Ranked voting: Difference between revisions

m
no edit summary
m (Update approximation of utilitarianism section to reflect talk page discussion.)
mNo edit summary
Line 13:
There are many types of ranked voting, with several used in governmental elections. [[Instant-runoff voting]] is used in Australian state and federal elections, in Ireland for its presidential elections, and by [[Ranked-choice voting in the United States|some jurisdictions in the United States]], United Kingdom, and New Zealand. A type and classification of ranked voting is called the [[single transferable vote]], which is used for national elections in Ireland and Malta, the Australian Senate, for regional and local elections in Northern Ireland, for all local elections in Scotland, and for some local elections in New Zealand and the United States. [[Borda count]] is used in [[Slovenia]]<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Toplak|first=Jurij|title=The parliamentary election in Slovenia, October 2004|journal=Electoral Studies|volume=25|issue=4|pages=825–831|doi=10.1016/j.electstud.2005.12.006|year=2006}}</ref> and [[Nauru]]. [[Contingent vote]] and [[Supplementary vote]] are also used in a few locations. [[Condorcet method]]s are used by [[Schulze method#Users|private organizations and minor parties]], but currently are not used in governmental elections.
 
[[Arrow's impossibility theorem]] and [[Gibbard's theorem]] prove that all voting systems must make trade-offs between desirable properties, such as the preference between two candidates being unaffected by the popularity of a third candidate.<ref name=Mankiw>{{cite book | title=Principles of Microeconomics | publisher=South-Western Cengage Learning | first=Gregory |last=Mankiw | edition=6th| year=2012 | isbn=978-0538453042 |pages=475–479| author-link=Gregory Mankiw}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://electology.org/podcasts/2012-10-06_kenneth_arrow|title=Interview with Dr. Kenneth Arrow|last= Hamlin|first=Aaron|date=October 6, 2012|website=The Center for Election Science|publisher=Center for Election Science|access-date=|quote=''CES:'' you mention that your theorem applies to preferential systems or ranking systems. ... But the system that you're just referring to, Approval Voting, falls within a class called cardinal systems. ... ''Dr. Arrow:'' And as I said, that in effect implies more information. ... I’m a little inclined to think that [[score voting|score systems]] where you categorize in maybe three or four classes probably (in spite of what I said about manipulation) is probably the best.}}</ref> Accordingly there is no consensus among academics or public servants as to the "best" electoral system.<ref name="eupaper">{{cite web | url=http://www.stevendroper.com/elect_system.html | title=Electoral Systems in Europe: An Overview | publisher=European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation | location=Brussels | date=October 2000 | accessdate=November 7, 2019}}</ref>
 
Recently, an increasing number of authors, including [[David Farrell (political scientist)|David Farrell]], [[Ian McAllister (political scientist)|Ian McAllister]] and [[Jurij Toplak]], see preferentiality as one of the characteristics by which electoral systems can be evaluated.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal|last=Toplak|first=Jurij|date=2017|title=Preferential Voting: Definition and Classification|journal=Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government|volume=15|issue=4|pages=737–761|doi=10.4335/15.4.737-761(2017)}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Farrell|first1=David M.|first2=Ian|last2=McAllister|date=2004-02-20|title=Voter Satisfaction and Electoral Systems: Does Preferential Voting in Candidate-Centered Systems Make A Difference|url=http://repositories.cdlib.org/csd/04-04|language=en}}</ref> According to this view, all electoral methods are preferential, but to different degrees and may even be classified according to their preferentiality.<ref name=":02" /> By this logic, [[cardinal voting]] methods such as [[Score voting]] or [[STAR voting]] are also "preferential".
1,196

edits