Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Winner-take-all system

A winner-take-all system, also termed first-past-the-post or plurality voting, is an electoral method in which a geographic district elects a single representative, with the candidate receiving the most votes—regardless of majority status—securing the entire seat and excluding competitors from representation.^[1]^[2] This approach divides electorates into single-member districts, where voters select one candidate, fostering direct accountability between representatives and constituents but often yielding disproportional outcomes, as parties may secure large seat majorities from modest vote shares.^[1] Empirically, such systems correlate with two-party dominance, per Duverger's law, which posits that the mechanics of plurality contests discourage third-party viability by rewarding vote concentration in viable contenders, thereby promoting strategic voting and reducing multipartisan diversity.^[3] Employed in national legislatures of countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, and India, as well as the U.S. House of Representatives, winner-take-all systems prioritize governmental stability and decisive policy-making, enabling single-party majorities that avoid coalition fragilities common in proportional alternatives.^[1] However, defining characteristics include the spoiler effect, where similar candidates split votes, potentially electing less-preferred winners, and systemic underrepresentation of minorities or smaller parties, as evidenced by historical vote-seat disparities in Westminster-model parliaments.^[4] Controversies arise from these distortions, such as in the 2015 UK election where the Conservatives gained 37% of votes but 51% of seats, amplifying executive power while marginalizing opposition voices, though proponents argue this incentivizes broad electoral appeals and clear mandates over fragmented governance.^[1]

Definition and Core Principles

Formal Definition

A winner-take-all system, also known as a plurality-at-large or first-past-the-post mechanism in certain applications, is an electoral method in which the candidate, party, or slate receiving the largest share of votes within a defined constituency—such as a district, state, or jurisdiction—secures all the available seats, delegates, or electoral votes allocated to that area, with none distributed to competitors regardless of their vote totals.^[2]^[5] This contrasts with proportional representation systems, where seats are apportioned based on vote proportions across multiple winners.^[6] The system's core principle emphasizes decisive outcomes over proportional reflection of voter diversity, often implemented in single-member districts where only one representative is elected or in multi-member at-large elections where the leading group claims the full allotment.^[2] In practice, it requires no absolute majority (over 50% of votes); a simple plurality suffices, potentially allowing victories with as little as 30-40% support in fragmented fields, as observed in historical U.S. congressional races where candidates won with 35% or less of the vote.^[5] This structure underpins majoritarian voting traditions dating to 18th-century parliamentary practices but formalized in modern constitutions like the U.S. Electoral College, where 48 states award their entire electoral vote tally to the statewide popular vote leader as of 2020.^[7]

Distinction from Other Electoral Systems

The winner-take-all (WTA) system, often implemented as first-past-the-post or plurality voting, awards all seats or representation in a district to the candidate or party receiving the most votes, irrespective of whether that constitutes an absolute majority. This contrasts sharply with proportional representation (PR) systems, where multiple seats in multi-member districts are allocated to parties in proportion to their share of the total vote, enabling minority parties to secure legislative seats reflective of their support. For instance, under PR, a party garnering 20% of votes might claim approximately 20% of seats, whereas in WTA, such a party typically receives nothing unless it tops the plurality in a specific district.^[8]^[9] Within majoritarian frameworks, WTA differs from runoff or two-round systems, which mandate an absolute majority for victory and conduct a second election between top candidates if no one achieves over 50% in the initial round. WTA plurality rules allow winners with as little as 30-40% support in fragmented fields, potentially electing candidates opposed by a majority of voters without further contestation. This mechanism prioritizes simplicity and decisiveness over consensus-building via additional ballots.^[8] WTA also stands apart from preference-based systems like the single transferable vote (STV), a proportional method employing ranked ballots in multi-member districts to transfer surplus votes and eliminate low performers until quotas are met, thereby maximizing voter satisfaction across diverse preferences. In WTA single-winner districts, rankings or transfers are absent, rendering votes for non-winning candidates effectively wasted and discouraging support for smaller parties due to the risk of vote splitting. Empirical patterns in WTA systems align with Duverger's observation that single-member plurality contests foster two-party dominance by incentivizing strategic voting and consolidation among like-minded groups to secure the largest plurality.^[6]^[1]

Historical Origins and Evolution

Early Adoption in Representative Democracies

The winner-take-all system, manifested as plurality voting in single-member districts or equivalent constituencies, originated in the electoral practices of the English Parliament during the medieval era. Elections for knights of the shire and burgesses, formalized under statutes like the Model Parliament of 1295, relied on a simple plurality rule where the candidate receiving the most vocal or shown support among qualified voters—typically propertied freeholders or freemen—was elected without requiring an absolute majority.^[10] This method prevailed despite limited suffrage, with constituencies often treating the highest vote-getter as the sole representative, eschewing proportional allocation even in multi-seat areas through block voting variants.^[11] By the 17th and 18th centuries, these practices solidified in the evolving representative framework of Great Britain post-Glorious Revolution (1688), influencing colonial assemblies in North America. Parliamentary elections under the Triennial Act of 1694 and subsequent reforms maintained plurality as the default, with voters selecting candidates up to the number of seats, but single-winner outcomes dominating smaller boroughs and counties.^[12] This system prioritized decisive local representation over broader vote proportionality, a causal factor in fostering two-party dynamics amid patronage and rotten boroughs, though empirical data on turnout remains sparse due to open voting and influence peddling.^[10] The United States marked the first widespread adoption in a modern federal republic with the ratification of the Constitution on June 21, 1788, which empowered states under Article I, Section 4 to regulate House elections while implying district-based plurality through debates at the Constitutional Convention favoring localized accountability over at-large contests. In the inaugural congressional elections of 1788–1789, six of the eleven states opting for districting—such as Virginia's division into ten single-member districts—employed plurality voting, where the candidate with the most votes won outright, even if below 50 percent.^[13] States like New Hampshire and Massachusetts initially used at-large plurality for all seats, but district shifts predominated by 1792, reinforced by congressional acts; full nationwide single-member district mandate arrived with the Apportionment Act of June 25, 1842, which explicitly required "by districts" to curb general-ticket (at-large winner-take-all) distortions observed in states like Georgia, where it awarded all seats to the plurality party in 1824. This early implementation causally linked to stable majorities in the early Congresses, as plurality districts amplified regional majorities into unified delegations.^[14] Early continental European experiments, such as France's post-Revolutionary assemblies in 1791, diverged by using departmental colleges with indirect plurality elements, but lacked consistent direct single-member application until later 19th-century restorations.^[15] Thus, Anglo-American models set the template for winner-take-all in representative democracies, prioritizing executable governance over inclusive seat-sharing amid nascent party formation.^[16]

Expansion in the 19th and 20th Centuries

In the United Kingdom, the winner-take-all system, implemented through plurality voting, was entrenched during the 19th century amid expansions of the electorate and representational reforms. The Representation of the People Act 1832 redistributed parliamentary seats from unpopulated "rotten boroughs" to burgeoning industrial centers like Manchester and Birmingham, enfranchising approximately 217,000 additional voters—primarily middle-class property owners—while preserving the existing plurality method in which the candidate with the most votes in a constituency won the seat, often in multi-member districts.^[17] ^[18] This reform increased voter turnout in subsequent elections but did not alter the core winner-take-all mechanism, which favored concentrated majorities over proportional outcomes. Further consolidation occurred with the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, which divided the UK into 670 roughly equal single-member constituencies, standardizing first-past-the-post voting nationwide and eliminating multi-member districts that had allowed limited intra-party competition.^[19] ^[20] In the United States, winner-take-all expanded significantly in the allocation of Electoral College votes during the early 19th century, as states transitioned from district-based or legislative selection to statewide general ticket systems. Initially, the Constitution allowed states flexibility, with some appointing electors by legislature or dividing them by congressional district; however, by 1800, several states had adopted winner-take-all to maximize partisan advantage, awarding all electors to the popular vote plurality winner.^[21] The 1832 presidential election marked the first in which a majority of states—12 out of 24—employed this method, amplifying the national impact of swing states and contributing to the two-party system's dominance.^[21] By the mid-19th century, all states except South Carolina used popular vote allocation, with nearly all applying winner-take-all, a practice that persisted and shaped outcomes like the close 1876 contest resolved by congressional commission.^[21] The British Empire facilitated the system's global dissemination in the 19th century, embedding winner-take-all in dominion legislatures modeled on Westminster. Canada, upon Confederation under the British North America Act of 1867, adopted first-past-the-post for House of Commons elections, with voters in single-member ridings selecting the candidate with the plurality, a framework unchanged since the inaugural federal vote in August 1867.^[22] Similar adoption occurred in other settler colonies, reinforcing the system's prevalence in Anglo-American democracies. The 20th century saw further expansion through decolonization, as former British territories retained winner-take-all upon independence to maintain administrative continuity and two-party stability. India, after gaining sovereignty in 1947, enshrined first-past-the-post in its 1950 Constitution for Lok Sabha elections, conducting its first nationwide poll in 1952 across 489 single-member constituencies where the plurality winner claimed the seat—a legacy of colonial practices that prioritized decisive majorities in diverse electorates.^[23] ^[24] In Africa, countries like Nigeria (independent 1960) and Kenya (1963) inherited and implemented FPTP for legislative assemblies, with Nigeria's First Republic using single-member districts under plurality rules until military interruption in 1966.^[25] This pattern extended to over a dozen Commonwealth nations, though some later experimented with alternatives amid ethnic tensions, underscoring the system's export as a tool for rapid state-building despite critiques of underrepresentation.^[26]

