Election
![Ballot box](./assets/A_coloured_voting_box_no_bgAn election is a formal decision-making process by which a population selects individuals for public office or decides on propositions through voting by eligible participants.[1][2] This mechanism underpins representative governance, enabling periodic accountability of leaders to citizens via expressed preferences.[3] Elections trace their origins to ancient societies, with direct participation evident in Athens from approximately 508 B.C., where male citizens voted on magistrates and policies using methods like pebble or potsherd ballots.[4][5] In contemporary systems, elections function to allocate power peacefully, foster competition among candidates, and aggregate diverse interests, though empirical analyses indicate that voter influence on policy outcomes varies by institutional design and turnout levels.[6] Major types include plurality systems, where the candidate with the most votes wins regardless of majority; majority runoff systems requiring over 50% support; and proportional representation, which aims to mirror vote shares in seat allocation.[7][8] These variations affect representation, with single-member districts often favoring larger parties and multi-member systems enhancing minority inclusion.[9] Despite their role in democratic legitimacy, elections face challenges including voter suppression, ballot irregularities, and manipulation attempts, as evidenced by documented cases and official probes into fraud.[10][11] Claims of widespread misconduct, particularly in high-stakes contests, persist amid debates over verification processes, underscoring the need for robust safeguards to maintain causal links between voter intent and outcomes.[12][13]
Definition and Principles
Core Definition and Etymology
An election is a structured process in which eligible voters select individuals to occupy public offices or decide on propositions, typically through casting ballots to express preferences among candidates or options. This mechanism serves as a foundational element of representative governance, enabling the populace to confer authority on chosen representatives while aggregating individual preferences into collective outcomes.[14][1] In empirical terms, elections quantify support via vote tallies, with outcomes determined by predefined rules such as majority or plurality thresholds, ensuring decisions reflect verifiable counts rather than subjective interpretations.[2] The word "election" originates from the Latin electio, denoting the act of choosing, derived from eligere ("to pick out" or "select"), a compound of ex- ("out") and legere ("to gather, choose, or read"). This etymological root underscores the core function of discernment and selection, entering English via Old French election in the 13th century, initially in ecclesiastical contexts before broadening to secular political usage by the 15th century.[15][16] The term's evolution parallels the institutionalization of voting as a deliberate exclusionary choice, distinguishing it from acclamation or inheritance-based systems prevalent in pre-modern societies.[17]Theoretical Foundations and Justifications
Elections provide a primary mechanism for establishing the legitimacy of government through the periodic renewal of consent by the governed, as articulated in John Locke's social contract theory in his Second Treatise of Government (1689). Locke contended that the legislative authority originates from the majority consent of free individuals entering civil society, with representatives chosen by the people for limited terms, after which they revert to ordinary subjects, enabling accountability and the potential dissolution of government if trust is violated.[18] This framework justifies elections as a procedural safeguard against arbitrary rule, allowing the populace to entrust and reclaim power without perpetual subjection to any single assembly.[19] In contrast, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's conception in The Social Contract (1762) emphasized direct expression of the general will, viewing representative elections with suspicion as they alienate sovereignty from the people; he argued that electing deputies relinquishes freedom, though he acknowledged electoral laws as essential for structuring assemblies in larger polities where pure direct democracy proves impractical.[20] Rousseau's ideas underpin justifications for elections as approximations of collective sovereignty, particularly in systems balancing scale with participation, though they highlight tensions between representation and authentic self-rule.