Plurality voting system

Majority voting or majority system is a principle of representation with the aim of achieving a parliamentary majority government for a party. It describes a method for selecting a proposal from a number of predetermined alternatives by the majority of a group of voters. Thus, it is characterized as a method for the direct election of representatives.

The majority vote is particularly distinguished from the proportional representation and generally structured as a personality choice.

• 2.1 United Kingdom
• 2.2 France
• 2.3 USA
• 2.4 Germany
• 2.5 Austria
• 2.6 Switzerland
• 2.7 Italy

• 3.1 Personal choice
• 3.2 two-party system
• 3.3 Unique majorities in Parliament
• 3.4 Constituency geometry
• 3.5 Selection Dilemma
• 3.6 Depending on the selection mode

Classification

Majority elections in both constituencies in which only one person per proposal is selected, as well as in those in which several are to all ( unit selection ) persons elected in a proposal vonstattengehen.

Relative majority vote

The relative majority of the proposal or candidate is elected who receives the most votes. Benefit usually parties with regional strongholds and regional parties disproportionately. By an application of this type of majority voting are often two-party systems are emerging, such as in the United States.

Exception of selected direct candidates who are only provided as independents, such as also for the General National Congress in Libya.

Absolute majority vote

In an absolute majority vote of the proposal is selected, receiving more than half of the votes. To achieve the required majority in all cases, a ballot is often performed, in which only the top two candidates of the first round are allowed. An alternative to this is the integrated runoff election, where voters number the proposals in order of preference.

Romanesque majority vote

As a Romanesque majority vote is called a majority vote, in the selected in up to two election rounds. Who achieves the absolute majority of the votes in the first ballot, is selected. If this applies to any of the candidates, a second election ( " Election ", " repeat election " ) takes place, in which the candidate is elected with the most votes. Who may participate in the second ballot, is regulated differently.

The classification of these majority voting as a relative or absolute majority choice is controversial, as both elements are found and yet resulted in several specific properties.

Multi-member districts

With majority voting in multi -member constituencies, the voters not only one but several voices - usually as many as there are select proposals. These can be distributed to the proposals ( variegated ) and often cumulative ( a proposal receives multiple voices ) are. If n suggestions are to be selected, the s suggestions with the most votes shall be elected.

If this principle is applied by only one vote, one also speaks of non- communicable Einzelstimmgebung.

Relation to proportional representation

If only one Member of Parliament elected in the constituency, one can consider the relative majority vote as proportional representation. Conversely, proportional representation in particularly small constituencies also be considered as majority elections because they like these serve the same purpose. The so called genuine hurdle is then often very high.

To a Unit selection can then be proportional if the minimum threshold is very high.

In some cases, the use of majority voting is also combined with the proportional representation. In the personalized proportional representation there is an integrated majority vote, but on the number of votes in the Parliament has no effect. When grave right to vote, however, a part of the deputies by majority vote, and regardless of the other part is determined by proportional representation.

The so-called minority- friendly majority rule provides that the party winning most votes automatically gets awarded a certain minimum percentage of the seats in parliament. Otherwise, there is a proportional representation.

Situation in selected countries

United Kingdom

In the UK, members of the House are elected by relative majority vote. This type has its origins in the Anglo-Saxon world and is distributed only still there today. Since all the votes fall down to the winner, this selection method is also called winner- takes-all or first-past -the -post system.

France

In France, a Romanesque majority voting is applied to national elections. It is sufficient to be elected on the first ballot of having received the vote of 25% of the electorate, even if this has not led to the absolute but the relative, majority. On possible second ballot next to the two top finishers of the first round of voting is allowed to participate, who has received the votes of more than 12.5 % of the electorate. In presidential elections is elected by absolute majority vote.

USA

The election of the U.S. president via an electoral college, the members of this be determined from each one state in their entirety by relative majority vote, ie the strongest party fall. The members of the Senate are elected in single-seat constituencies according to different principles of majority voting, as the legislation is subject to the States. Also in single-seat constituencies by in this case is always relative majority vote the members of the House of Representatives are determined.

Germany

In Germany is regarded as federal election law, a personalized proportional representation. While in the constituencies also direct candidates are elected by relative majority vote (half of the parliamentary seats). Non-party candidates had direct since the 1949 federal election against the party -supported candidates but no chance.

Unlike many other constitutions, the Basic Law does not prescribe any electoral system. This is due to the fact that the various parties could not agree on a permanent solution in the Parliamentary Council. After the introduction of a grave suffrage had already been discussed in the 1950s, wanted to introduce a majority vote, the Grand Coalition ( 1966-1969 ). This electoral reform was one of the reform projects, for whose sake the coalition was formed. The project was supported in particular by the CDU, which would be independent of the FDP in this way that could determine the direction of policy in the former three-party system. The SPD was initially willing to support such a reform, but later moved away from, as the FDP had brought a social-liberal coalition into play. Federal Interior Minister Paul Lücke ( CDU ) entered thereupon resigned from his post. Helmut Schmidt ( SPD), who was Chairman of the Group in the Bundestag at this time, has not been abandoned as one of the few in his party, the former claim. Representative of the majority vote at the universities included the political scientist Ferdinand A. Hermens and Wilhelm Hennis.

After the Left Party in 2007 for the first time moved into a West German parliament, a majority of voting rights for Germany was required sporadically again. Indispensable compromise would prevent a clear, unambiguous and meaningful policy, the argument of the reform advocates. This was a great loss to Germany. Among other things, Ernst Benda called for the introduction of majority voting system in Germany.

