Several Rounds of Voting and Eliminate Options With the Least Support and Vote Again

Majoritarian voting method

The exhaustive ballot is a voting arrangement used to elect a single winner. Nether the exhaustive ballot the elector casts a unmarried vote for their chosen candidate. However, if no candidate is supported past an overall majority of votes so the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and a further circular of voting occurs. This procedure is repeated for every bit many rounds equally necessary until i candidate has a majority.

The exhaustive election is similar to the 2-round system but with key differences. Nether the two round arrangement if no candidate wins a majority on the showtime round, only the summit two recipients of votes advance to the second (and final) round of voting, and a bulk winner is determined in the second circular. Past contrast, on the exhaustive election only i candidate is eliminated per round; thus, several rounds of voting may exist required until a candidate reaches a majority. (In some circumstances, the 2 or more than lowest candidates can be eliminated simultaneously if together they have fewer votes than the lowest candidate in a higher place them. In other words, this "bulk exclusion" cannot alter the order of emptying, different a two-round system.)

Because voters may accept to bandage votes several times, the exhaustive ballot is not used in large-scale public elections. Instead it is usually used in elections involving, at most, a few hundred voters, such every bit the election of a prime minister or the presiding officer of an associates. The exhaustive ballot is currently used, in different forms, to elect the members of the Swiss Federal Council, the First Minister of Scotland, the President of the European Parliament, and the speakers of the House of Commons of Canada, the British House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament, the host city of the Olympic Games and the host of the FIFA Earth Cup, and, formerly, to elect the President and the State Comptroller of Israel, which are at present elected—though withal indirectly by the Knesset—using a 2-circular organization.

Voting and counting [edit]

An instance of a ballot paper

In each circular of an exhaustive ballot the voter but marks an 'x' beside his or her favourite candidate. If no candidate has an absolute majority of votes (i.east., more than than one-half) in the commencement round, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated while all other candidates advance to a 2d round. If there is still no candidate with a bulk then the candidate with the fewest votes is again eliminated and there is a 3rd round. The procedure repeats itself for equally many rounds as are necessary for ane candidate to achieve a majority. If necessary, the election volition go on until only two candidates remain. When this occurs one of the two must achieve an accented majority provided there are an odd number of valid votes cast.

Between rounds, the voter is entirely complimentary to modify his/her preferred candidate for whatever reason, even if his/her preferred candidate has not yet been eliminated from voting.

Variations [edit]

It is possible to impose a larger number of votes to win, such as a two thirds vote, on either all rounds or on the showtime rounds. For example, on the first several rounds of the election of the President of Italian republic, a supermajority is required to win, dropping to a bulk on the fourth and subsequent ballots.
Under some variants of the exhaustive ballot in that location is no formal rule for eliminating candidates from one round to another; rather, candidates are expected to withdraw voluntarily.
Some variations slowly raise an elimination threshold in to encourage compromise. For example, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Political party for U.Due south. Senate endorsement 2008 used an exhaustive election with a dropoff rule starting at 5% and increasing to 25% after circular 5, afterwards which one candidate with the lowest votes was eliminated per round until no more than two remained.^[1]
At that place are also variants which exclude more than one candidate at a time. For example, in elections for the speakers of the Canadian and British Houses of Commons whatsoever candidate with fewer than five% of all votes in the kickoff round is immediately eliminated.

Example [edit]

Imagine that the population of Tennessee, a state in the U.s., is voting on the location of its majuscule. The population of Tennessee is concentrated around its four major cities, which are spread throughout the land. For this example, suppose that the entire electorate alive in i of these four cities, and furthermore that their sole business organisation is for the capital letter to exist established as close to their urban center as possible.