Variants and Mechanisms

Single-Member District Plurality Voting

Single-member district plurality voting, also known as first-past-the-post (FPTP), organizes elections by dividing the electorate into geographic constituencies, each electing one representative through a simple plurality rule. Voters in each district select a single candidate, and the candidate receiving the highest number of votes—regardless of whether it constitutes a majority—wins the seat outright.^[15] This mechanism requires no minimum vote threshold, no runoff elections in standard implementations, and no consideration of second-choice preferences, making it straightforward to administer.^[27] The winner-take-all nature of this system allocates the entire district's representation to the top vote-getter, excluding all other candidates from securing any portion of the seat. Districts are typically drawn to encompass roughly equal populations, with boundaries set by legislative or independent bodies, though the process can influence outcomes through strategic redistricting.^[28] Vote counting involves tallying first-preference ballots directly, declaring the plurality leader the victor, which can result in election with as little as a slim margin over competitors.^[15] Empirical analyses indicate this structure incentivizes strategic voting, where supporters of minor candidates shift to viable alternatives to avoid wasting votes on non-winners. Prominent applications include the United Kingdom's election of 650 House of Commons members across single-member constituencies, Canada's selection of 338 federal MPs, and the United States' 435 House of Representatives districts.^[29]^[30]^[28] Other nations employing variants include India for its Lok Sabha and Bangladesh for its Jatiya Sangsad, where FPTP has facilitated majority governments despite fragmented vote shares.^[31] According to Duverger's law, this system's mechanical effect—combined with psychological factors like anticipated vote splitting—tends to consolidate competition into two major parties at the district level, reducing effective party numbers over time.^[31]

At-Large Winner-Take-All Elections

At-large winner-take-all elections, also termed plurality block voting, enable voters across an entire jurisdiction to select multiple candidates simultaneously for available seats, with the top vote recipients claiming all positions irrespective of overall vote proportions. In this system, each voter may nominate up to the number of open seats, typically via plurality tallying where the candidates garnering the most individual votes prevail without requiring a majority.^[32] This mechanism contrasts with district-based approaches by pooling all votes jurisdiction-wide, amplifying the impact of dominant preferences.^[33] The process operates through unrestricted or limited ballots allowing selections matching seat counts, followed by ranking candidates by total votes received; no thresholds beyond plurality are imposed, ensuring complete seat allocation to frontrunners. For instance, in a jurisdiction electing three representatives, voters might support three candidates each, and the three with the highest aggregates secure victory, even if a single aligned group supplies over two-thirds of selections to sweep outcomes.^[34] Such dynamics have characterized elections in various U.S. municipalities, where at-large formats prevail in smaller locales for council selections, fostering unified representation but concentrating power among prevailing coalitions.^[33] Empirical applications reveal this variant's role in local governance, as seen in city council races where all residents vote collectively for multiple slots, with top performers elected outright; data from U.S. Election Assistance Commission glossaries confirm its deployment without proportional adjustments, prioritizing aggregate popularity over distributed support.^[32] Historically, shifts from at-large to districting in larger cities stemmed from Voting Rights Act challenges post-1965, yet it persists in jurisdictions under 100,000 residents, numbering over 1,000 by mid-20th century counts before reforms.^[35] This setup underscores winner-take-all's core by denying partial representation to minorities unless they surpass majoritarian blocs.

Application in Indirect Systems like the Electoral College

In the United States Electoral College, an indirect presidential election mechanism outlined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, voters select state electors who formally cast ballots for president and vice president. Each state receives electors numbering its total congressional delegation (senators plus representatives), totaling 538 nationwide, with a 270-vote majority required to win.^[7] The winner-take-all rule, applied by 48 states and the District of Columbia, awards a state's entire electoral slate to the presidential candidate garnering the plurality of that state's popular vote, effectively converting state-level majorities into undivided bloc support.^[36] This allocation method, absent from constitutional text and left to state discretion, originated in early 19th-century practices where legislatures shifted from appointing electors to popular election via the "general ticket" system, aiming to consolidate state influence in national contests.^[37] By the 1832 election, a majority of states had adopted winner-take-all for electors, up from mixed district and legislative methods in the republic's founding decades; this trend solidified as partisan competition intensified, with all states except South Carolina using popular selection by 1836.^[21] Exceptions persist in Maine, which since 1972 allocates two statewide electors to the popular vote winner and one per congressional district, and Nebraska, which implemented a similar district-based system in 1992, yielding more granular outcomes reflective of sub-state divisions.^[38] In practice, voters indirectly endorse pledged electors through candidate ballots, though "faithless elector" deviations remain rare and inconsequential, as in 2016 when seven electors defected without altering the result.^[39] This winner-take-all application in the Electoral College amplifies pluralities into landslides at the electoral level—evident in 2020, where Joe Biden secured 306 electors despite a 4.5 percentage point national popular vote margin—fostering campaigns concentrated on competitive "swing states" like Pennsylvania (19 electors) and Georgia (16), while minimizing efforts in reliably partisan ones such as California (54 electors, all to Biden).^[40] Empirically, the system has produced five instances (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016) where the Electoral College victor lacked the national popular vote plurality, highlighting how state-unit aggregation can diverge from aggregate national preferences due to uneven voter distributions.^[41] Proponents argue it upholds federal structure by prioritizing state sovereignty over pure populism, ensuring broader geographic consensus, though critics note it distorts representation when narrow state margins (e.g., Florida's 537-vote Bush lead in 2000) claim disproportionate national weight.^[42]

Empirical Advantages and Causal Benefits

Promotion of Government Stability

Winner-take-all systems foster government stability by systematically producing legislative majorities for a single party, obviating the need for multi-party coalitions that often fracture due to ideological compromises or veto power among junior partners. In single-member district plurality voting, the winner secures the entire seat regardless of vote margin, amplifying the leading party's seat share—a phenomenon known as the "seat bonus"—which enables independent governance without reliance on unstable alliances. This structure contrasts with proportional representation, where seat allocation mirrors vote shares, typically yielding fragmented parliaments requiring protracted negotiations and increasing risks of early collapse when coalition partners withdraw support. Duverger's law underpins this dynamic: the mechanical and psychological effects of winner-take-all rules discourage minor parties from sustaining viability, consolidating competition into two broad catch-all parties capable of alternating in power with clear mandates. Empirical patterns in majoritarian democracies, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, demonstrate longer average cabinet durations—often spanning full electoral terms—compared to PR systems like those in Italy or the Netherlands, where coalition instability has historically led to frequent government reshuffles. For instance, post-World War II data indicate that Westminster-model countries average over four years per government, versus under two years in highly fragmented PR parliaments, attributing stability to unified executive control and reduced policy gridlock.^[43] This stability manifests causally through enhanced governability: single-party rule allows swift policy implementation and accountability to voters via direct alternation, minimizing the veto points that prolong deadlocks in coalition settings. While critics, often from pro-PR advocacy, highlight exceptions like recent UK ministerial turnover driven by internal party dynamics rather than electoral mechanics, aggregate cross-national evidence affirms that winner-take-all reduces overall government turnover by design, prioritizing decisive leadership over inclusivity at the expense of potential paralysis.^[44]

Enhanced Voter Accountability and Responsiveness

In single-member district winner-take-all systems, such as first-past-the-post (FPTP), elected representatives face direct incentives to respond to constituent preferences because their re-election depends solely on securing a plurality within a geographically defined district, creating a clear link between voter sentiment and individual legislator performance.^[45] This structure contrasts with proportional representation systems, where candidates on party lists often prioritize party loyalty over local voter demands, diluting personal accountability as seats are allocated based on aggregate party votes rather than district-specific outcomes.^[45] Empirical analyses confirm that this district-based linkage enhances voter control, with representatives in such systems exhibiting greater alignment between their actions and local interests to avoid defeat by challengers attuned to the same electorate.^[46] Electoral responsiveness, defined as the degree to which shifts in voter preferences translate into changes in government composition or policy, is empirically higher in majoritarian winner-take-all systems, particularly under two-party competition induced by Duverger's law.^[47] Gary King's metric of responsiveness, which measures the responsiveness parameter ρ indicating how seat shares adjust to vote swings, demonstrates steeper seat-vote curves in FPTP systems compared to multiparty proportional setups, meaning small vote changes can yield decisive seat majorities and thus more immediate policy pivots toward median voter positions.^[48] For instance, in U.S. House elections and similar FPTP contexts, governments track public opinion more closely on economic issues, as evidenced by regression models showing policy outputs correlating strongly with lagged vote shares in single-member districts.^[47] This accountability extends to heightened constituency service and local responsiveness, where FPTP legislators invest disproportionately in district-specific activities like casework and infrastructure advocacy to build personal voter loyalty, a behavior less prevalent in multimember or list-based systems.^[49] Studies of parliamentary behavior in FPTP nations, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, reveal that single-member district MPs allocate more resources to local pork-barrel projects and respond faster to district-level grievances, as their electoral survival hinges on perceivable benefits to voters rather than national party platforms.^[45] Transparency mechanisms, like local media scrutiny, further amplify this effect by enabling voters to punish deviations from district priorities, fostering a causal chain from voter monitoring to representative adaptation.^[46]

