Motion and amendment (election)

Last updated

A motion and amendment electoral system decides the result of the election by following standard rules for adopting other proposals. The steps are:

Contents

  1. A substantive motion is proposed that "individual A is elected".
  2. Proposals for amendments are invited. If none are received then move to step 4.
  3. If an amendment is proposed that the motion be changed by deleting "A" and inserting "B" then that is voted on. If the amendment is carried then the substantive motion becomes "individual B is elected". In either case the process returns to step 2.
  4. With no more proposed amendments, the substantive motion is put to the vote. If it is carried then the election is complete. If not then the process returns to step 1, or stops without a result.

This was the system used for the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons until 2001. [1]

If there is a Condorcet winner and people vote according to their preferences, then that individual will be considered in the final vote on the motion in step 4. If there is not a Condorcet winner then any person in the final motion will be a member of the Smith set; which individual that is may depend on who is nominated at which stage. However, there is no guarantee that a motion will pass at the end.

An example

Tennessee map for voting example.svg

Imagine that Tennessee is having an election on the location of its capital. The population of Tennessee is concentrated around its four major cities, which are spread throughout the state. For this example, suppose that the entire electorate lives in these four cities and that everyone wants to live as near to the capital as possible.

The candidates for the capital are:

The preferences of the voters would be divided like this:

42% of voters
(close to Memphis)
26% of voters
(close to Nashville)
15% of voters
(close to Chattanooga)
17% of voters
(close to Knoxville)
  1. Memphis
  2. Nashville
  3. Chattanooga
  4. Knoxville
  1. Nashville
  2. Chattanooga
  3. Knoxville
  4. Memphis
  1. Chattanooga
  2. Knoxville
  3. Nashville
  4. Memphis
  1. Knoxville
  2. Chattanooga
  3. Nashville
  4. Memphis

The voting might go as follows:

  1. Motion proposed "Memphis shall be the capital of Tennessee."
  2. Amendment proposed "Delete 'Memphis' and insert 'Nashville'." Passed 58% to 42% so motion becomes "Nashville shall be the capital of Tennessee."
  3. Amendment proposed "Delete 'Nashville' and insert 'Chattanooga'." Rejected 68% to 32% so motion remains "Nashville shall be the capital of Tennessee."
  4. Amendment proposed "Delete 'Nashville' and insert 'Knoxville'." Rejected 68% to 32% so motion remains "Nashville shall be the capital of Tennessee."
  5. Vote on motion "Nashville shall be the capital of Tennessee." Outcome uncertain, as it depends on whether supporters of other cities are willing to accept Nashville rather than failing to make a decision at this stage.

Tactical voting and tactical nomination

Motion and amendment is prone to tactical voting. The result may also depend on the order in which candidates are considered.

In the example above, if supporters of Knoxville pretended to prefer Memphis over Nashville or Chattanooga, they could enable Knoxville to appear in the final motion. The voting would have been:

  1. Motion proposed "Memphis shall be the capital of Tennessee."
  2. Amendment proposed "Delete 'Memphis' and insert 'Nashville'." Rejected 59% to 41% so motion remains "Memphis shall be the capital of Tennessee."
  3. Amendment proposed "Delete 'Memphis' and insert 'Chattanooga'." Rejected 59% to 41% so motion remains "Memphis shall be the capital of Tennessee."
  4. Amendment proposed "Delete 'Memphis' and insert 'Knoxville'." Passed 58% to 42% so motion becomes "Knoxville shall be the capital of Tennessee."
  5. Vote on motion "Knoxville shall be the capital of Tennessee." Outcome uncertain.

This particular tactical voting would not work if Knoxville had been nominated before Memphis or Chattanooga.

Related Research Articles

Plurality voting is an electoral system in which each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the candidate who polls more than any other counterpart is elected. In a system based on single-member districts, it may be called first-past-the-post (FPTP), single-choice voting, simple plurality or relative/simple majority. In a system based on multi-member districts, it may be referred to as winner-takes-all or bloc voting.

Score voting or range voting is an electoral system for single-seat elections, in which voters give each candidate a score, the scores are added, and the candidate with the highest total is elected. It has been described by various other names including evaluative voting, utilitarian voting, interval measure voting, the point system, ratings summation, 0-99 voting, average voting and utilityvoting. It is a type of cardinal voting electoral system, and aims to implement the utilitarian social choice rule.