Austria

After the 2006 national elections, some prominent politicians in Austria, among them Governor Erwin Pröll called for the introduction of a majority suffrage in elections to the National Council with the aim to create clear majorities and to make great coalitions less frequent.

Switzerland

In Switzerland, the election after Romanesque majority vote is common. This applies to the choice of States (except in the cantons of Jura and Neuchâtel ), some cantonal parliaments and governments and local councils.

In the cantons, which send only one representative to the National Council, this is determined by relative majority.

Federal elections are carried out with a modified absolute majority vote.

Italy

In Italy, a minority- friendly majority voting is applied for election to the Italian Chamber of Deputies, with the most votes party receives 54 % of the seats. The same applies in each region separately for the election of the Senate, which the majority of relationships are distorted and, in turn, only coincidentally stable majorities come than in a pure proportional representation.

Typical features of the electoral system

People choice

Typically, a personal election in the constituencies is possible. The voters have the opportunity to personally get to know candidates of their constituency and to choose because of their personality.

• However, this is for example not the case for the U.S. presidential election. Here it depends on the majorities in each state, although nationwide take the same candidate.
• The deputies are less dependent since they are directly elected in their constituencies of their party. This means that the deputies vote in majority electoral systems more often than in proportional representation systems against their own faction. This is both an advantage ( deputy to the region feels more committed as a party ) ( majority are opaque formations ) considered as a disadvantage.
• The system and the counting is usually simpler and easier to understand than in proportional representation.
• A voice in a small constituency - it is virtually impossible to always make all constituencies of equal size - weighs computationally more than one voice in a large constituency, as each constituency chooses an MP.

Two-party system

The electoral system is a two-party system tend ( Duverger's Law).

• In the UK this is indeed appeared that way. In May 2010, formed for the first time in generations, a coalition government (Cabinet Cameron ). If there is no party in the House by an absolute majority this is called Hung parliament.

• In the U.S., constant all or almost all seats actually go only to two parties (the Democratic Party and Republican). Although there are no national two-party system, it is nevertheless usually so that the constituency level more than two parties have realistic chances to win.

• In the practice of other countries that is sometimes different: In France, there has never been almost a two-party system (see also Political System of France )
• In India there is no two-party system (see also Political System of India # executive)
• Among other things, Canada, Pakistan and some African countries (eg Kenya) have also despite majoritarian no two-party system.
• The Reichstag of the German Empire, who was elected by absolute majority vote, has always been quite fragmented, there was never a two-party system.

Clear majorities in Parliament

The majority choice often leads to unambiguous majority in Parliament.

• Coalition are not required to achieve a majority rule.
• The vote is the strongest party in parliament usually (compared to the election result ) disproportionately, the other under-represented proportionally. It usually comes in a simple and predictable for voters to form a government and a stable strong government.
• It will be played the overall result in the Parliament distorted. This postcard is facing the election results of the elections to the House of Commons 2005 ( how you voted ) the composition of Parliament (What you got ). Charter88 advertises for a change in the electoral system.
• It is possible that the moderate vote in the second largest party, the largest party or even an absolute majority of the seats. The latter was the case for example in 1951 in Great Britain, 1978 and 1981 in New Zealand and 1998 in Quebec City. This is possible if the election winner achieves tighter results in populous electoral districts and therefore the summation of the votes cast, a different picture emerges when the enumeration under current election law. In extreme cases, it may happen that one party wins nearly half of all votes and the relative majority and yet goes completely empty the allocation of seats. Regional parties can be much more strongly represented than nationally An incoming parties with far more votes.
• It may happen that in the Parliament only one party is represented and there are therefore no parliamentary opposition more. This happened, for example, in the Canadian province of New Brunswick in the elections in 1987 and up to the seventies of the 20th century regularly in Mexico.
• Also, a majority voting can lead to a tight overall result, although a camp in the population had a clear majority.

Constituency geometry

It is possible the election result by " clever " drawing the electoral boundaries to influence ( " gerrymandering ", " Constituency geometry " ):

Part of the population may de facto be deprived of his right to vote, if he lives in a constituency or district, which is firmly in the hands of either party, and thus has no chance to influence the election outcome. So 80 % of the population, for example, in the U.S. at a fixed a camp allocated state.

Selection dilemma

One feature is the dependence of the election of irrelevant alternatives. The American presidential election in 2000 is regarded by many as an example. It is argued that the Democrat Al Gore lost the election to Republican George W. Bush because many left - oriented voters for Ralph Nader, one nominated by the Green Party candidates had no prospect of success, voted. Without this alternative, they probably would have preferred Gore to Bush and the former helped to victory.

The dependence of the majority vote of irrelevant alternatives led to strategic voting behavior.

Depending on the selection mode

In elections in which there can only be one winner and this is directly elected (eg the American or French President ) may strongly depend on the counting mode, which candidate wins. The following example in Michel Balinski illustrates this:

• A wins in a pure majority vote without 50 % rule
• B wins in a Borda count and a Coombs - election
• C wins by the Condorcet method
• D wins at a preferential choice (eg Australia and Ireland)
• E wins a majority vote with a second round of voting, such as the French presidential election system

For a count after the election by consent and the rank - choice further decisions would be required by the voters. If it is assumed that in an election by each voter approval would agree with his first two candidates would be - at least for a first ballot candidate B with 49 points, just ahead of candidate E with 48 points.