Facilitation of Decisive Policy-Making

In winner-take-all electoral systems, the allocation of all seats or electoral votes to the plurality or majority winner in a district or statewide contest frequently results in legislative majorities for a single party, enabling that party to form a government without reliance on coalition partners. This structure minimizes veto points and bargaining delays inherent in multi-party negotiations, allowing for the swift enactment of the governing party's platform. For instance, under first-past-the-post systems, the effective number of parties in government is lower—averaging around 1.15 parties for minimal winning coalitions compared to 1.96 in proportional representation systems—facilitating unified executive-legislative action.^[50] Empirical observations from parliamentary democracies reinforce this dynamic. In the United Kingdom's majoritarian system, single-party governments have historically passed transformative legislation rapidly, such as the Thatcher administration's deregulation and privatization reforms between 1979 and 1990, which faced minimal internal obstruction due to the Conservative Party's absolute majority in the House of Commons. Cross-national analyses indicate that majoritarian systems correlate with higher executive dominance and policy decisiveness, as governments can prioritize manifesto commitments over compromise-driven dilutions common in coalition settings. In contrast, proportional representation often yields fragmented parliaments requiring extended formation periods—sometimes exceeding 100 days in countries like Belgium or the Netherlands—before policy agendas can advance.^[50]^[1] From a causal perspective, the winner-take-all mechanism incentivizes broad electoral appeals under Duverger's law, fostering two-party competition that concentrates legislative power and reduces the fragmentation leading to policy paralysis. While coalition governments in proportional systems may invest negotiation time in long-term stability, evidence suggests this often slows initial reform implementation, as seen in lower legislative productivity during formation phases across European cases. Thus, winner-take-all systems causally enable more responsive and uncompromised policy execution when majorities emerge, aligning governance speed with electoral mandates.^[1]^[51]

Criticisms and Empirical Drawbacks

Issues of Wasted Votes and Voter Disenfranchisement

In winner-take-all systems, such as single-member district plurality voting, votes cast for candidates other than the plurality winner in a district are classified as wasted, as they fail to secure representation despite comprising a majority of ballots in many contests. This occurs because only the top vote-getter claims the seat, leaving all other preferences unrepresented at the district level. Empirical assessments across FPTP implementations reveal that wasted votes routinely exceed 50% of total ballots; for instance, district-level data from various elections show that, on average, 45-60% of votes do not elect the local representative, amplifying national disproportionality where parties can secure legislative majorities with minority vote shares.^[52]^[53] Critics assert that this mechanism effectively disenfranchises voters by rendering large swaths of preferences irrelevant, fostering alienation and incentivizing tactical voting—where individuals forgo sincere choices for more competitive options to mitigate perceived waste. Evidence from FPTP systems confirms tactical voting prevalence, with studies estimating 10-30% of ballots cast strategically in UK general elections, driven by Duvergerian incentives that penalize support for smaller parties.^[54]^[55] In Canada, similar patterns emerged in the 2019 federal election, where over 50% of votes were deemed wasted, correlating with voter frustration over unrepresented preferences despite high turnout in competitive ridings.^[56] The issue extends to indirect winner-take-all applications like the U.S. Electoral College, where most states allocate all electors to the statewide popular vote winner, nullifying margins in non-swing states and arguably disenfranchising voters whose preferences oppose the dominant outcome. In the 2016 presidential election, for example, Democratic votes in safely Republican states like Texas contributed nothing to the electoral tally despite comprising nearly 40% of the ballot there, prompting claims of systemic marginalization.^[42] Cross-national comparisons further link FPTP's wasted vote dynamics to subdued turnout, with research indicating 3-5% lower participation rates than in proportional systems, attributed to reduced efficacy perceptions; a natural experiment in Spanish municipalities switching electoral rules found PR boosting turnout by up to 10% in comparable locales.^[57]^[58] In at-large winner-take-all contests, the effect intensifies, as the entire slate or prize goes to the plurality holder, often sidelining diverse viewpoints and exacerbating minority disenfranchisement without compensatory mechanisms. While proponents counter that such systems prioritize governability over exact proportionality, the empirical persistence of uncounted votes underscores ongoing debates over representational equity.^[59]

Risks of Underrepresentation and Gerrymandering

In winner-take-all systems using single-member districts, such as first-past-the-post voting, parties with geographically dispersed support frequently experience acute underrepresentation, as the entire seat in each district goes to the candidate with the most votes, irrespective of broader vote distribution. This structural feature systematically disadvantages smaller or regionally uneven parties, converting national vote pluralism into legislative dominance by the largest party. For example, in the United Kingdom's July 4, 2024, general election, Reform UK secured 14.3 percent of the national vote—over 4 million ballots—but won only 5 seats out of 650, equating to under 1 percent of parliamentary representation.^[60] ^[61] Similarly, the Green Party obtained 6.7 percent of votes but just 4 seats.^[60] Comparable patterns emerge in Canada, where the 2021 federal election saw the People's Party of Canada receive 4.9 percent of the vote (840,000 votes) yet zero seats out of 338, while the Green Party's 2.3 percent yielded only 2 seats.^[62] The New Democratic Party, with 17.8 percent of votes, captured 25 seats (7.4 percent).^[62] These outcomes reflect how winner-take-all mechanics amplify the seat bonus for vote-leading parties while marginalizing others, potentially sidelining policy perspectives held by significant voter blocs and fostering legislative monoculture.^[63] Quantitative assessments, such as the Gallagher index (least-squares measure of vote-seat disproportionality), underscore this risk, with majoritarian systems consistently registering higher values—often 10 or more—than proportional systems, where indices below 5 are common. In the UK, indices for FPTP elections frequently exceed 15, signaling substantial mismatches; Canada's 2019 index was 12.5, reflecting similar deviations. Peer-reviewed analyses confirm that majoritarian rules inherently produce greater disproportionality, as district-level plurality thresholds discard votes for non-winners, compounding underrepresentation over multiple cycles.^[63] ^[64] Gerrymandering intensifies these risks by enabling legislative majorities or commissions to redraw boundaries that pack opposition voters into supermajority districts or crack them across multiple districts to dilute influence, further skewing seat allocation away from vote proportions. This is feasible primarily in single-member district frameworks, where precise boundary tweaks can manufacture safe seats. In the US, post-2020 census redistricting saw widespread partisan gerrymandering; a 2023 analysis of state plans found that while national biases often offset (Republicans gained an estimated net +3 seats via maps), state-level effects amplified underrepresentation, with Democratic-leaning maps in some states yielding 5-10 extra seats for Democrats relative to neutral simulations.^[65] In the 2022 House elections, Republicans secured 222 seats (51 percent) with about 52 percent of the two-party vote, but gerrymandered maps in states like Florida and Texas contributed 5-7 additional GOP seats beyond baseline efficiencies.^[66] Such manipulations reduce district competitiveness—dropping from 10-15 percent truly competitive seats pre-redistricting to under 5 percent in affected states—and entrench parties, limiting accountability for underrepresented groups.^[67] Empirical models indicate gerrymandering correlates with 2-5 percent deviations in seat-vote ratios per cycle, persisting until judicial or reform interventions.^[65]

Counterarguments from First-Principles Analysis

From fundamental principles of decision-making in groups, winner-take-all systems establish clear authority by designating a single victor responsible for outcomes, enabling decisive action without the paralysis of divided mandates common in proportional systems where coalitions must negotiate post-election. This structure aligns with causal mechanisms of governance, as a unified executive or legislature can implement policies efficiently, fostering stability; for instance, single-party majorities in first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems historically produce governments with direct voter accountability, allowing electorates to reward or punish coherent platforms rather than diffuse bargaining.^[68]^[69] Incentives under winner-take-all encourage parties to build broad coalitions by appealing to median voter preferences within districts, countering claims of disenfranchisement: voters' choices, even if non-winning, exert pressure through marginal swings that can trigger outsized seat changes, amplifying responsiveness to public opinion shifts. This disproportionality—often critiqued as "wasted votes"—functions as a feature, not a flaw, by heightening the penalty for alienating swing voters and promoting policy moderation to secure pluralities, as parties must transcend niche bases to govern. Empirical patterns in FPTP systems, such as Canada's 1993 election where a 27-point vote drop for the Progressive Conservatives yielded near-total seat loss, demonstrate how such sensitivity enforces accountability without requiring perfect vote-seat proportionality.^[69]^[68] Underrepresentation risks, including gerrymandering, stem more from implementation flaws than inherent design; first-principles favor localized accountability in single-member districts, where representatives face direct constituent scrutiny, incentivizing localized responsiveness over national proportionality that dilutes individual legislator responsibility. While proportional representation accommodates minorities via list seats, it often fragments authority, leading to unstable coalitions (e.g., Israel's repeated government formations from 2019-2021), whereas winner-take-all's binary contests compel inclusive strategies, ensuring governance reflects workable majorities rather than veto-prone minorities. This causal realism prioritizes effective rule over descriptive mirroring, as divided power correlates with policy gridlock absent strong incentives for compromise.^[69]^[68]

Comparison to Proportional Representation

Fundamental Structural Differences

The winner-take-all system, also known as first-past-the-post or majoritarian voting, fundamentally structures elections around single-member districts where the candidate receiving the plurality of votes secures the entire seat, irrespective of the vote margin or overall proportionality.^[1] This design concentrates representation on geographic units, translating votes into seats via a zero-sum allocation that excludes all but the top vote-getter, often resulting in a high threshold for victory even below 50% support.^[8] In contrast, proportional representation employs multi-member districts or national party lists, distributing multiple seats according to the relative vote shares of parties or candidates, typically using formulas like the d'Hondt method or largest remainder to allocate outcomes that more closely mirror voter preferences across the electorate.^[70] ^[25] A core structural divergence lies in district magnitude and electoral formula: winner-take-all relies on low-magnitude districts (usually one seat per constituency), enforcing local majorities that amplify regional strongholds while discarding non-winning votes entirely.^[1] Proportional systems, however, utilize higher district magnitudes—often 5 to 100 seats or more—enabling fractional seat allocation and reducing vote wastage by awarding representation to smaller vote blocs, though many incorporate thresholds (e.g., 5% national vote minimum) to curb excessive fragmentation.^[70] ^[25] Ballot design reinforces this: winner-take-all ballots emphasize individual candidates tied to specific locales, fostering personalized campaigns, whereas proportional variants prioritize party lists or ranked preferences in systems like single transferable vote, shifting focus to ideological or programmatic alignments.^[8] ^[1] These mechanics yield distinct aggregation logics—winner-take-all aggregates votes sequentially per district to produce unitary outcomes, inherently favoring larger, territorially concentrated parties through mechanical effects like vote concentration bonuses.^[25] Proportional representation aggregates votes holistically, often at regional or national levels, to enforce seat-vote proportionality, which structurally accommodates multipartism by lowering effective entry barriers for minorities, albeit at the risk of diluting local accountability.^[70] ^[1] Empirical analyses confirm that such differences stem from deliberate choices in translating voter input: winner-take-all prioritizes simplicity and decisiveness via plurality rule, while proportional systems embed compensatory mechanisms to align seats with vote distributions, as evidenced in cross-national implementations where PR variants achieve Gallagher indices of disproportionality below 5% compared to over 10% in pure winner-take-all setups.^[25]