[21] Utilitarian philosophers, including Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, defended elections as instruments for maximizing aggregate utility by enabling the selection of policies and leaders that best promote general welfare. James Mill, extending Benthamite principles, advocated representative government with broad suffrage to ensure rulers prioritize the greatest happiness, positing that electoral competition aligns incentives with public interest over elite capture.[22] This consequentialist rationale views elections not merely as consent rituals but as aggregative processes where voter preferences, weighted by competence in Mill's plural voting scheme, yield outcomes superior to autocratic decision-making.[23] From a republican perspective, elections enforce accountability by subjecting rulers to retrospective judgment, compelling them to align actions with constituent interests under threat of replacement. This mechanism, rooted in classical republicanism and echoed in modern analyses, posits that electoral cycles create incentives for responsiveness, mitigating principal-agent problems where delegates might otherwise pursue self-interest.[24] Empirical extensions, such as studies on voter sanctions for misconduct, reinforce this by demonstrating vote share reductions for incumbents exhibiting poor performance, though causal identification remains debated due to confounding factors like economic conditions.[25] Epistemic justifications frame elections as probabilistic truth-trackers, drawing on the Condorcet Jury Theorem (1785), which proves that if individual voters are slightly more likely than random to select the superior option, majority rule converges toward certainty as group size increases, assuming independence.[26] This theorem supports democratic elections over expert or elite rule by leveraging collective competence, with generalizations extending to multi-candidate plurality systems under conditions of voter diversity and minimal correlation in errors.[27] Critics note premises like competence and independence often falter in real elections influenced by information asymmetries or manipulation, yet the model underscores elections' potential for epistemic reliability absent better alternatives.[28]Historical Evolution
Ancient Origins
The earliest documented systematic use of elections emerged in ancient Athens following the reforms of Cleisthenes in 508 BCE, which laid the foundations for democratic governance by reorganizing the citizenry into demes and tribes to dilute aristocratic power. Free adult male citizens, excluding women, slaves, and resident foreigners (metics)—who constituted roughly 10 to 20 percent of the population—participated in the Ecclesia, an assembly where decisions on war, peace, and laws were made by majority vote, often via show of hands or division into aye and nay groups. While many administrative roles, such as members of the Council of 500, were filled by sortition to prevent elite dominance, elections were held annually for key positions like the ten strategoi (generals), who required proven competence and thus competitive selection. This system prioritized direct participation over representative election, with voting mechanisms evolving from oral acclamation to physical tokens like pebbles or bronze balls for secrecy in trials and ostracisms.[5][29][4] In parallel, the Roman Republic, established around 509 BCE after the expulsion of the last king, institutionalized elections within its mixed constitution, blending aristocratic senate oversight with popular assemblies. Adult male citizens voted in the Comitia Centuriata, divided into 193 centuries weighted by wealth and military equipment—favoring the propertied classes, where the first class alone held 80 votes—and the Comitia Tributa, organized by geographic tribes for more equitable plebeian input on magistrates like tribunes. Elections occurred annually in the Campus Martius or Forum, initially by viva voce (oral declaration) to enable elite intimidation, shifting to secret wooden tablets under the Lex Gabinia in 139 BCE for curule offices amid rising corruption concerns. Consuls, praetors, and quaestors were selected through this process, with candidacy requiring prior office-holding under the cursus honorum, ensuring experienced leadership but entrenching oligarchic control.[30][5][31] These ancient practices, while innovative in empowering citizens beyond monarchy or pure oligarchy, were inherently exclusionary and prone to manipulation, reflecting causal realities of scale-limited direct involvement and property-based hierarchies rather than universal equality. Athenian elections emphasized merit for strategic roles amid frequent assemblies of up to 6,000 participants, whereas Roman systems balanced patrician vetoes with plebeian veto via tribunes, averting stasis through institutional checks verifiable in surviving texts like Polybius' analyses. Preceding tribal societies occasionally elected leaders, but lacked the formalized, recurring assemblies of Greece and Rome, marking these as pivotal origins for electoral legitimacy tied to collective consent.[32][33]Medieval and Early Modern Developments
