Jump to content

Bucklin voting: Difference between revisions

tense, relationship to MCA
(tense, relationship to MCA)
Bucklin is a [[voting system]] that can be used for single-member districts and also multi-member districts. It is also known as the Grand Junction system after Grand Junction, Colorado, where it was first proposed. It is closely related to [[Majority Choice Approval]] (MCA), which can be considered a form of Bucklin in which equal rankings are allowed. Modern theorists prefer MCA for its greater compliance with criteria.
== How doesdid it work? ==
Voters arewere allowed [[Preferential_voting|rank preference ballots]] - first, second, third. In some cases, voters were allowed multiple rankings at the third rank, although there is no record of the use of MCA, which allows equal ranking at all levels.
First choice votes arewere first counted. If one candidate hashad a majority, that candidate winswon. Otherwise the second choices arewere added to the first choices. Again, if a candidate with a majority vote iswas found, the winner iswas the candidate with the most votes in that round. Lower rankings arewere added as needed.
A majority iswas defined as half the number of voters, similar to [[absolute majority]]. Since after the first round there arewere more votes cast than voters, it iswas possible more than one candidate to have majority support.
For multi-member districts, voters markmarked as many first choices as there are seats to be filled. Voters markmarked the same number of second and further choices. In some localities, the voter was required to mark a full set of first choices for his or her ballot to be valid.
== Where iswas it used? ==
This method was apparently first used in Geneva during the French Revolution, in the period from 1792 to 1798, at the suggestion of the Marquis de Condorcet. This was a time of upheaval and experiment, and this usage has only recently come to light again.
Voters supporting a strong candidate have a advantage to "Bullet Vote" (Only offer one ranking), in hopes that other voters will add enough votes to help their candidate win. This strategy is most secure if the supported candidate appears likely to gain many second rank votes.
In the above example, Memphis voters have the most first place votes and might not offer a second preference in hopes of winning, but itthis attempted strategy fails because they are not a second favorite from competitors.
== See also ==
Anonymous user
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.