Condorcet method 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

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.

Coombs' method is a ranked voting system created by Clyde Coombs used for single-winner elections. Similarly to instant-runoff voting, it uses candidate elimination and redistribution of votes cast for that candidate until one candidate has a majority of votes.

Copeland's method is a ranked voting method based on the a scoring system of pairwise "wins", "losses", and "ties". The method has a long history:

Bucklin voting is a class of voting methods that can be used for single-member and multi-member districts. 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. 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.

Ranked pairs (RP) or the Tideman method is an electoral system developed in 1987 by Nicolaus Tideman that selects a single winner using votes that express preferences. RP can also be used to create a sorted list of winners.

The Constitution of the State of Tennessee defines the form, structure, activities, character, and fundamental rules of the U.S. State of Tennessee.

The mutual majority criterion is a criterion used to compare voting systems. It is also known as the majority criterion for solid coalitions and the generalized majority criterion. The criterion states that if there is a subset S of the candidates, such that more than half of the voters strictly prefer every member of S to every candidate outside of S, this majority voting sincerely, the winner must come from S. This is similar to but stricter than the majority criterion, where the requirement applies only to the case that S contains a single candidate. This is also stricter than the majority loser criterion, where the requirement applies only to the case that S contains all but one candidate. The mutual majority criterion is the single-winner case of the Droop proportionality criterion.

In single-winner voting system theory, the Condorcet loser criterion (CLC) is a measure for differentiating voting systems. It implies the majority loser criterion.

In voting systems, the Minimax Condorcet method is one of several Condorcet methods used for tabulating votes and determining a winner when using ranked voting in a single-winner election. It is sometimes referred to as the Simpson–Kramer method, and the successive reversal method.

Anti-plurality voting describes an electoral system in which each voter votes against a single candidate, and the candidate with the fewest votes against wins. Anti-plurality voting is an example of a positional voting method.

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 Kemeny–Young method is an electoral system that uses preferential ballots and pairwise comparison counts to identify the most popular choices in an election. It is a Condorcet method because if there is a Condorcet winner, it will always be ranked as the most popular choice.

Tennessee in the American Civil War Overview of the situation and role of the U.S. state of Tennessee during the American Civil War

The American Civil War made a huge impact on Tennessee, with large armies constantly destroying its rich farmland, and every county witnessing combat. It was a divided state, with the Eastern counties harboring pro-Union sentiment throughout the conflict, and it was the last state to officially secede from the Union, in protest at Lincoln's call for troops. Although Tennessee provided a large amount of troop support for the Confederacy, it would also provide more soldiers for the Union Army than any other state within the Confederacy.

The Borda count is a family of positional voting rules which gives each candidate, for each ballot, a number of points corresponding to the number of candidates ranked lower. In the original variant, the lowest-ranked candidate gets 0 points, the next-lowest gets 1 point, etc., and the highest-ranked candidate gets n − 1 points, where n is the number of candidates. Once all votes have been counted, the option or candidate with the most points is the winner. The Borda count is intended to elect broadly acceptable options or candidates, rather than those preferred by a majority, and so is often described as a consensus-based voting system rather than a majoritarian one.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV), also sometimes referred to as the alternative vote (AV), preferential voting, or, in the United States, ranked-choice voting (RCV), though these names are also used for other systems, is a type of ranked preferential voting counting method used in single-seat elections with more than two candidates.

Majority judgment (MJ) is a single-winner voting system proposed in 2007 by Michel Balinski and Rida Laraki. It is a highest median rule, i.e., a cardinal voting system that elects the candidate with the highest median rating.

1976 United States presidential election in Tennessee Election in Tennessee

The 1976 United States presidential election in Tennessee was held on November 2, 1976. The Democratic Party candidate, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter won the state of Tennessee with 56% of the vote against Republican Party candidate, President Gerald Ford, carrying the state’s 10 electoral votes. This was the last time the democrats won more than 50% of the vote in the Volunteer State.

STAR voting is an electoral system for single-seat elections. Variations also exist for multi-winner and proportional representation elections. The name stands for "Score then Automatic Runoff", referring to the fact that this system is a combination of Score voting, to pick two finalists with the highest total scores, followed by a "virtual runoff" in which the finalist who is preferred on more ballots wins. It is a type of cardinal voting electoral system.

References

  1. "Speaker".