Electoral system: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
Line 3:
A key property of voting systems is that, because they are algorithms, they must be formally defined. Consensus, for example, which is sometimes put forward as a voting system, is more properly a broad way of working with others, analogous to democracy or anarchy.
[[File:Voting system Euler diagram.svg|thumb|Several of the popular voting methods, categorized by their important properties]]
Line 155 ⟶ 156:
Choose-one FPTP voting can be thought of as a constrained rated method, with IRV being a way to make FPTP more majoritarian by passing the mutual majority criterion (and guaranteeing the Condorcet winner will win if they get over 1/3rd of the active votes in any round).
Many voting methods are modeled off of real-world processes. For example, [[IRV]] can be thought of as simulating American primary elections, where the least viable candidates (according to [[FPTP]]) tend to drop out one by one, with their supporters going towards their next viable choice, until only two candidates remain. In this sense, [[Condorcet methods]] can be thought of as simulating negotiation (like in [[Asset voting]]) such that no party to the deal can get a better deal by forming a new majority coalition for their preferred alternative. See [[Condorcet method#Demonstrating pairwise counting]] for an example.
See the [[ballot]] article.
| |||