In medieval Europe, elections were predominantly confined to ecclesiastical and imperial contexts, reflecting a blend of consensual traditions inherited from late antiquity and efforts to curb monarchical or aristocratic dominance. The selection of popes, formalized by Pope Nicholas II's decree of 1059, empowered the College of Cardinals—initially the cardinal-bishops—to deliberate and vote, excluding broader lay participation that had previously invited imperial interference, as seen in the disruptions of the 11th-century Investiture Controversy.[34] This system aimed at unanimity or a two-thirds majority, influencing later conclave procedures, though deadlocks persisted, such as the two-year vacancy from 1268 to 1271 in Viterbo, where cardinals were confined to hasten decisions.[35] Episcopal elections similarly evolved, with 12th-century reforms at the First Lateran Council (1123) emphasizing clerical consensus to resolve disputes between bishops, chapters, and secular rulers.[36] Secular elections emerged in fragmented polities like the Holy Roman Empire, where the electoral college originated from Carolingian precedents but crystallized in the 13th century amid princely resistance to hereditary imperial claims. By the Golden Bull of 1356, Emperor Charles IV enshrined seven prince-electors—three archbishops (Mainz, Trier, Cologne) and four lay princes (Bohemia, Palatinate, Saxony, Brandenburg)—to select the king by majority vote, requiring meetings in Frankfurt and oaths of fealty post-election.[37] This indirect process preserved feudal balances but often favored Habsburg candidates through alliances, as in the 1438 election of Albert II.[38] In Italian city-republics, such as Venice, Genoa, and Florence, elections sustained oligarchic governance from the 12th century onward; Venice's doge was chosen via a multi-stage lottery and vote in the Great Council (restricted to noble families after the 1297 Serrar del Maggior Consiglio), minimizing factionalism while electing magistrates for short terms.[39] Florence's priors, elected monthly from guild members, exemplified guild-based representation, though violence and exiles frequently undermined outcomes.[40] Early modern developments (c. 1450–1789) extended electoral practices to representative assemblies, driven by fiscal needs of monarchs and urban autonomy, yet suffrage remained narrow, typically limited to propertied males amid widespread corruption like bribery and violence. In England, parliamentary elections for knights of the shire and burgesses originated in 1254 under Henry III, expanding with Edward I's Model Parliament of 1295, which summoned elected commons alongside lords and clergy; by the 15th century, 40 counties and over 100 boroughs returned members via voice votes among freeholders worth at least 40 shillings annually.[41] The Dutch Republic's States General, formalized post-1581 independence, featured delegates from provincial estates elected by urban oligarchs, reflecting confederalism where cities like Amsterdam controlled votes through closed councils.[42] Sweden's Riksdag, evolving from 1435 assemblies, adopted four-estate voting by the 16th century, with nobles, clergy, burghers, and peasants electing representatives, though royal influence dominated until the 1719 Age of Liberty introduced more competitive polls.[43] These systems prioritized consensus over mass participation, foreshadowing modern reforms while entrenching elite control, as electoral rolls excluded the vast majority—e.g., only about 3% of England's adult males voted in 1688.[44]Modern Expansion and Global Spread
The expansion of elections in the modern era commenced in the 19th century, as industrialization and urbanization prompted reforms broadening suffrage beyond property-owning elites in Western nations. In the United States, the Jacksonian era from the 1820s onward eliminated many property requirements for white male voters, increasing participation from about 25% of the adult male population in 1824 to nearly 80% by 1840.[45] Similar shifts occurred in Europe; Britain's Reform Act of 1832 extended the franchise to middle-class males, enfranchising roughly 20% of adult males, while subsequent acts in 1867 and 1884 further expanded it to urban working men.[46] By the late 19th century, France's Third Republic achieved near-universal male suffrage in 1875, reflecting pressures from republican movements against monarchical restrictions.[47] Women's suffrage marked a pivotal broadening, with New Zealand granting voting rights to women in 1893, the first self-governing polity to do so comprehensively for all adults.