The candidates for the capital are:

Memphis, the state'south largest city, with 42% of the voters, but located far from the other cities
Nashville, with 26% of the voters^[2]
Knoxville, with 17% of the voters
Chattanooga, with 15% of the voters

Round ane: In the first round of voting everybody votes for their own metropolis and the results will be as follows:

Memphis: 42%
Nashville: 26%
Knoxville: 17%
Chattanooga: 15%

Circular 2: No candidate has an absolute majority in the offset round (this would be greater than 50%), then Chattanooga, which has the fewest votes, is eliminated and the remaining three candidates proceed to Circular 2. In this round the Chattanooga supporters vote instead for Knoxville, the adjacent nearest city to their own. None of the other voters need modify their votes. The results are therefore:

Memphis: 42%
Nashville: 26%
Knoxville: 32%

Circular 3: Nashville is at present eliminated, and then that only two candidates remain for the final round. The Nashville supporters change their vote to Knoxville, the side by side nearest city to their own. The result of the third round is therefore:

Memphis: 42%
Knoxville: 58%

Result: Afterwards round 3 Knoxville has an absolute majority so is the winner.

Employ in practice [edit]

Scottish regime: The Commencement Minister, and the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officers of the Scottish Parliament are elected past the exhaustive election method.^[3]
The host city of the Olympic Games is chosen past an exhaustive ballot of members of the International Olympic Commission. Members from a state which has a city competing in the ballot are forbidden from voting unless the urban center has been eliminated.
The President of the European Parliament is elected by all members of the body to exist its 'speaker' or chairperson. In the election if no candidate receives an absolute majority in the kickoff circular so there are up to three more rounds. In the second and 3rd rounds anyone who wants to is free to stand, simply candidates who perform poorly sometimes withdraw to assist others be elected. If no-one achieves an absolute majority in the third round and so just the 2 candidates with most votes are allowed to go along to the fourth and final round of voting.^[4]
The Speaker of the House of Commons is elected by secret ballot by members of the house. If no candidate achieves an accented majority in the first round and then the candidate with fewest votes and any other candidate who has received less than 5% of all votes is immediately eliminated. Subsequent rounds go on according to the ordinary rules of the exhaustive ballot.^[3]
The Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada is elected under essentially the same variant of the exhaustive ballot used for the British analogue, with candidates on less than five% in the first round immediately excluded.^[3]
The Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada is elected by the party membership nether a mixture of instant runoff voting (IRV), and exhaustive voting, depending on the fellow member'due south preferences. Those who want to vote but one time may cast a unmarried election filled out in the IRV format, while other members may cast carve up ballots afterwards each round of balloting. The party used this format for the 2012, and 2022 leadership elections.
Candidates to lead the Great britain Conservative Party are shortlisted past an exhaustive ballot of elected MPs until only two candidates remain. The terminal two candidates and then enter a election of the party membership to select the leader.

Similar systems [edit]

The ii-circular organization [edit]

As noted to a higher place the exhaustive ballot is similar to the ii-round system. Even so nether the 2-circular arrangement if no candidate achieves an absolute bulk in the beginning round then, rather than simply a single candidate beingness eliminated, all candidates are immediately excluded except the ii with the most votes. There is then a 2nd and final round. Because, at near, it requires voters to render to the polls just one time, the two-round system is considered more practical for large public elections than the exhaustive ballot, and is used in many countries for the ballot of presidents and legislative bodies. However the two systems often produce different winners. This is because, under the 2-round organisation, a candidate may exist eliminated in the commencement round who would have gone on to win the competition if they had been permitted to survive to the 2d circular. In Case I in a higher place the winner would not have inverse if the two rounds system had been used instead of the exhaustive ballot. However, in Instance II the two round system would have selected Nashville instead of Knoxville.

Primary two-circular system [edit]

A nonpartisan principal election system is a variation of the two-round organisation which holds a pre-election, and allows the tiptop two candidates to pass to the general election. It generally differs from the ii-round organization in two ways: (1) the first election isn't allowed to pick a winner, and (2) political parties are not immune to limit their field using a convention or conclave.

Instant-runoff voting [edit]

In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (as well known equally the 'Alternative Vote'). Nether both systems if no candidate has an absolute majority in the first round then in that location are further rounds, with the candidate with the fewest votes being eliminated later on each round. However while nether the exhaustive election each round involves voters returning to bandage a new vote, under instant-runoff, voters vote only once. This is possible because, rather than voting for only a unmarried candidate, the voter ranks all of the candidates in order of preference. These preferences are then used to 'transfer' the votes of those whose showtime preference has been eliminated during the course of the count.

