Bullet voting

Last updated

Bullet voting, [1] also known as single-shot voting [2] and plump voting, [3] is a voting tactic, usually in multiple-winner elections, where a voter is entitled to vote for more than one candidate, but instead votes for only one candidate.

Contents

A voter might do this because it is easier than evaluating all the candidates or as a form of tactical voting. Voters can use this tactic to maximize the chance that their favorite candidate will be elected while increasing the risk that other favored candidates will lose. A group of voters using this tactic consistently has a better chance of one favorite candidate being elected. [4] [5]

Election systems that satisfy the later-no-harm criterion discourage any value in bullet voting. These systems either do not ask for lower preferences (like plurality) or promise to ignore lower preferences unless all higher preferences are eliminated.

Some elections have tried to disallow bullet voting and require the casting of multiple votes because it can empower minority voters. Minority groups can defeat this requirement if they are allowed to run as many candidates as seats are being elected. [6] [7]

Single winner elections

Plurality voting only allows a single vote, so bullet voting is effectively mandatory. Voting for more than one candidate is called an overvote and will invalidate the ballot.

In contrast, approval voting allows voters to support as many candidates as they like, and bullet voting can be a strategy of a minority, just as in multiple-winner elections (see below). Such voting would be for their sincere favorite, so it would not result in the same pathologies seen in plurality voting, where voters are encouraged to bullet vote for a candidate who is not their favorite. Bucklin voting [8] and Borda voting used ranked ballots, and both allow the possibility that a second choice could help defeat the first choice, so bullet voting might be used to prevent this.

Instant-runoff voting and contingent vote allow full preferences to be expressed and lower preferences have no effect unless the higher ones have all been eliminated. Therefore, bullet voting has no tactical advantage in these cases: on the contrary, it can lead to a loss of influence if no ranking is expressed among the final two candidates.

Examples on ranked ballots
Bullet votePreference vote
Hand marking ranked ballot0.jpg Hand marking ranked ballot2.jpg Hand marking ranked ballot.JPG
Marked a single preferenceMarked all preferences the same
(Lower rankings for the same candidate are ignored)
In process marking third preference

Multiple winner elections

N seat elections
SystemVotes
Approval voting
Range voting
Borda voting
Point
scores
Plurality-at-large voting N
Limited voting
 
N-1
N-2
...
Single nontransferable vote
(Whole vote)
1
Instant runoff voting
(Whole vote)
1
Cumulative voting
(Explicit divided vote)
1
Single transferable vote
(Implicit divided vote)
1

Multiple votes are often allowed in elections with more than one winner. Bullet voting can help a first choice be elected, depending on the system:

Multiple non-transferable vote methods
Bullet voting in Cumulative voting allows multiple votes for one candidate. Cumballot1.gif
Bullet voting in Cumulative voting allows multiple votes for one candidate.
One Vote Systems

Burr Dilemma

The Burr Dilemma or chicken dilemma exists in an election of multiple votes where a set of voters prefer two candidates over all others, while at best, only one is likely to win. Both candidates are incentivized to publicly encourage voters to support the other candidate while privately encouraging some supporters to only vote for themselves. When taken too far, this strategy may cause too many defections from both candidates' support such that both lose, while avoiding defections prevents an effective choice between the two candidates. It is named after Aaron Burr in the U.S. Presidential election of 1800, by Professor Jack H. Nagel, [14] where both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr ran as Democratic-Republicans. [15] The other name, "chicken dilemma", comes from the game of chicken.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Approval voting</span> Single-winner electoral system

Approval voting is an electoral system in which voters can select many candidates instead of selecting only one candidate.

Plurality voting refers to electoral systems in which a candidate, or candidates, who poll more than any other counterpart, are elected. In systems based on single-member districts, it elects just one member per district and may also be referred to as first-past-the-post (FPTP), single-member plurality (SMP/SMDP), single-choice voting, simple plurality or relative majority. A system which elects multiple winners elected at once with the plurality rule, such as one based on multi-seat districts, is referred to as plurality block voting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Two-round system</span> Voting system