Divergent Outcomes in Party Systems and Governance

In winner-take-all (WTA) systems, such as first-past-the-post, the tendency toward two-party dominance—often termed Duverger's law—results in party systems characterized by bipolar competition and clear alternations in power between major parties, fostering streamlined electoral contests but limiting third-party viability. In contrast, proportional representation (PR) systems encourage multi-party fragmentation, with effective numbers of legislative parties averaging 3-5 or higher in many implementations, enabling diverse ideological representation but complicating majority formation. This divergence shapes governance: WTA typically yields single-party majority governments capable of unilateral action, with empirical data from 1946-2011 across democracies showing one-party cabinets averaging longer durations (around 1,000-1,500 days) and lower collapse risks compared to coalitions.^[71] PR-driven multi-party systems necessitate coalition governments, where bargaining among ideologically diverse partners often dilutes policy coherence and extends formation periods—averaging 50-60 days in Western European PR cases from 1945-1999—while increasing cabinet instability, as evidenced by higher dissolution rates (up to 20-30% more frequent than in majoritarian setups). Majoritarian WTA governance, per Arend Lijphart's analysis of 36 democracies (1946-2010), correlates with more decisive macroeconomic policy execution, such as faster fiscal adjustments during crises, but at the cost of narrower inclusivity; consensus PR models, conversely, promote policy continuity through compromise, yielding better outcomes in welfare provision and electoral proportionality indices (e.g., Gallagher's index scores under 5 versus 10+ in WTA). Yet, causal evidence indicates PR coalitions can foster gridlock, as seen in Italy's 1948-1992 "pentapartito" era with over 50 governments in 44 years, versus the UK's WTA stability with governments enduring full terms in 70% of post-1945 cases. These structural differences yield divergent societal impacts: WTA reinforces executive dominance and voter accountability via clear mandate attribution, empirically linked to higher policy responsiveness in unified governments (e.g., U.S. Congress alignment under divided vs. unified control, 1789-2018), but risks "manufactured majorities" where vote-seat disparities exceed 10-20%. PR, by contrast, enhances minority veto powers and coalition inclusivity, correlating with lower polarization in legislative debates (per V-Dem indices, 1900-2020) but slower legislative throughput, with bill passage rates 15-25% below WTA benchmarks in comparable parliamentary systems. Cross-regime comparisons, such as New Zealand's shift from WTA to mixed PR in 1996, reveal initial coalition instability (four governments in 15 years) alongside improved representation, underscoring trade-offs where WTA prioritizes governability over proportionality.

Cross-National Empirical Evidence

Cross-national empirical analyses consistently demonstrate that winner-take-all (WTA) systems produce substantially higher disproportionality between vote shares and seat allocations than proportional representation (PR) systems. The Gallagher least-squares index, a standard measure of this discrepancy, yields averages exceeding 10 in WTA countries such as the United Kingdom (mean 11.5 across post-1945 elections) and Canada (mean 12.8), reflecting frequent "wasted votes" for non-winning candidates, whereas PR systems like those in the Netherlands and Denmark register indices below 4, ensuring closer alignment of legislative seats with popular support.^[63]^[72] This disparity arises mechanistically from WTA's single-member district structure, which amplifies winner biases, as opposed to PR's multi-member districts or list-based allocations that distribute seats proportionally. WTA systems also correlate with lower multipartism across democracies. The Laakso-Taagepera effective number of legislative parties index, which weights parties by seat share, averages approximately 2.1 in majoritarian systems (e.g., United States Congress at 2.0-2.2 over decades) versus 3.5-4.5 in PR systems (e.g., Israel at 5.0 or Sweden at 3.8), based on post-World War II data from over 20 European and other democracies.^[73]^[74] This pattern, observed in cross-national datasets spanning 1945-2020, supports Duverger's hypothesis that WTA incentivizes strategic voting and party mergers, consolidating competition into effective duopolies, while PR lowers entry barriers for niche parties, fostering fragmentation but enhancing policy diversity. Regarding government stability, WTA systems generate more frequent single-party majorities—occurring in about 70% of cases in majoritarian democracies versus under 20% in PR ones—yielding cabinets with fewer internal veto points and lower mid-term dissolution rates, per Arend Lijphart's dataset of 36 countries from 1946-1996.^[75] However, Lijphart's regressions indicate consensus (PR-dominant) systems achieve comparable or superior policy continuity through inclusive coalitions, with average cabinet durations of 1.5-2 years similar to majoritarian ones, though prone to bargaining delays; critics note this analysis may underweight WTA's decisiveness in crises, as evidenced by quicker policy pivots in the UK versus coalition gridlock in Italy pre-1990s reforms.^[76]^[77] On economic policy, PR systems empirically link to expanded fiscal burdens. Persson and Tabellini's cross-sectional analysis of 60 democracies (circa 1990s data) finds proportional rules elevate central government consumption by 3-5% of GDP relative to majoritarian ones, attributing this to diffused accountability in multi-party coalitions that facilitate pork-barrel spending and redistribution.^[78]^[79] Complementary evidence from parliamentary democracies shows PR correlating with 4-6% higher total public expenditure, potentially constraining growth; for instance, a panel study of OECD nations links greater proportionality to 0.5-1% lower annual GDP growth via reduced fiscal discipline.^[80] Conversely, PR reduces income inequality through broader welfare policies, with majoritarian systems exhibiting Gini coefficients 2-4 points higher after controlling for confounders, though this comes at the cost of targeted interventions that may exacerbate horizontal inequities across similar locales.^[81]^[82] These patterns hold in robustness checks across datasets, underscoring WTA's bias toward median-voter fiscal conservatism.

Global and Historical Usage

Current Implementations in Sovereign Nations

The winner-take-all system, most commonly implemented as first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting in single-member districts, is employed for national legislative elections in dozens of sovereign nations, particularly former British colonies and common-law jurisdictions. In FPTP, the candidate with the plurality of votes in each district secures the sole seat, allocating all representation to the winner irrespective of the vote margin. As of 2025, this system governs lower-house elections in countries representing a significant share of the global population, including established democracies and developing states, though exact counts fluctuate with reforms and definitional nuances between pure plurality and other majoritarian variants.^[83]^[84] In the United Kingdom, FPTP elects all 650 members of the House of Commons from single-member constituencies, a practice upheld in the July 2024 general election where the Labour Party secured 412 seats with 33.7% of the national vote.^[85] In Canada, the 338 seats in the House of Commons are filled via plurality voting in federal ridings, as applied in the April 2025 election without successful reform to proportional alternatives despite prior parliamentary reviews.^[86] India's Lok Sabha, comprising 543 directly elected members, uses FPTP across constituencies delineated by the Delimitation Commission, with the system originating from the 1950 Representation of the People Act and reaffirmed in the 2024 general election.^[87] The United States applies FPTP to the 435 House of Representatives districts and most statewide Senate contests, where winners need only a plurality, contributing to frequent unopposed or low-turnout victories in safe seats as seen in the 2024 midterms.^[15] Nigeria's House of Representatives, with 360 members, employs FPTP under the Independent National Electoral Commission framework, as utilized in the 2023 elections amid ongoing debates over electronic transmission flaws but no systemic shift by 2025.^[88] Similar implementations persist in other African nations like Kenya and Ghana, Asian states such as Bangladesh and Malaysia, and smaller sovereigns including Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, often retaining the system for its simplicity despite criticisms of disproportionality.^[84] These applications cluster in regions with Westminster-style legacies, where FPTP facilitates single-party majorities but can amplify regional vote concentrations into national dominance, as evidenced by cross-national data showing persistent usage in approximately 40-50 lower houses despite global trends toward mixed or proportional systems.^[89]^[83]

