Electoral Systems in Context

Australia is the birthplace of the two main forms of preferential electoral voting - the Alternative Vote (AV) and the Single Transferable Vote (STV) methods. Accident and force of circumstances largely explain their introduction. The Hughes Government introduced the AV system in 1918 in an attempt to prevent the right-of-centre parties from splitting their support to the benefit of the ALP. In 1948 the Chifley Government moved to replace the Senate's preferential block system with the STV method in an attempt to electorally contain Menzies. Yet credit also needs be given to the deliberate efforts and clear intentions of their designers. The electoral systems proposed in 1902 were ahead of their time. Indeed, 1902 marked an important step in the design of Australia's electoral system. Once the debate had crystallized around the relative merits of preferential methods, it was only a matter of time before the Commonwealth would see their adoption.

This chapter places ranked choice voting (RCV) within the context of electoral systems. Preferential voting elections include the alternative vote (AV) for choosing a single winner and the single transferable vote (STV) to select multiple winners. Electoral systems for parliamentary elections in Australia and Ireland provide the rationale and history of these forms of RCV. Plurality or first-past-the-post elections serve as the benchmark for comparisons, and other broad electoral systems such as proportional representation and mixed-member proportional systems are introduced and contrasted with ranked choice. Similar electoral systems with complementary goals are discussed. Cousins to RCV include the supplementary vote, approval voting, cumulative voting, and the Borda count. Examples are introduced and compared to preferential systems. The philosophical origins of STV and RCV from Thomas Hare forward are outlined. RCV may lead to computational paradoxes such as Condorcet cycling and violations of fundamental assumptions such as monotonicity.

Instant runoff voting (IRV) is an electoral system that produces better elections and more representative outcomes in races with three or more candidates. Used by over 50 American jurisdictions, IRV addresses the challenges of plurality voting in crowded candidate fields. It upholds majority rule, promotes voter engagement, discourages personal attacks, and minimizes strategic voting. IRV is preferable to runoff systems and other proposed single-winner methods. In comparison to runoffs, IRV produces higher, more equitable turnout and reduces costs and demands on voters. In contrast to methods based on rating candidates, voters in IRV elections have incentives to indicate their honest preferences. IRV demonstrates greater political viability and more intuitively fair outcomes than Condorcet methods. For legislative elections, IRV complements the single transferable vote, which is the best way to address the U.S.’s governance and polarization crises, end gerrymandering, and secure fairer representation for all.

Patrick Dunleavy examines the proportional (PR) electoral system now used for smaller UK elections: the Northern Ireland Assembly, and Scottish and Northern Irish local councils. How has STV fared in converting votes into seats and fostering political legitimacy, under UK political conditions? An Annex also discusses the list PR system used to elect European Parliament MEPs from 1999 to 2014, but now discontinued as a result of Brexit.

Dans cet article nous présentons les résultats d’une expérience électorale réalisée durant l’élection présidentielle de 2007 qui avait pour objectifs de confronter le vote préférentiel transférable à deux critères : la simplicité et la sélection du vainqueur de Condorcet. À partir du profil des préférences des électeurs qui ont participé à cette expérience électorale, nous montrons que cette procédure de vote peut conduire à la désignation d’un vainqueur différent suivant la méthode de dépouillement employée. Avec la méthode de Hare, le vainqueur est N. Sarkozy, tandis que la méthode de Coombs conduit à l’élection de F. Bayrou. Pour ces deux méthodes, les modalités pratiques du scrutin restent les mêmes et l’expérience a montré que ce processus répond bien au critère de simplicité. Par contre, au regard du principe de Condorcet, seule la méthode de Coombs, pour ce profil des préférences a conduit à l’élection du vainqueur de Condorcet, à savoir F. Bayrou.

Proportional representation (PR) is often discussed in voting settings as a major desideratum. For the past century or so, it is common both in practice and in the academic literature to look towards the single transferable vote (STV) rule as the solution for achieving PR. Some of the most prominent electoral reform movements around the globe are pushing for the adoption of STV. It has been termed a major open problem to design a voting rule that satisfies the same PR properties as STV and better monotonicity properties. In this paper, we first present a taxonomy of proportional representation axioms for general weak order preferences, some of which generalise and strengthen previously introduced concepts. We then present a rule called the expanding approvals rule (EAR) that satisfies properties stronger than the central PR axiom satisfied by STV, can handle indifferences in a convenient and computationally efficient manner, and also satisfies better candidate monotonicity properties. In view of this, our proposed rule seems to be a compelling solution for achieving proportional representation in voting settings.

