Jump to content

Cumulative voting: Difference between revisions

rm wpisms
imported>WikipediaBot
m (importing text from Wikipedia)
 
imported>DanKeshet
(rm wpisms)
Line 1:
'''Cumulative voting''' ('''accumulation voting''' or '''weighted voting''') is a multiple-winner [[voting system]] intended to promote [[proportional representation]]. It is used heavily in [[corporate governance]], where it is mandated by many [[U.S. state]]sstates, and it was used to elect the [[Illinois]] House of Representatives from 1870 until 1980. It was used in [[England]] in the late 19th century to elect school boards.
 
In this system, a voter facing multiple choices is given X number of ''points''. The voter can then assign his points to one or more of the choices, thus enabling one to weight one's vote if desired.
Line 13:
[[Tactical voting]] is the rational response to this system. The strategy of voters should be to balance how strong their preferences for individual candidates are against how close those candidates will be to the critical number of votes needed for election.
 
This describes how cumulative voting works in a single case. Where there is a [[Generalgeneral Election]]election, several cases occur simultaneously in different constituencies. There is no automatic requirement that all of these should return the same numbers of winners under all implementations; indeed certain demographic rules for boundary changes might alter the number of winners as well as, or instead of, the boundaries. So the special case of one single winner is possible; if voters in this case also only have one vote then this is identical to the [[First Past the Post electoral system]] voting.
 
Cumulative voting ballots can have different forms. One simple ballot form — called ''equal and even cumulative voting'' — offers an [[approval ballot]], only one mark allowed by each candidate. Voters can mark as few or many ballots as they like. Their vote is counted based on how many votes they offer. For instance, if I vote for 3 candidates, each candidate gets 1/3 of my vote. This approach is harder to count, but offers less problem for voters if they are unsure on strategy for which candidate needs more of their vote. It is nice for voters since it has no wrong way to vote, although in practice you still might want to limit the number of marks to the number of seats being contested.
 
The most flexible ballot (not the easiest to use) allows a full vote to be divided in any fraction between all candidates, so long as the fractions add to less than or equal to 1. (The value of this flexibility is questionable since voters don't know where their vote is most needed.)
Line 33:
</TR>
</TABLE>
 
==See also==
*[[List of democracy and elections-related topics]]
 
[[Category:Voting systems]]
Anonymous user
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.