Past and Declining Applications

New Zealand provides a paradigmatic example of a nation abandoning the winner-take-all system in favor of a more proportional alternative. The country employed first-past-the-post (FPTP) for parliamentary elections from the establishment of its general assembly in 1853 until reforms in the 1990s. This system produced repeated disproportional outcomes, such as the 1978 election where the National Party secured 51% of seats with 39.8% of the vote, while smaller parties like Social Credit received 7.2% of votes but only 1% of seats. Similar distortions occurred in 1981 and 1984, fueling public and academic critique of FPTP's tendency to amplify majorities and marginalize minorities.^[90] Dissatisfaction prompted a royal commission in 1986 recommending proportional representation, leading to referendums. An indicative vote in 1992 saw 84% of respondents reject retaining FPTP, prompting a binding referendum held alongside the 1993 general election. Voters chose between FPTP and mixed-member proportional (MMP) representation, with 53.9% opting for MMP and 46.1% for FPTP on a 85.1% turnout. MMP, which allocates seats proportionally based on party lists while retaining local constituencies, was implemented for the 1996 election, marking the end of pure winner-take-all at the national level.^[90]^[91] A 2011 confirmatory referendum reinforced this shift, with 57.8% supporting MMP over alternatives including FPTP. Beyond New Zealand, winner-take-all applications have waned in certain historical contexts, particularly among post-colonial states influenced by British traditions but opting for proportionality upon independence. For instance, Guyana introduced list proportional representation in 1953, replacing FPTP elements from colonial elections, to better accommodate ethnic divisions between African and Indian-descended populations. Similarly, Malta transitioned from plurality block voting in multi-member districts to single transferable vote (a proportional system) in 1921, amid rising multipartism and labor unrest. These shifts reflect empirical recognition that winner-take-all exacerbates zero-sum competition in diverse societies, though reversions occurred elsewhere, such as in some African nations reverting to FPTP for perceived governability.^[15] In subnational settings, U.S. municipalities and counties historically reliant on at-large winner-take-all elections—common until the mid-20th century—largely phased them out post-1965 Voting Rights Act, which targeted vote dilution. By 1980, over 90% of such jurisdictions had adopted single-member districts, often under plurality rules, but this reduced pure at-large applications amid lawsuits documenting racial gerrymandering risks. The overall trend underscores a decline in unmitigated winner-take-all, supplanted by hybrids or proportionality where empirical data highlighted exclusionary effects.^[92]

Political and Societal Impacts

Effects on Party Competition and Duverger's Law

In winner-take-all electoral systems, particularly those employing single-member districts with first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting, Duverger's Law asserts a pronounced tendency toward two-party dominance at the district level, constraining broader party competition. Formulated by French political scientist Maurice Duverger, the law identifies two interlocking mechanisms: the mechanical effect, by which parties garnering less than a plurality of votes in a district receive zero representation, thereby winnowing out smaller competitors over time; and the psychological effect, encompassing voter strategic behavior to avert "wasted" votes on non-viable candidates and elite decisions to merge or abstain from fielding fringe slates.^[93] These dynamics create a feedback loop that discourages multi-party proliferation, as rational actors anticipate and reinforce the system's bias toward bipolar contests.^[94] Empirical evidence from cross-national studies substantiates this effect, showing plurality systems yield fewer effective parties—typically approaching two—compared to proportional representation alternatives. For example, analyses of single-member district outcomes in 53 countries reveal that FPTP elections exhibit lower party fragmentation, with third-place finishers rarely advancing, though deviations occur in contexts of strong regional or ethnic cleavages that sustain localized multi-party patterns.^[95] In Japan prior to its 1994 electoral reform, regression discontinuity tests of close races under plurality rule confirmed heightened strategic voting against third candidates, reducing their vote shares by up to 10 percentage points when viability thresholds were crossed, thus empirically validating the psychological mechanism's role in curtailing competition.^[96] The resultant compression of competition into two major parties enhances governmental stability by minimizing coalition dependencies but narrows ideological contestation, as emerging factions must align with one pole or face marginalization. This is evident in longstanding FPTP democracies like the United States and United Kingdom, where district-level races have historically polarized around duopolies, with minor parties averaging under 5% of seats despite occasional national vote spikes.^[95] From a causal standpoint, the system's zero-sum district outcomes compel vote-seeking parties to broaden appeal across median voter preferences, sidelining niche platforms and fostering catch-all organizations over programmatic specialization.^[93] Exceptions, such as Canada's regionally fragmented multi-party landscape under FPTP, arise from federal structures amplifying subnational identities, yet even here, district effective party numbers hover near 2.1-2.5, underscoring the law's directional force rather than absolute determinism.^[95] Overall, Duverger's framework highlights how winner-take-all rules structurally incentivize consolidation, diminishing incentives for party entry and intensifying rivalry within a narrowed field.^[96]

Influence on Minority and Demographic Representation

In winner-take-all electoral systems, minority groups frequently face underrepresentation in legislative bodies compared to their population shares, as seats are allocated district-by-district based on pluralities rather than national or regional vote proportions. This structure disadvantages dispersed or non-concentrated demographics, whose support for non-winning candidates translates into zero representation despite substantial vote totals—a phenomenon known as vote wastage. Empirical analyses of U.S. cities demonstrate that at-large winner-take-all voting, which amplifies majority preferences across entire jurisdictions, correlates with lower minority officeholding rates than single-member district systems, even when controlling for population demographics.^[97] ^[98] Cross-national data reinforces this pattern in first-past-the-post implementations. In the United States, racial and ethnic minorities comprise 42% of the population but only 28% of voting House members in the 119th Congress (2025-2026).^[99] ^[100] Similarly, in the United Kingdom, ethnic minorities account for 16% of the population yet held about 14% of House of Commons seats (90 out of 650 MPs) after the July 2024 election.^[101] ^[102] These gaps persist because minority voters, often aligned with opposition parties in competitive districts, contribute to losses without securing seats, while geographic clustering in safe districts for one major party can enable targeted nominations but leaves broader demographic interests unproportionalized. Mitigating factors exist, such as strategic districting to create majority-minority constituencies, which boosted Black representation in the U.S. South following the 1965 Voting Rights Act by aligning boundaries with demographic concentrations.^[97] However, such measures require legal intervention and can provoke backlash or dilution challenges, and they do not aid geographically diffuse groups like Hispanics in non-concentrated areas, where representation lags population shares (e.g., Latinos at 19% of the U.S. population but roughly 9% of Congress).^[103] In contrast, comparative studies across electoral systems find that proportional representation yields more consistent minority seat shares aligned with vote blocs, as it reduces the district-level plurality barrier.^[104] Winner-take-all dynamics also incentivize major parties to co-opt minority voters through selective candidacies rather than independent ethnic parties, which Duverger's Law discourages due to the mechanical effects of single-member districts.^[52] For broader demographics, such as religious or linguistic minorities, the system's emphasis on broad-appeal candidates in heterogeneous districts can marginalize niche interests unless they form pivotal voting blocs. In countries like Canada and India, both using FPTP variants, indigenous and caste-based groups achieve representation primarily through regional strongholds or reserved seats, but overall proportionality remains elusive without supplementary mechanisms. This causal link—district-majority rule over vote proportionality—underpins the empirical underrepresentation observed, though party incentives for inclusive nominations have driven incremental gains over time, as evidenced by record minority MPs in the UK 2024 results.^[102]

Broader Implications for Democratic Stability

In winner-take-all electoral systems, the mechanical effect of awarding all representation to the plurality winner in single-member districts tends to consolidate party competition into a two-party format, as formalized by Duverger's Law, thereby enabling the emergence of stable majorities that reduce the risk of fragmented coalitions and governmental paralysis. This dynamic supports executive decisiveness, with empirical analysis of Italian municipalities showing that majoritarian systems experience significantly fewer government reshuffles than proportional ones, as incumbents face stronger incentives to maintain broad coalitions to secure re-election.^[105] Cross-nationally, established democracies like the United Kingdom, which has operated under first-past-the-post since the 19th century, demonstrate sustained cabinet durability, with single-party governments averaging longer terms than in multi-party proportional systems prone to bargaining delays.^[68] Conversely, the system's inherent disproportionality—where parties can secure legislative majorities with minority popular support, as in the UK's 2005 election (Labour won 55% of seats with 35% of votes)—can erode voter trust by amplifying perceptions of illegitimacy among non-winning factions, fostering affective polarization and sporadic challenges to institutional norms.^[106] Experimental evidence indicates that plurality rules widen "legitimacy gaps" between election winners and losers more than proportional alternatives, as the binary outcome heightens zero-sum perceptions and reduces incentives for cross-partisan accommodation, potentially destabilizing democratic equilibria in polarized contexts.^[107] A study across 40 democracies further reveals that majoritarian institutions correlate with party system stability through reduced effective party numbers, but this comes at the cost of heightened volatility in voter turnout and occasional surges in populist backlash when underrepresented groups mobilize outside formal channels.^[108] Overall, while winner-take-all mechanisms prioritize short-term governability by filtering out marginal actors, their exclusionary translation of votes to power risks long-term instability if cumulative disenfranchisement fuels extra-electoral discontent, as observed in declining trust metrics in first-past-the-post nations like Canada, where turnout fell to 62% in the 2011 federal election amid widespread "wasted vote" complaints. This tension underscores a causal trade-off: enhanced immediate stability versus vulnerability to legitimacy crises absent compensatory institutions like strong judiciaries or federalism.^[109]

Contemporary Debates and Reform Proposals

Key Controversies in Recent Elections (Post-2000)