This thesis consists of three chapters. In the first chapter, I investigate the effects of complexity in various voting systems on individual behavior in small group electoral competitions. Using a laboratory experiment, I observe individual behavior within one of three voting systems -- plurality, instant runoff voting (IRV), and score then automatic runoff (STAR). I then estimate subjects' behavior in three different models of bounded rationality. The estimated models are a model of Level-K thinking (Nagel, 1995), the Cognitive Hierarchy (CH) model (Camerer, et al. 2004), and a Quantal Response Equilibrium (QRE) (McKelvey and Palfrey 1995). I consistently find that more complex voting systems induce lower levels of strategic thinking. This implies that policy makers desiring more sincere voting behavior could potentially achieve this through voting systems with more complex strategy sets. Of the tested behavioral models, Level-K consistently fits observed data the best, implying subjects make decisions that combine of steps of thinking with random, utility maximizing, errors.In the second chapter, I investigate the relationship between the mechanisms used to select leaders and both measures of group performance and leaders' ethical behavior. Using a laboratory experiment, we measure group performance in a group minimum effort task with a leader selected using one of three mechanisms: random, a competition task, and voting. After the group task, leaders must complete a task that asks them to behave honestly or dishonestly in questions related to the groups performance. We find that leaders have a large impact on group performance when compared to those groups without leaders. Evidence for which selection mechanism performs best in terms of group performance seems mixed. On measures of honesty, the strongest evidence seems to indicate that honesty is most positively impacted through a voting selection mechanism, which differences in ethical behavior between the random and competition selection treatments are negligible.In the third chapter, I provide an investigation into the factors and conditions that drive behavior in dynamic innovation contests. Starting from a dynamic innovation contest model from Halac, et al. (2017), I construct a two period dynamic innovation contest game. From there, I provide a theoretical background and derivation of mixed strategies that can be interpreted as an agent's degree to which they engage in free riding behavior, namely through allowing their opponent to exert effort in order to uncover information about an uncertain state of the world. I show certain conditions must be fulfilled in order to induce free riding in equilibrium, and also analytically show the impact of changing contest prize structures on the degree of free riding. I end this paper with an experimental design to test these various theoretical conclusions in a laboratory setting while also considering the behavioral observations recorded in studies investigating similar contest models and provide a plan to analyze the data collected by this laboratory experiment.All data collected for this study consists of individual human subject data collected from laboratory experiments. Project procedures have been conducted in accordance with Purdue's internal review board approval and known consent from all participants was obtained.

A simple model is used to compare, under different electoral systems, the incentives for candidates to create inequalities among otherwise homogeneous voters, by making campaign promises that favor small groups, rather than appealing equally to all voters. In this game model, each candidate generates offers for voters independently out of a distribution that is chosen by the candidate, subject only to the constraints that offers must be nonnegative and have mean 1. Symmetric equilibria with sincere voting are analyzed for two-candidate elections and for multicandidate elections under rank-scoring rules, approval voting, and single transferable vote. Voting rules that can guarantee representation for minorities in multiseat elections generate, in this model, the most severely unequal campaign promises.

Mistakes made by humans, or machines, commonly arise when managing ballots cast in an election. In the 2013 Australian Federal Election, for example, 1,370 West Australian Senate ballots were lost, eventually leading to a costly re-run of the election. Other mistakes include ballots that are misrecorded by electronic voting systems, voters that cast invalid ballots, or vote multiple times at different polling locations. We present a method for assessing whether such problems could have made a difference to the outcome of a Single Transferable Vote (STV) election – a complex system of preferential voting for multi-seat elections. It is used widely in Australia, in Ireland, and in a range of local government elections in the United Kingdom and United States.

Is plurality or majority electoral reform a sensible option in Germany’s muddled electoral system debate? Yes, it is. Since Germany’s mixed-member proportional system fails to concentrate the party system in a sufficient way, Peggy Matauschek searches for a suitable alternative to the principle of proportional representation. She discusses the following options according to their contextual conditions: single-member plurality and majority electoral systems—like the alternative vote system—, parallel systems, proportional representation systems with a low district magnitude and majority bonus systems. In light of its balanced performance, the study advocates the introduction of a system with a majority bonus for a coalition.