[48] In the United States, the 19th Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, extended the vote to women, adding an estimated 26 to 30 million potential voters and constituting the largest single expansion of the electorate up to that point.[49] European nations followed variably: Finland in 1906, Norway in 1913, and Germany in 1918, often tied to wartime concessions or revolutionary upheavals, achieving de facto universal adult suffrage in many by the 1920s.[50] In Latin America, electoral practices spread earlier through independence from Spain and Portugal; countries like Argentina implemented secret ballots and expanded male suffrage via the Sáenz Peña Law of 1912, enabling broader participation amid oligarchic dominance.[51] Post-World War I, elections proliferated amid the collapse of empires, with new states in Eastern Europe and the Middle East adopting constitutions featuring popular voting, though often unstable.[52] The interwar period saw reversals, but World War II catalyzed further expansion: Western Europe's democratization, including Italy's 1946 referendum establishing a republic and West Germany's 1949 Basic Law enabling federal elections, aligned with the "second wave" of global democratization from 1943 to 1962, raising the number of democracies from 12 to 36.[52] Decolonization accelerated the global spread; between 1945 and 1960, over 30 Asian and African territories gained independence, with many—such as India in 1947 and Ghana in 1957—promptly instituting multiparty elections to legitimize new regimes, though outcomes varied in electoral integrity due to ethnic divisions and external influences.[53] This diffusion embedded elections as a normative institution worldwide, influenced by U.S. and Soviet promotion of competing models during the Cold War.[54]Recent Global Trends
In 2024, over 60 countries held national elections involving nearly half the world's population, resulting in widespread defeats for incumbents and established parties amid economic discontent, inflation, and geopolitical instability.[55] [56] This "super-year" highlighted electoral volatility, with non-incumbent and challenger parties securing victories in key democracies such as the United States, where Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris, and several European nations including France and Germany, where nationalist and conservative factions advanced.[57] [58] Voter preferences shifted toward candidates emphasizing national sovereignty, border control, and fiscal restraint, driven by empirical correlates like stagnant wages and rising migration pressures rather than abstract ideological realignments.[59] Global measures of democratic health continued a downward trajectory into 2024-2025, with the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index recording an average score of 5.17—the lowest since tracking began in 2006—reflecting erosion in electoral processes, civil liberties, and political participation across 167 countries.[60] [61] Authoritarian consolidation in regions like Eastern Europe and Latin America contrasted with fragile gains in Asia, where incumbents in India and Indonesia retained power through high-turnout mandates exceeding 65% in both cases.[62] [63] Over 40% of 2024's national elections featured documented violence or intimidation against candidates, underscoring causal links between institutional distrust and physical disruptions in polling.[64] Voter turnout exhibited mixed patterns, with record highs in conflict-affected or polarized contexts like the U.S. (over 66% of voting-age population in 2020, sustained into 2024) but stagnation or declines in Western Europe, where averages hovered below 70% for parliamentary votes.[65] [66] Innovations in digital campaigning and mail-in options boosted accessibility in some jurisdictions, yet integrity concerns— including disinformation and procedural disputes—eroded confidence, as evidenced by post-election audits in multiple nations revealing discrepancies in 20-30% of cases.[67] Looking to 2025, fewer than 50 major elections are anticipated, but persistent trends of anti-elite sentiment and geoeconomic fragmentation suggest continued challenges to multilateral electoral norms.[68][69]Electoral Systems
Major Types of Systems
