Block voting explained

Block voting should not be confused with Voting bloc.

Block or bloc voting refers to a class of electoral systems where multiple candidates are elected simultaneously. They do not guarantee minority representation and allow a group of voters (a voting bloc) to ensure that only their preferred candidates are elected. In these systems, a voter can select as many candidates as there are open seats. That is, the voter has as many votes to cast as the number of seats to fill.[1] The block voting systems are among various election systems available for use in multi-member districts where the voting system allows for the selection of multiple winners at once.

Block voting falls under the multiple non-transferable vote category, a term often used interchangeably with this term. Block voting may be also associated with the concept of winner-take-all representation in multi-winner electoral systems or the plurality election method.

Other variations of block voting include block approval voting, and party block voting (sometimes called a general ticket). Block voting is often contrasted with proportional representation, where the aim is to ensure that each voter's vote carries equal weight. In contrast, block voting tends to favor the most popular party, resulting in a landslide victory.

Terminology

The term "plurality at-large" is common in representative elections where members represent an entire body (such as a city, state, province, or nation). In multi-member electoral districts, the system is often referred to as "block voting" or the "bloc vote." This article's description of block voting specifically pertains to "unlimited voting," unlike "limited voting," where voters have fewer votes than the available seats. The term "block voting" may also refer to a simple plurality election of slates (electoral lists) in multi-member districts.

Types of block voting

Multiple winners are typically elected simultaneously in one non-transferable round of voting. In some cases, multiple non-transferable voting (MNTV) appears in a runoff or two-round version, as seen in certain local elections in France, where candidates without an absolute majority are thinned out before a second round.

Plurality block voting

See main article: Plurality block voting. In a block voting election, all candidates compete for m positions, often referred to as the district magnitude. Each voter selects up to m candidates on the ballot.[2] The m candidates with the most votes, but not necessarily a majority, are elected and fill the positions.[3]

Two-round block voting

Two-round block voting is a variation of plurality-at-large where the field of candidates is thinned out before a second round.

General ticket / Party block voting

Party block voting (PBV) or the general ticket is the party-list version of block voting. In contrast to the classic block vote, where candidates may stand as non-partisan and some minority nominations can theoretically succeed, PBV associates each candidate with a party list voted on by electors, often leading to a landslide outcome. The Parliament of Singapore uses this system for most of its elections.

Approval block voting

See main article: Approval block voting.

Block approval voting permits every voter to vote for any number of candidates, provided that they do not vote more than once for the same candidate. Block voting, specifically plurality block voting, is compared with preferential block voting as both often produce landslide victories for similar candidates. Instead of checkboxes, preferential block voting utilizes a preferential ballot, making it a multiple transferable vote rather than a multiple non-transferable vote. Under both systems, a slate of the top preferred candidate and their clones typically secures every available seat.

Preferential block voting

See main article: Preferential block voting. Block voting, or plurality block voting, is often compared with preferential block voting as both systems tend to produce landslide victories for similar candidates. Instead of a series of checkboxes, preferential block voting uses a preferential ballot. A slate of clones of the top preferred candidate will win every seat under both systems, however in preferential block voting this is instead the instant-runoff winner.

Similar voting systems

Limited voting (LV) / Partial block voting

See main article: Limited voting. Partial block voting, also known as limited voting, operates similarly to plurality-at-large voting. However, in partial block voting, each voter casts fewer votes than the number of candidates to be elected. This process enables reasonably sized minorities to achieve some representation, preventing a simple plurality from sweeping every seat. Partial bloc voting is employed in elections to the Gibraltar Parliament, allowing each voter ten votes for seventeen open seats. The typical outcome sees the most popular party winning ten seats and forming the ruling administration. In contrast, the second-most popular party secures seven seats to form the opposition. The Spanish Senate also adopts partial block voting, offering four seats per constituency, with each voter casting three votes. Historically, three- and four-member constituencies in the United Kingdom used partial block voting until the abolition of multimember constituencies.

With fewer votes per voter, the threshold to win decreases under partial block voting, making the results more akin to proportional representation, provided voters and candidates use effective strategies.[4]

Examples of voting systems

Plurality block voting and majority block voting

Consider a scenario with 12 candidates in a 3-member district among 10,000 voters. Both plurality block voting and majority block voting allow voters to cast three votes (although they need not use all three) but restrict voting to one vote per candidate.