The Single Transferable Vote, or STV, is often seen in very positive terms by electoral reformers, yet relatively little is known about its actual workings beyond one or two specific settings. This book gathers leading experts on STV from around the world to discuss the examples they know best, and represents the first systematic cross-national study of STV. Furthermore, the contributors collectively build an understanding of electoral systems as institutions embedded within a wider social and political context, and begins to explain the gap between analytical models and the actual practice of elections in Australia, Ireland, and Malta. Rather than seeing electoral institutions in purely mechanical terms, the collection of essays in this volume shows that the effects of electoral system may be contingent rather than automatic. On the basis of solid empirical evidence, the volume argues that the same political system can, in fact, have quite different effects under different conditions. Contributors to the volume are Shaun Bowler, David Farrell, Michael Gallagher, Bernard Grofman, Wolfgang Hirczy, Colin Hughes, J. Paul Johnston, Michael Laver, Malcom Mackerras, Michael Maley, Michael Marsh, Ian McAllister, and Ben Reilly. Shaun Bowler is Professor of Political Science, University of California, Riverside. Bernard Grofman is Professor of Political Science, University of California, Irvine.

The article considers the specifics of conducting election campaigns in majority, mixed and proportional electoral systems. It is substantiated that the type of electoral system determines the nature of the election campaign and allows to determine the main types of electoral technologies used to win. Concepts such as "electoral system", "majority electoral system", "proportional electoral system", "mixed electoral system", "political brand", "party brand" have been studied. The focus is on the fact that the notion of elections is not limited to the act of voting, it is a much broader notion that takes place within an election campaign, the nature of which is determined by the type of electoral system already exercised. It is focused on the fact that in the majority electoral system it is important to focus on building a brand of politics, and in the proportional electoral system – the brand of the party. It is determined that all election campaigns, depending on the type of electoral system, were radically different from all previous election campaigns conducted in Ukraine: new channels of communication, new election technologies and means of manipulation. However, despite the availability of media technology, politicians continue to use outdated manipulative technologies. It is substantiated that the pro-government political force chooses one or another type of electoral system, given the possibility of obtaining the largest number of votes. Electoral technologies such as "administrative resource", "double" and "election grids" have been studied. It is shown that the process of virtualization has formed not only new forms of organization of public communication and analytics in politics, but also led to a radical change in the organization and conduct of elections. It is shown that there are universal electoral technologies that are used in any electoral system. It is concluded that media technologies are becoming more important today during election campaigns.

An election audit is risk-limiting if the audit limits (to a pre-specified threshold) the chance that an erroneous electoral outcome will be certified. Extant methods for auditing instant-runoff voting (IRV) elections are either not risk-limiting or require cast vote records (CVRs), the voting system’s electronic record of the votes on each ballot. CVRs are not always available, for instance, in jurisdictions that tabulate IRV contests manually.We develop an RLA method (AWAIRE) that uses adaptively weighted averages of test supermartingales to efficiently audit IRV elections when CVRs are not available. The adaptive weighting ‘learns’ an efficient set of hypotheses to test to confirm the election outcome. When accurate CVRs are available, AWAIRE can use them to increase the efficiency to match the performance of existing methods that require CVRs.We provide an open-source prototype implementation that can handle elections with up to six candidates. Simulations using data from real elections show that AWAIRE is likely to be efficient in practice. We discuss how to extend the computational approach to handle elections with more candidates.Adaptively weighted averages of test supermartingales are a general tool, useful beyond election audits to test collections of hypotheses sequentially while rigorously controlling the familywise error rate.

Beyond personal vote incentives: Dividing the vote in preferential electoral systems

: Many organizations have turned to alternative voting systems such as instant-runoff voting for determining the outcome of single-winner elections. It is our position in this paper that the increasing deployment of such alternative systems necessitate the study and development of risk-limiting audits for these systems. We initiate this study. We examine several commonly used single-winner voting systems and provide risk-limiting auditing procedures for them. In many cases the methods from auditing plurality contests can be applied with minor changes and little loss in efficiency. For instant-runoff voting (IRV), the situation is markedly different. We describe an algorithm for auditing the candidate elimination order using plurality methods which is risk-limiting. Standard risk-limiting methods can be employed if the margin of the election can be efficiently calculated or bounded. We provide efficiently computable upper and lower bounds on the margin and, when known, compare them to the exact margins. Both auditing algorithms are potentially far less efficient than the methods to audit other types of voting systems.