Electoral systems are broadly classified into three main families: plurality/majority systems, proportional representation (PR) systems, and mixed systems.[70] [8] This categorization reflects differences in how votes translate into seats, with plurality/majority favoring winners in districts, PR emphasizing party vote shares across larger constituencies, and mixed systems blending both approaches.[71] Plurality systems, often exemplified by first-past-the-post (FPTP), award seats to the candidate with the highest number of votes in single-member districts, even without an absolute majority.[72] This method is employed in the national legislatures of countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.[73] Majority systems, a subset, require candidates to obtain over 50% of votes, typically via two-round runoffs if needed, as in France's presidential contests since 1962.[74] These systems promote stable governments through district accountability but often yield disproportional outcomes, where parties win large seat majorities on slim vote shares.[72] Proportional representation systems distribute seats in multi-member districts roughly in line with parties' vote percentages, using formulas like the d'Hondt method.[8] Party-list PR, where voters choose parties and candidates are drawn from pre-ordered lists, predominates in nations including Sweden and South Africa.[73] Preference-based variants like single transferable vote (STV) enable ranking of candidates, facilitating intra-party competition and used in Ireland's Dáil Éireann elections since 1922.[8] PR systems, adopted by about 80 countries for lower houses as of recent data, enhance minority representation but can fragment parliaments and weaken local ties.[75] [71] Mixed systems integrate district-based and list-based elements, with voters typically casting two votes: one for a local candidate and one for a party list.[70] In mixed-member proportional (MMP) setups, like Germany's Bundestag elections since 1949, compensatory seats adjust for disproportionality to achieve overall PR.[73] Parallel mixed systems, such as Japan's House of Representatives since 1994, allocate seats independently without full compensation, favoring larger parties.[8] These systems balance local representation with proportionality and are used in roughly 20-30 countries, including New Zealand and South Korea.[71]Variations in Voting Mechanisms
Voting mechanisms encompass the diverse methods by which voter preferences are recorded, tallied, and translated into electoral outcomes, influencing representation and stability. These variations range from simple plurality rules to complex preference-based systems, each with distinct implications for voter strategy and result proportionality.[76] In plurality voting, also known as first-past-the-post, the candidate receiving the most votes in a district wins, even without an absolute majority, which can lead to winner-take-all outcomes and underrepresentation of minority preferences. This system predominates in single-member districts, such as those for the U.S. House of Representatives, where it encourages strategic voting to avoid vote splitting.[77][78] Majoritarian systems, including the two-round runoff, require a candidate to secure over 50% of votes for victory; if none does in the initial round, a second round pits the top two contenders against each other. Adopted in French presidential elections since 1962, this mechanism aims to ensure broader consensus but increases costs and voter fatigue due to multiple voting rounds.[79][80] Ranked-choice voting (RCV) allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference; if no candidate achieves a majority, the lowest-ranked is eliminated, and votes redistribute until a majority is reached. Implemented in U.S. jurisdictions like Maine (since 2018 for federal elections) and New York City (2021 primaries), RCV reduces the spoiler effect and promotes civility by eliminating vote wastage, though it demands higher voter education. Alaska adopted RCV for its 2022 special congressional election, where it facilitated the victory of a moderate Republican in a top-four primary followed by ranked runoff.[81][82] Approval voting permits voters to select all candidates they approve of, with the candidate garnering the most approvals winning; this simplifies expression of support without ranking. Employed in Fargo, North Dakota, municipal elections since 2018, it has shown potential to elect candidates with wider appeal, though a 2022 Seattle ballot measure to adopt it failed while RCV passed.[80][83] Historically, secret ballot mechanisms replaced open voting to curb intimidation and bribery; Australia's 1856 adoption marked an early shift, spreading globally by the 1890s, including U.S. states where prior oral or party-ticket systems enabled coercion, as votes were public until the Australian ballot's introduction. Open ballots, used in early U.S. elections, allowed employers and parties to monitor and influence choices, contributing to corruption until secrecy became standard.[84][85][86]| Voting Mechanism | Key Feature | Notable Use |
|---|---|---|
| Plurality | Most votes wins, no majority needed | U.S. congressional districts[78] |
| Two-Round Runoff | Majority required; top-two advance if needed | French presidency[79] |
| Ranked-Choice | Preferences ranked; transfers until majority | Maine, Alaska elections[81] |
| Approval | Vote for all approved; highest total wins | Fargo, ND locals[80] |