The two-round system (TRS), also known as runoff voting, second ballot, or ballotage, is a voting method used to elect a single candidate, where voters cast a single vote for their preferred candidate. It generally ensures a majoritarian result, not a simple-plurality result as under first past the post. Under the two-round election system, the election process usually proceeds to a second round only if in the first round no candidate received a simple majority of votes cast, or some other lower prescribed percentage. Under the two-round system, usually only the two candidates who received the most votes in the first round, or only those candidates who received above a prescribed proportion of the votes, are candidates in the second round. Other candidates are excluded from the second round.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Single transferable vote</span> Proportional representation voting system

Single transferable vote (STV) is a multi-winner electoral system in which each voter casts a single vote in the form of a ranked-choice ballot. Voters have the option to rank candidates, and their vote may be transferred according to alternate preferences if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with surplus votes, so that their vote is used to elect someone they prefer over others in the running. STV aims to approach proportional representation based on votes cast in the district where it is used, so that each vote is worth about the same as another.

Strategic voting, also called tactical voting, sophisticated voting or insincere voting, occurs in voting systems when a voter votes for another candidate or party than their sincere preference to prevent an undesirable outcome. For example, in a simple plurality election, a voter might gain a better outcome by voting for a less preferred but more generally popular candidate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Condorcet method</span> Pairwise-comparison electoral system

A Condorcet method is an election method that elects the candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidates, that is, a candidate preferred by more voters than any others, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property, the pairwise champion or beats-all winner, is formally called the Condorcet winner. The head-to-head elections need not be done separately; a voter's choice within any given pair can be determined from the ranking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voting</span> Method for a group to make a collective decision or express an opinion

Voting is a method by which a group, such as a meeting or an electorate, can convene together for the purpose of making a collective decision or expressing an opinion usually following discussions, debates or election campaigns. Democracies elect holders of high office by voting. Residents of a jurisdiction represented by an elected official are called "constituents," and the constituents who choose to cast a ballot for their chosen candidate are called "voters". There are different systems for collecting votes, but while many of the systems used in decision-making can also be used as electoral systems, any which cater for proportional representation can only be used in elections.

Block voting or bloc voting refers to electoral systems in which multiple candidates are elected at once and a group of voters can force the system to elect only their preferred candidates. Block voting may be used at large or in several multi-member districts. Most types of block voting fall under the multiple non-transferable vote type of system; these terms are sometimes used synonymously. Block voting is also used synonymously with the term majoritarian representation (winner-takes-all) in the context of multi-winner electoral systems.

Bucklin voting is a class of voting methods that can be used for single-member and multi-member districts. As in highest median rules like the majority judgment, the Bucklin winner will be one of the candidates with the highest median ranking or rating. It is named after its original promoter, the Georgist politician James W. Bucklin of Grand Junction, Colorado, and is also known as the Grand Junction system.

An electoral system satisfies the Condorcet winner criterion if it always chooses the Condorcet winner when one exists. The candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidates – that is, a candidate preferred by more voters than any others – is the Condorcet winner, although Condorcet winners do not exist in all cases. It is sometimes simply referred to as the "Condorcet criterion", though it is very different from the "Condorcet loser criterion". Any voting method conforming to the Condorcet winner criterion is known as a Condorcet method. The Condorcet winner is the person who would win a two-candidate election against each of the other candidates in a plurality vote. For a set of candidates, the Condorcet winner is always the same regardless of the voting system in question, and can be discovered by using pairwise counting on voters' ranked preferences.

The majority criterion is a single-winner voting system criterion, used to compare such systems. The criterion states that "if one candidate is ranked first by a majority of voters, then that candidate must win".

In single-winner voting system theory, the Condorcet loser criterion (CLC) is a measure for differentiating voting systems. It implies the majority loser criterion but does not imply the Condorcet winner criterion.

The exhaustive ballot is a voting system used to elect a single winner. Under the exhaustive ballot the elector casts a single vote for their chosen candidate. However, if no candidate is supported by an overall majority of votes then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and a further round of voting occurs. This process is repeated for as many rounds as necessary until one candidate has a majority.

The later-no-harm criterion is a voting system criterion formulated by Douglas Woodall. Woodall defined the criterion as "[a]dding a later preference to a ballot should not harm any candidate already listed." For example, a ranked voting method in which a voter adding a 3rd preference could reduce the likelihood of their 1st preference being selected, fails later-no-harm.

