected by majoritarian methods, large parties tend to be favoured. The reason is that in each single-member constituency the candidates of small parties do not have much of a chance to be elected. Hence majoritarian elections tend to yield considerable disproportionality between votes cast and seats won as a result of the over-representation of the largest parties and the under-representation of small parties.

British parliamentary elections, which are held according to simple majority system, or the first-past-the-post system, provide a good example of this pattern. In the four elections between 1979 and 1992, the Conservative Party won an average of 42.6 per cent of the total vote but 56.0 per cent of the seats. The Labour Party won 32.4 per cent of the vote and 37.8 per cent of the seats. The third party (the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors) won 19.9 percent of the vote and only 2.9 per cent of seats. The regionally concentrated ethnic parties received 4.2 per cent of the vote and 3.2 per cent of the seats.

The largest party got more than its share and the third party was the most disadvantaged. In the 1993 National Assembly elections in France, the two large allied conservative parties won 79.7 per cent of the seats after receiving only 39.5 per cent of the first-ballot votes. It can also happen (as in United Kingdom in 1951 and in New Zealand in 1978 and 1981) that the second largest party in terms of votes wins by relatively narrow margins in relatively many districts – and thus wins a majority of the seats and the election.

In India, no ruling party at the Centre ever secured fifty per cent or more of the total votes polled. This is because of large number of parties, and candidates. The winning candidates often get lesser number of votes than the number of votes secured by all the defeated candidates taken together.