Party A garners roughly 35% support among the electorate, Party B secures around 25%, and the remaining voters mainly support independent candidates but lean toward Party B if compelled to choose between the two parties. Assuming all voters cast their votes sincerely and avoid tactical voting, the following tabulation elucidates the outcomes:

CandidatePartyPlurality block votingMajority block voting / 2 round voting
1st round2nd round
Votes%Elected?Votes%Elected?Votes%Elected?
Candidate A1Party A355536%3.Yes355536%3.410041%5.
Candidate A2Party A370037%1.Yes370037%1.420042%4.
Candidate A3Party A360036%2.Yes360036%2.390039%7.
Candidate B1Party B260026%4.260026%4.510051%1.Yes
Candidate B2Party B250025%5.250025%5.490049%2.Yes
Candidate B3Party B240024%6.240024%6.480048%3.Yes
Candidate I1Independent230023%8.230023%8.eliminated
Candidate I2Independent239520%7.239520%7.eliminated
Candidate I3Independent190019%9.190019%9.eliminated
Candidate I4Independent180015%10180015%10eliminated
Candidate I5Independent6507%11.6507%11.eliminated
Candidate I6Independent6006%12.6006%12.eliminated
TOTAL votes cast280002800027000
TOTAL possible votes300003000030000
Voters10000100%10000100%10000100%
In the second round, voters of independent candidates can vote for candidates of party B. As even fewer voters cast all their 3 votes, even in the second round, some winners do technically win with a majority, but only a plurality in fact (similar to differences between turnout levels in two-round voting).

Block voting and approval block voting

A 3-member district with 10,000 voters features 12 candidates. Block voting allows each voter to cast only one vote for a single candidate.

Party A has an approximate 35% electorate support, notably due to one well-received candidate. Party B holds around 25% backing, comprising two popular candidates. The remaining voters primarily favor independent candidates, but tend to lean towards Party B if pressed to choose between the two main parties. All voters engage in sincere voting with no tactical influence.

CandidatePartyBlock approval votingLimited block approval votingPlurality block votingLimited (block) votingSingle non-transferable vote
Votes%Elected?Votes%Elected?Votes%Elected?Votes%Elected?Votes%Elected?
Candidate A1Party A420042%8.400040%5.355536%3.Yes180018%4.8008%4.
Candidate A2Party A450045%5.410040%4.370037%1.Yes350035%1.Yes190019%1.Yes
Candidate A3Party A390039%9.380040%7.360036%2.Yes200020%2.Yes7007%9.
Candidate B1Party B520052%1.Yes490049%1.Yes260026%4.175018%5.9009%3.Yes
Candidate B2Party B500050%2.Yes460046%3.Yes250025%5.195020%3.Yes110011%2.Yes
Candidate B3Party B470047%4.420042%2.Yes240024%6.142514%7.4004%12.
Candidate I1Independent440044%6.380038%7.230023%8.140014%8.8008%4.
Candidate I2Independent490049%3.Yes400040%5.239520%7.150015%6.8008%4.
Candidate I3Independent440044%6.370037%9.190019%9.130013%9.7007%7.
Candidate I4Independent390039%9.320032%10.180015%10120012%10.7007%7.
Candidate I5Independent260026%11.200020%11.6507%11.6256%11.6006%10.
Candidate I6Independent230023%12.170017%12.6006%12.5506%12.5005%11.
TOTAL votes cast5000044000280001900010000
TOTAL possible votes12000060000300002000010000
Voters10000100%10000100%10000100%10000100%10000100%

See also

Notes

  1. Web site: Ballotpedia . Ballotpedia . September 18, 2023.
  2. Web site: Sanok . Ann . EEE victim's memory celebrated at benefit . blueridgenow.com . 19 October 2007 . 4 November 2023.
  3. Book: Reynolds . Andrew . Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook . Reilly . Ben . Ellis . Andrew . 2005 . International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance . 978-91-85391-18-9 . Stockholm, Sweden . 44 . https://web.archive.org/web/20161221113519/http://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/electoral-system-design-new-international-idea-handbook?lang=en . December 21, 2016 . live.
  4. Web site: Limited Voting, Cumulative Voting and Choice Voting: A Comparison of Three Alternative Voting Systems . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20081118172344/http://www.fairvote.org/factshts/comparis.htm . November 18, 2008 . fairvote.org.

References

External links