The multiple non-transferable vote (MNTV) is a group of voting system, in which voters elect several representatives at once, with each voter having more than one vote. MNTV uses multi-member electoral districts or only one district, which contains all voters, which is used to provide at-large representation.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a type of ranked preferential voting method. It uses a majority voting rule in single-winner elections where there are more than two candidates. It is commonly referred to as ranked-choice voting (RCV) in the United States, preferential voting in Australia, where it has seen the widest adoption; in the United Kingdom, it is generally called alternative vote (AV), whereas in some other countries it is referred to as the single transferable vote, which usually means only its multi-winner variant. All these names are often used inconsistently.

Direct representation or proxy representation is a form of representative democracy where voters can vote for any candidate in the land, and each representative's vote is weighted in proportion to the number of citizens who have chosen that candidate to represent them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electoral system</span> Method by which voters make a choice between options

An electoral system or voting system is a set of rules that determine how elections and referendums are conducted and how their results are determined. Electoral systems are used in politics to elect governments, while non-political elections may take place in business, non-profit organisations and informal organisations. These rules govern all aspects of the voting process: when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who can stand as a candidate, how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted, how votes translate into the election outcome, limits on campaign spending, and other factors that can affect the result. Political electoral systems are defined by constitutions and electoral laws, are typically conducted by election commissions, and can use multiple types of elections for different offices.

Electoral systems are the rules for conducting elections, a main component of which is the algorithm for determining the winner from the ballots cast. This article discusses methods and results of comparing different electoral systems, both those that elect a unique candidate in a 'single-winner' election and those that elect a group of representatives in a multiwinner election.

Multiwinner approval voting, also called approval-based committee voting, is a multi-winner electoral system that uses approval ballots. Each voter may select ("approve") any number of candidates, and multiple candidates are elected. The number of elected candidates is usually fixed in advance. For example, it can be the number of seats in a country's parliament, or the required number of members in a committee.

References

  1. Bullet Voting Explained
  2. Merits Of Single-Shot Voting Questioned
  3. EDITORIAL: To plump, or not to plump your vote
  4. "Does "Bullet Voting" Really Work? - Philadelphia Magazine". Philadelphia Magazine. 2015-10-27. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  5. "Ocean City Maryland News | OC MD Newspapers | Maryland Coast Dispatch » Merits Of Single-Shot Voting Questioned". mdcoastdispatch.com. 22 October 2008. Retrieved 2017-07-13. Single-shot voting is essentially a tactic used by voters ... choosing only one candidate or a lesser amount of candidates than open seats.
  6. "Drawing the Line". Southern Poverty Law Center. Archived from the original on 2017-02-21. Retrieved 2017-07-13. 4. Anti-single-shot provisions: These provisions compel voters to cast a vote for every open seat, even if voters do not want to support more than one candidate. A voter who casts a vote for less than the entire number of seats open (a "full slate") will not have their ballot counted. Requiring minority voters to vote for a full slate dilutes their voting strength by preventing them from concentrating their support behind one candidate.
  7. Decision 1997: Constitutional Change in New York By Henrik N. Dullea, 1997
  8. Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management, Benjamin Reiley, 2001 ISBN   0521797306 p.145 ("But the Bucklin system was found to be defective, as it allowed a voter's second choice vote to help defeat a voter's first choice candidate. Under these circumstances, most voters refrained from giving second choices, and the intent of discovering which candidate was favored by the majority was thwarted.)"
  9. "Approval Voting is Better Than Plurality Voting, Even in Multi-Winner Races". 7 June 2020.
  10. The Troubling Record of Approval Voting at Dartmouth
  11. Amy (2000) p.60 ('At-large voting can discourage voters from supporting all the candidates they want to see on the council, a practice called bullet voting... This is a political predicament racial minorities find themselves. They must give up all of their other votes to have any hope of electing their first choice.)
  12. Amy (2000) p. 130. (As with at-large voting, if you choose all your votes in limited voting, there is a chance this strategy can be self-defeating... you vote may help other candidates defeat your favorite one.)
  13. "Black candidate for Euclid school board to test new voting system". Archived from the original on 2011-06-07. Retrieved 2011-06-07.
  14. The Burr Dilemma in Approval Voting Jack H. Nagel, University of Pennsylvania - Political Science
  15. Simeone and Pukelsheim (2006) p. 142 3.1 The Burr Dilemma.

Further reading