The 2000 United States presidential election exemplified vulnerabilities in winner-take-all systems, particularly in Florida, where the state's 25 electoral votes were awarded entirely to the candidate with the plurality of the popular vote. George W. Bush initially led Al Gore by 1,783 votes out of nearly 6 million cast, prompting machine recounts that narrowed the margin to 327 votes; a subsequent manual recount in select counties was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore on December 12, 2000, in a 5-4 decision citing inconsistent standards that violated equal protection principles. Controversies centered on "hanging chads" from punch-card ballots, uneven recount methodologies favored by Democrats, and allegations of voter disenfranchisement due to flawed ballot designs and purging of felons from rolls, with post-election analyses showing Gore would have prevailed under uniform statewide standards.^[110]^[111]^[112] In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump secured 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton's 227 despite losing the national popular vote by 2.1 percentage points (48.2% to 46.1%, or about 2.9 million votes), as 48 states allocate all electors on a winner-take-all basis to the popular vote winner within the state. This outcome fueled debates over the system's bias toward smaller states and rural areas, with critics arguing it incentivizes campaigns to focus on swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—where Trump won by margins under 1%—while ignoring non-competitive regions comprising over 80% of the population. Proponents defended it as preserving federalism and preventing urban dominance, but the discrepancy prompted over 10 states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact by 2020, aiming to bypass the Electoral College without constitutional amendment.^[113]^[114]^[115] The United Kingdom's 2015 general election highlighted disproportionality under first-past-the-post (FPTP), a winner-take-all system for single-member constituencies, where the Conservative Party gained 331 seats (51% of Commons) with just 36.9% of votes, marking the most skewed result in the system's history per vote-seat efficiency metrics. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) received 12.6% of votes but only one seat, while the Scottish National Party (SNP) won 56 seats (4.7% national vote share, concentrated regionally); this led to accusations of systemic unfairness, with the Electoral Reform Society labeling it a "blight on democracy" for manufacturing artificial majorities and marginalizing third parties. Calls for proportional representation intensified, though no reforms materialized, as FPTP's tendency to favor larger parties under Duverger's law amplified two-party dynamics despite multi-party vote fragmentation.^[116]^[117]^[118] Canadian federal elections under FPTP have similarly sparked disputes over manufactured majorities, as in 2015 when Justin Trudeau's Liberals secured 184 seats (54% of Parliament) with 39.5% of votes, outpacing the Conservatives' 99 seats despite a comparable 31.9% share, exacerbating regional cleavages where vote efficiency in urban Ontario and Quebec yielded outsized representation. Critics, including Fair Vote Canada, attribute recurring "false majorities" to FPTP's winner-take-all mechanics, which distort national outcomes and fuel separatist sentiments in provinces like Alberta and Quebec, though specific post-2000 controversies focused more on reform failures—such as Trudeau's 2015 promise to end FPTP abandoned by 2017—than isolated recounts.^[119]^[120]

Proposed Reforms and Their Critiques

Proponents of electoral reform advocate replacing winner-take-all systems, such as first-past-the-post (FPTP), with ranked-choice voting (RCV) to achieve majority support without runoffs. In RCV, voters rank candidates, and votes from eliminated lowest-polling candidates are redistributed until one secures over 50% of active ballots. Jurisdictions including Maine, which adopted RCV for state and congressional races in 2018 following a 2016 referendum, and Alaska, which implemented it statewide in 2022 after a 2020 ballot initiative, cite reduced strategic voting and incentives for broader coalitions. A 2023 evaluation of San Francisco's RCV use since 2004 found elected officials received majority support in 85% of races, compared to under 40% in similar FPTP systems, potentially mitigating the spoiler effect observed in WTA outcomes like the 2000 U.S. presidential election.^[121]^[122] Critics of RCV argue it introduces complexity that burdens voters, with empirical data showing ballot exhaustion rates of 4.5% in Maine's 2018 congressional election and up to 8% in some New York City primaries, effectively discarding preferences and skewing results toward higher-ranked candidates. A 2025 study on minority voter participation warned that RCV's ranking requirement correlates with lower comprehension among less-educated demographics, potentially suppressing turnout by 2-3% in diverse urban areas, as cognitive load tests revealed higher error rates in ranking tasks versus single-choice ballots. Furthermore, while RCV aims to foster moderation, evidence from Australian federal elections under instant-runoff since 1918 indicates persistent two-party dominance, suggesting limited circumvention of Duverger's law dynamics inherent to single-member districts.^[123]^[124]^[125] Another major reform proposal involves proportional representation (PR), where seats reflect national or regional vote shares, often via party lists or mixed-member systems combining district and compensatory seats. New Zealand's 1993 referendum led to replacing FPTP with mixed-member proportional (MMP) in 1996, reducing the Gallagher index of disproportionality from 18.6 in 1993 to 3.7 in 1996 and enhancing representation for smaller parties like the Greens, which secured 7-11% of seats aligned with votes. Advocates point to Germany's MMP since 1949, where coalition arithmetic has sustained stable governance, with cabinets lasting an average of 3.5 years, arguing PR better captures diverse preferences than WTA's 30-50% wasted votes in FPTP systems.^[126]^[127] Opponents critique PR for fostering fragmentation and instability, as smaller parties gain veto power in coalitions, prolonging negotiations and diluting accountability; New Zealand's MMP era has seen average coalition formation times of 45 days post-election, versus near-instant under FPTP, with leverage for minor parties like New Zealand First enabling policy shifts disproportionate to 5-8% vote shares. Historical cases, such as Italy's pure list PR from 1948-1993, resulted in 61 governments in 45 years, averaging 8.7 months each, attributed to ideological splintering that empowered extremists and stalled reforms. Recent analyses caution that PR amplifies polarization in multi-party settings by lowering entry barriers for niche groups, evidenced by Israel's Knesset under PR experiencing government collapses in 2022-2023 amid coalition breakdowns, contrasting FPTP's tendency toward decisive majorities despite underrepresentation. Academic skepticism, including from sources noting academia's reform bias, emphasizes that PR's purported equality gains overlook causal links to reduced legislative cohesion, as fragmented assemblies pass fewer bills per session than majoritarian ones.^[128]^[129]^[130]

References

[1]
Majoritarian versus Proportional Representation Voting
What kind of voting system should countries have? This policy brief discusses the two main electoral systems in modern political democracies.
[2]
Winner-take-all - Ballotpedia
Winner-take-all or winner-takes-all is an electoral system in which a single political party or group can elect every office within a given district or ...Winner-take-all voting methods · Differences between winner...
[3]
Duverger's Law - (Intro to American Government) - Fiveable
Duverger's Law is a political science principle that states that electoral systems with single-member districts and winner-take-all elections tend to lead ...
[4]
Electoral Systems - FairVote
The election of fewer women to the legislature. Common single-winner systems include plurality voting, two-round runoffs, and ranked choice voting. Proportional ...
[5]
Winner Take All Meaning & Definition | GoodParty.org
The "winner-take-all" system, also known as "first-past-the-post" or "plurality voting," is an electoral mechanism where the candidate who receives the most ...Missing: formal | Show results with:formal
[6]
PR Library: Types of Voting Systems - FairVote
However, because this is a winner-take-all system, at-large voting shares most of the same problems as single-member district plurality voting, including the ...
[7]
What is the Electoral College? - National Archives
Learn more about voting for the electors. Most States have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the Presidential candidate who wins the ...
[8]
Winner Take All vs. Proportional Representation - FairVote.org
There are two basic families of voting systems. Winner-take-all systems elect the candidates who receive the most votes, thereby allowing 50.1% of voters to win ...
[9]
Proportional representation, explained - Protect Democracy
Dec 5, 2023 · Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for ...
[10]
[PDF] Electoral Systems and Electoral Reform in the UK in Historical ...
Voting itself was conducted by FPTP, the system in which electors vote for as many candidates as there are seats to be elected,. (so one in a single-member ...
[11]
How long have we used First Past the Post? You might be surprised
Jan 11, 2019 · We're right to be proud of the long history of parliamentary democracy in Britain. But the way we elect MPs to Westminster is a relatively ...
[12]
II. The Elections | History of Parliament Online
Henry Pelham, first lord of the Treasury and leader of the House of Commons since 1743, died on 6 March 1754, in the midst of preparations for the general ...
[13]
A History of One-Winner Districts for Congress - FairVote
The Framers may have indicated their preference for district elections, but the Constitution does not expressly require any particular electoral system. Rather, ...
[14]
Election Policy Fundamentals: Single-Member House Districts
Jan 12, 2024 · Members of the US House of Representatives have been elected exclusively from single-member districts since the 92 nd Congress (1971-1973).
[15]
First Past the Post (FPTP) — - ACE Electoral Knowledge Network
In FPTP systems, the winning candidate is simply the person who wins most votes. In theory, a candidate could be elected with two votes.
[16]
Introduction | To Keep or To Change First Past The Post? The ...
First past the post (FPTP) is one of the oldest and simplest electoral systems. The logic is straightforward. In each district, the candidate with the most ...
[17]
The Reform Act 1832 - UK Parliament
Another change brought by the 1832 Reform Act was the formal exclusion of women from voting in Parliamentary elections, as a voter was defined in the Act as a ...
[18]
What caused the 1832 Great Reform Act? - The National Archives
In 1832, Parliament passed a law that changed the British electoral system. It was known as the Great Reform Act, which basically gave the vote to middle class ...Tasks · Background · Teachers' notes
[19]
[PDF] THE UNTOLD TALE OF HOW & WHY BRITAIN HAS FIRST PAST ...
The introduction of single-member FPTP in 1885 was as much a piece of electoral engineering for the benefit of certain political parties as it is possible to ...
[20]
Electoral reform dilemmas: are single-member constituencies out of ...
The Third Reform Act imposed greater uniformity on the British electoral system. For the first time in British parliamentary history, constituencies were to ...
[21]
How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All - FairVote
Aug 21, 2012 · It was the first election in which the majority of states used a statewide winner-take-all voting method for choosing their presidential electors.
[22]
[PDF] Summary Issue 1. The Government has promised a new electoral ...
Canada has used the FPTP electoral system since the first federal election in 1867. In 1921, new political parties were formed and Canada moved from a two ...
[23]
India - First Past the Post on a Grand Scale —
The British introduced self-government to India in stages, but it was not until the end of colonial rule and the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950 by ...
[24]
India - First Past the Post on a Grand Scale - ACE
... election of 2004. Its parliamentary government and FPTP electoral system are a legacy of British colonialism, which ended in 1947. The British introduced ...
[25]
[PDF] Post (FPTP) Electoral System and the Proportional Representation
Jan 2, 2013 · Electoral systems translate the votes cast in a general election into seats won by parties and candidates. The choice of an electoral system ...
[26]
[PDF] A comparative Analysis of Kenya and Tanzania Samuel Otieno ...
May 8, 2025 · Despite sharing similar levels of ethnic diversity, these countries have distinct electoral systems and political landscapes, offering a ...
[27]
[PDF] THE POST [FPTP], ALTERNATIVE VOTING [AV], AND ...
Second, because elections are contested at the constituency level, there can be a degree of local control over the party's choice of candidate, and parties must ...
[28]
[PDF] American Electoral Institutions - MIT OpenCourseWare
Single-Member District Plurality Elections. ▷ Most elected offices in the USA are filled using single-member district plurality (SMDP), or “first-past-the ...
[29]
First Past the Post – Electoral Reform Society – ERS
First Past the Post (FPTP) is the name for the electoral system used to elect Members of Parliament (MPs) to Westminster.<|control11|><|separator|>
[30]
Electoral systems (BP-334E) - à www.publications.gc.ca
For this reason, this kind of electoral system is referred to as a "single-member plurality" or a "first past the post" system. Electoral systems of this ...
[31]
[PDF] Comparing Single Member District Plurality and Proportional ...
Therefore, in single member district plurality systems, voters are more likely to have their interests represented when fewer parties compete, and the two-party ...
[32]
[PDF] Glossary of Election Terms
An electoral system where each voter may select any number of candidates ... Very limited or lack of vision. Block Voting. A system in which a voter can ...
[33]
District vs At-Large Elections - Center for Effective Government
Feb 4, 2025 · Cities in the United States tend to elect their city councils using two electoral system types: single member districts or at-large elections.
[34]
Voting Power -
... Block voting systems It's said that “every vote counts,” but does every vote count equally? A block voting system such as the U.S. Electoral College makes ...
[35]
[PDF] Plurality Rule, Block Voting, and Arrow's Theorem
Jul 12, 2014 · As an example of a 2-set aggregation rule, consider the block voting rule in which the two alternatives chosen by the most alternatives are ...
[36]
Winner-Take-All States 2025 - World Population Review
Winner-Take-All States 2025 · State · Winner Takes All State · State Is Part of National Popular Vote Compact · # of Electoral Votes ...
[37]
[PDF] History of State Winner-Take-All Laws
Apr 22, 2017 · The winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors was never debated by the 1787. Constitutional Convention or mentioned in the ...
[38]
Nebraska and Maine split their electoral vote. Is it a better system ...
Every four years, the 2nd Congressional Districts in Nebraska and Maine become mini swing states in the presidential election. That's because those states ...
[39]
Frequently Asked Questions | National Archives
See the full Electoral College vote counts for President and Vice President in the 1872 election. We don't know what would happen if a candidate who, dies after ...
[40]
The Electoral College Explained | Brennan Center for Justice
Feb 17, 2021 · In other words, each awards its electoral votes to the presidential candidate chosen by the state's voters. Forty-eight states and the District ...Missing: early plurality
[41]
Electoral College | USAGov
Jan 13, 2025 · Counting of the electors' votes by Congress. In other U.S. elections, candidates are elected directly by popular vote. But the president and ...
[42]
[PDF] Why Winner-Take-All Vote Assignment is the Electoral College's ...
Aug 20, 2016 · The electoral college produces results potentially different from those that would be achieved by direct election through several distinct.
[43]
Government Responsiveness under Majoritarian and (within ...
Dec 7, 2018 · We show that government responsiveness represents dynamic changes from governments in order to improve policy/ideological congruence.
[44]
Post-2019 UK cabinet ministers last average of eight months, study ...
Mar 17, 2024 · Exclusive: Study compares electoral systems, with proportional representation shown not to be as volatile as critics say.
[45]
Holding Individual Representatives Accountable: The Role of ...
... single-member district (SMD) systems but is expected under less restrictive conditions using open-list proportional representation (OLPR). The latter not ...
[46]
[PDF] Accountability and Electoral Systems | Pia Raffler
The findings suggest that greater transparency through the press aligns the behavior of directly elected single-member district representatives with their ...
[47]
[PDF] Electoral Responsiveness - Scholars at Harvard
winner-take-all national systems of representation. Rather, the party with ... as well as electoral responsiveness in only two-party systems–are in-.
[48]
[PDF] Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evaluations of ... - Gary King
evaluation of fairness, including even the basic plurality voting rule in a single member district, requires a counterfactual analysis. 35. Page 37. the ...
[49]
Voter reaction to legislator dissent across political systems
As Searing (1988, 1372) noted, voter preferences for constituency-focused, party-independent behaviour reflect 'the rules of the game of single-member district ...
[50]
Democracy at its best: majoritarian or parliamentary electoral systems?
Jan 18, 2021 · A key question for political scientists is to evaluate which type of electoral system best performs under these kinds of scenarios.
[51]
Coalition bargaining time and governments' policy‐making productivity
Dec 20, 2023 · We argue that bargaining time, regardless if it results in a written policy agreement or not, is an investment in future government reform productivity.
[52]
First Past the Post - Disadvantages —
l plurality-majority systems, with First Past the Post (FPTP) being the chief culprit, have been criticized for the reasons outlined below.<|separator|>
[53]
Proportional representation and attitudes about politics: results from ...
PR rules also can be seen as more `fair' since—compared to majoritarian FPP systems—they reduce the proportion of voters who cast `wasted' votes. Therefore ...
[54]
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/41327/chapter/352326364
[55]
Decision period and Duverger's psychological effect in FPTP elections
The plurality rule creates incentives that can divert the vote from the third parties. I argue that the process that converts such Duvergerian incentives ...
[56]
Do We Have to Waste Half the Votes?
Aug 18, 2023 · We reported that over half the voters in the 2019 election cast “wasted votes” (votes that didn't help elect an MP).
[57]
The Effect of Electoral Systems on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a ...
Oct 12, 2015 · In Spain, municipalities with >250 inhabitants elect a city council by CL proportional representation while municipalities with 250 or fewer ...
[58]
Magnitude matters: Voter turnout under different electoral systems
Do voters participate more under proportional than plurality systems? While existing research typically suggests proportional representation (PR) systems ...
[59]
[PDF] Counting Votes: Essays on Electoral Reform | Fraser Institute
Oct 11, 2016 · First-Past-the-Post: Empowered Voters, Accountable Government d 9 ures showing what they claim are wasted votes, if voters were not so keen,.
[60]
UK election results 2024 | Constituency map - BBC News
Labour · total seats 412 · change +211 · total votes 9,708,716 · share 33.7% · share change +1.6 ...
[61]
2024 general election: Performance of Reform and the Greens
Aug 16, 2024 · Reform UK won five seats in 2024 and the Green Party won four seats, which were records for their parties. But both won a larger share of votes than seats.
[62]
Federal election 2021 live results
338 elected in 338 ridings. Canadians have re-elected a Liberal minority government. Check below to find breakdowns from your riding and races across the ...
[63]
[PDF] Election indices The figures below represent the values of three ...
Jun 16, 2025 · 3–27. (effective number of parties), and. Michael Gallagher, 'Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems', Electoral. Studies 10: ...
[64]
[PDF] Electoral disproportionality, its measurement and its effect ... - CORE
Political parties represent social classes with conflicting interests. Electoral systems have direct and indirect consequences for the parties' access to ...
[65]
Widespread partisan gerrymandering mostly cancels nationally, but ...
Congressional elections, however, occur in winner-take-all, single-member districts. When this sorting is combined with districts, Democratic votes turn ...
[66]
Did Redistricting Cost Democrats The House? | FiveThirtyEight
Dec 1, 2022 · The 2022 election for the House of Representatives was so close that if any number of things had gone differently, Democrats might have kept ...
[67]
[PDF] The Causes and Consequences of Gerrymandering
The voting records of Democratic and Republican legislators, of course, are almost always different. Most Democrats take more liberal positions while most.
[68]
First Past the Post - Advantages —
First Past the Post (FPTP), like other plurality-majority electoral systems, is defended primarily on the grounds of simplicity and its tendency to produce ...
[69]
[PDF] In Defense of Majoritarianism - Carleton University
May 6, 2020 · Few people have bothered to defend the majoritarian, winner take all character of the Canadian electoral system, in which the party that ...
[70]
Expanding Representation: Reinventing Congress for the 21st Century
Proportional systems differ from winner-take-all because of fundamentally different design choices. Within the broad class of proportional representation ...
[71]
Party Systems and Government Stability* | American Political ...
Aug 1, 2014 · One-party governments are more stable than coalition governments, and majority governments more than minority governments.
[72]
[PDF] Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems
Its operation is illustrated in Table 1, which relates to a constituency with five seats in which 100,000 votes are cast. Each party's vote total is divided by ...
[73]
https://escholarship.org/content/qt703827nv/qt703827nv_noSplash_03b973230f4cbd868d6965d1b965ea59.pdf
[74]
[PDF] “EFFECTIVE” NUMBER OF PARTIES A Measure with Application to ...
Apr 1, 1979 · The effective number of parties as well as fractionalization were calculated for all post-1944 elections in 15 West European countries, both on ...
[75]
Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One ...
Lijphart's book is the broadest and most thorough comparative study of democratic regimes available and will be especially suitable for course use.Missing: findings | Show results with:findings
[76]
[PDF] Does Consensus Democracy Make a Difference?
In the first edition of this book (Lijphart 1999, 264–. 69), I also found that consensus democracies have a better record on inflation and a slightly better ...
[77]
[PDF] Lijphart's Typology of Democracies - WRAP: Warwick
The 'older Lijphart' prefers consensus over majoritarian democracy as 'consensus democracy may not be perfect, but in most respects it works better than ...
[78]
Constitutional Rules and Fiscal Policy Outcomes
Constitutional Rules and Fiscal Policy Outcomes by Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini. Published in volume 94, issue 1, pages 25-45 of American Economic ...
[79]
[PDF] Electoral Rules and Government Spending in Parliamentary ...
Empirical evidence from post-war parliamentary democracies strongly supports these predictions. Keywords: Electoral rules; party systems; coalition governments; ...
[80]
[PDF] Electoral Systems and Economic Growth - EconStor
Importance of the Proportionality Degree? EERI Research Paper Series, No. 06/2014. Provided in Cooperation with: Economics and Econometrics Research Institute ( ...
[81]
Electoral systems and income inequality: a tale of political equality
Oct 21, 2021 · The link between democracy and within-country income inequality remains an unresolved quest in the literature of political economy.
[82]
[PDF] Electoral Systems and Inequalities in Government Interventions
This paper studies the political determinants of inequality in government interventions under the majoritarian and proportional representation systems.
[83]
The Global Distribution of Electoral Systems —
Reproduced by permission of International IDEA from Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook © 2005 International Institute for ...<|separator|>
[84]
Electoral Systems by Country 2025 - World Population Review
Single Non-Transferable Vote. Under this system, the type of voting is semi-proportional based on candidates, using a single-choice ballot that uses a plurality ...
[85]
Voting systems in the UK - UK Parliament
Voting systems, or electoral systems, are the method by which we elect representatives. A voting system determines the rules on how we elect parties and ...
[86]
Canadian House of Commons 2025 General - IFES Election Guide
Apr 29, 2025 · All 338 members of the House of Commons are directly elected by plurality/majority vote. Seats are redistristributed after each decennial census.
[87]
IPU PARLINE database: INDIA (Lok Sabha ), Electoral system
543 single-member constituencies. Voting system, Majority: Direct, simple majority vote. Vacancies arising between general elections are filled through by- ...<|separator|>
[88]
NIGERIA (House of Representatives), Electoral system
IPU PARLINE database on national parliaments: NIGERIA (House of Representatives), Electoral system.
[89]
Electoral System Design Database | International IDEA
The choice of electoral system is one of the most important institutional decisions in any democracy. Electoral systems define the rules of the political ...
[90]
A Royal Commission and two referendums - Elections NZ
Under MMP, voters would have two votes, one for a party and one for an electorate candidate. The party vote would determine the share of seats parties had in ...
[91]
The road to MMP - NZ History
Aug 6, 2025 · In 1993 New Zealanders voted to replace their traditional first past the post (FPP) voting system with mixed member proportional ...
[92]
New Zealand: A Westminster Democracy Switches to PR —
New Zealand recently changed its electoral system. In 1993, the country voted to discard the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system it had used for over a ...
[93]
[PDF] Duverger's Law and the Study of Electoral Systems - Ken Benoit
Since its first publication in 1951, Duverger's Political Parties has influenced an entire branch of political science devoted to the study of the political ...
[94]
The Psychological Impact of Electoral Laws: Measuring Duverger's ...
Jan 27, 2009 · In this article we provide an operational definition of the psychological effect of electoral systems and measure its impact across twenty democratic systems ...
[95]
Was Duverger Correct? Single-Member District Election Outcomes ...
Aug 20, 2012 · Yet third-place parties do not completely disappear, and ethnic divisions shape party fragmentation levels, even under plurality rule. Finally, ...
[96]
[PDF] A Regression Discontinuity Test of Strategic Voting and Duverger's ...
The effects are stronger in close elections and cannot be explained by differences in the number of candidates, as well as their party affiliation and ...<|separator|>
[97]
[PDF] Electoral Rules and Minority Representation in U.S. Cities
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was meant to protect the right to vote for racial minorities, especially in the South. In fact, in a reasonably short time, ...
[98]
[PDF] Minority Underrepresentation in US Cities - Francesco Trebbi
is a considerable gap between the vote of the White electorate on the one hand and the vote of the African American, Latino, and Asian American electorate on ...
[99]
The changing face of Congress in 7 charts - Pew Research Center
Mar 3, 2025 · Congress continues to be much less diverse than the country overall, as racial and ethnic minorities make up 42% of the U.S. population.
[100]
Racial, ethnic diversity in the 119th Congress | Pew Research Center
Jan 21, 2025 · In all, 28% of House members are Black, Hispanic, Asian or Native American, the same as in the previous Congress. No current voting members are ...
[101]
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01156/
[102]
Landmark for representation as diversity of parliament nears that of ...
Jul 5, 2024 · A record number of 90 ethnic minority MPs have been elected in the 2024 general election, to sit in the UK's most diverse parliament ever.
[103]
10 Facts About Latino Representation in Congress
Oct 28, 2024 · While 20% of the general US population is Latino, only 2% of all elected officials in the country are Latino.
[104]
Electoral Systems and the Representation of Ethnic Minorities - jstor
lization around ethnic parties and/or nomination of minority candidates by major parties. Essentially, proportional representation is expected to provide any ...
[105]
https://academic.oup.com/jleo/article/37/3/534/6032799
[106]
Can proportional representation create better governance?
May 2, 2024 · Proportional electoral systems can reduce political instability. Proportional systems that maintain the number of parties at a moderate level ...
[107]
Electoral Systems Affect Legitimacy Gaps and Affective Polarization
No readable text found in the HTML.<|separator|>
[108]
https://www.scielo.br/j/bpsr/a/f7nJvFVxZhjPSJL9XMcvNSy/
[109]
[PDF] ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND POLITICAL STABILITY: IMPLICATIONS ...
Strong political stability allows the government to focus on sustainable development policies, create a healthy investment climate, and improve public services, ...
[110]
The Florida Recount Of 2000: A Nightmare That Goes On Haunting
Nov 12, 2018 · The weeks-long battle over "hanging chads" that ultimately landed the fate of the presidency in the U.S. Supreme Court, continues to cast a ...
[111]
Bush v. Gore | 531 U.S. 98 (2000) - Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way.
[112]
Florida 'recounts' make Gore winner | World news - The Guardian
Jan 28, 2001 · Al Gore, not George Bush, should be sitting in the White House today as the newly elected president of the United States, ...
[113]
Why Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones
Dec 20, 2016 · That result was despite the fact that Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more popular votes than Trump in November's election, according to Pew ...
[114]
Why Trump Had an Edge in the Electoral College
Dec 19, 2016 · His Electoral College lead should be substantial, since he won states worth 306 electoral votes to 232 from states won by Hillary Clinton. Yet ...
[115]
Rage Against the Electoral College | Brennan Center for Justice
Apr 17, 2019 · Hillary Clinton held a rally at a downtown hotel in Manchester on the Sunday night before the election, while Donald Trump filled a hockey arena ...
[116]
The 2015 General Election: A Voting System in Crisis
Jul 26, 2015 · By Katie Ghose, CEO, Electoral Reform Society. Katie Ghose May 7th 2015 was, to say the least, an unpredictable result.
[117]
Election 'most disproportionate in history' say campaigners - BBC
Jun 1, 2015 · The 2015 general election was the "most disproportionate in British history", the Electoral Reform Society says as it produces an analysis ...
[118]
Election result is 'nail in the coffin' of first-past-the-post voting system
May 9, 2015 · Electoral Reform Society condemns least proportional result in history as a 'blight on our democracy'
[119]
Fact Checking Justin Trudeau on Electoral Reform - Fair Vote Canada
Oct 3, 2024 · Justin Trudeau misleads Canadians about electoral reform, regrets that he didn't force through his preferred winner-take-all system.
[120]
First Past the Post has failed to give the most popular Canadian ...
Sep 22, 2021 · There are 'status quo' elections and then there's this week's 2021 Canadian federal election – where every party's seat total is no more than ...
[121]
Evaluating the Effects of Ranked-Choice Voting - New America
By Lee Drutman and Maresa Strano. Since San Francisco adopted ranked-choice voting (RCV) for municipal elections in 2002, the alternative voting system has ...
[122]
Research and data on RCV in practice - FairVote
We did not control for other factors, such as competitiveness of races on the ballot, which could drive turnout. Ranked choice voting and voter turnout.
[123]
Does Ranked Choice Voting Create Barriers for Minority Voters?
Feb 17, 2025 · Ranked choice voting (RCV) aims to expand voter choice and improve representation, but Nolan McCarty's research warns it could have ...<|separator|>
[124]
Ranked-Choice Voting - Center for Effective Government
Apr 30, 2024 · Andrew Eggers is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. His research focuses on electoral systems, the relationship ...
[125]
Does ranked choice Voting Increase voter turnout and mobilization?
We propose that there is potential for ranked choice voting to increase turnout by expanding voter choice and/or affecting incentives candidates have to ...
[126]
[PDF] The Effects of Proportional Representation on Election Lawmaking
New. Zealand is so far the only established democracy to shift from a non-proportional to a proportional electoral system and thus presents an ideal case to ...
[127]
https://fairvote.ca/a-look-at-the-evidence/
[128]
[PDF] SKEPTICISM ABOUT PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR ...
Nov 19, 2024 · PILDES, THE LAW OF DEMOCRACY: LEGAL STRUCTURE OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS. 1160–67 (2d ed. 2002). 8. In this system, voters cast two ballots, one ...
[129]
[PDF] Why Proportional Representation Could Make Things Worse
Dec 9, 2024 · single-member districts and FPTP elections lie at the heart of America's descent into toxic politics may not be correct. More importantly, we.Missing: historical | Show results with:historical
[130]
PR vs. First Past the Post: Practical and Ethical Tradeoffs
Jul 25, 2024 · The table below shows how many seats each party would have won under the most permissive electoral system – proportional representation (PR).Missing: studies speed