Considering the exhaustive ballot involves separate rounds of voting, voters tin can use the results of one round to inform how they will vote in the side by side, whereas this is not possible under IRV. Furthermore, considering it is necessary to vote only once, instant-runoff voting has been used for large-scale elections in many places.

Tactical voting [edit]

Like instant-runoff voting, the exhaustive ballot is intended to improve upon the simpler 'first-past-the-post' (plurality) system by reducing the potential for tactical voting by avoiding 'wasted' votes. Under the plurality arrangement, which involves only 1 round, voters are encouraged to vote tactically past voting for merely one of the two leading candidates, because a vote for any other candidate volition not affect the result.^{[ citation needed ]} Nether the exhaustive ballot this tactic, known every bit 'compromising', is sometimes unnecessary because, even if the voter's first choice is unlikely to be elected, she will still have the opportunity to influence the outcome of the election by voting for more popular candidates in one case her favourite has been eliminated. Even so the exhaustive ballot is still vulnerable to tactical voting under some circumstances. Because of the similarity between the 2 systems it is open to the same forms of tactical voting as instant-runoff voting, as described below.

Although the exhaustive ballot is designed to avoid 'compromising' the tactic is still effective in some elections. Compromising is where a voter votes for a certain candidate, not considering they necessarily support them, but as a way of avoiding the election of a candidate whom they dislike even more. The compromising tactic is sometimes constructive because the exhaustive ballot eliminates candidates who are unpopular in early rounds, who might have had sufficient support to win the election had they survived a piffling longer. This tin can create stiff incentives for voters to vote tactically.

The exhaustive election is also vulnerable to the tactic of 'push over', where voters vote tactically for an unpopular 'button over' candidate in 1 round as a way of helping their truthful favourite candidate win in a later round. The purpose of voting for the 'push button over' is to ensure that it is this weak candidate, rather than a stronger rival, who remains to claiming a voter'southward preferred candidate in afterward rounds. By supporting a 'button over' candidate it is hoped to eliminate a stronger candidate who might have gone on to win the election.^{[ citation needed ]} The 'push over' tactic requires voters to be able to reliably predict how others volition vote. It runs the risk of backfiring, because if the tactical voter miscalculates then the candidate intended as a 'push button over' might end up really beating the voter's preferred candidate. Instant-runoff voting is less susceptible to this tactic, every bit voters cannot change their first preference in successive rounds. Once a voter has chosen a button over equally their preferred candidate, it will remain so until this candidate is eliminated, increasing the likelihood of the push over getting elected at the expense of the preferred candidate.

Examples [edit]

Compromise [edit]

In the example above Knoxville wins, the concluding pick of both Nashville and Memphis supporters. If Memphis supporters had compromised by voting for Nashville (their second choice) in the starting time circular then Nashville would take been elected immediately, while if Nashville supporters had all compromised by voting for their 2d choice of Chattanooga in the first circular, then Chattanooga would have gone on to exist elected in the second round.

Push over [edit]

Imagine an election in which in that location are 100 voters who vote as follows:

Ice Foam: 25 votes
Apple Pie: thirty votes
Fruit: 45 votes

No candidate has an absolute majority of votes so Water ice Foam is eliminated in the beginning round. Ice Cream supporters prefer Apple Pie to Fruit then in the 2nd circular they vote for Apple Pie and Apple tree Pie is the winner. However, if but 6 Fruit supporters had used the tactic of 'button over' and then they could have changed this outcome and ensured the election of Fruit. These half-dozen voters can practice this by voting for Water ice Cream in the first round every bit a 'push over'. If they do this and so the votes bandage in the first round will look like this:

Ice Cream: 31
Apple tree Pie: xxx
Fruit: 39

This time Apple Pie is eliminated in the get-go round and Ice Foam and Fruit survive to the second round. This issue is deliberate. The tactical voters know that Ice Foam volition exist an easier candidate for Fruit to vanquish in the second round than Apple Pie—in other words, that Ice Cream will be a 'push-over'. In the second round the tactical voters vote for their existent first preference, Fruit. Therefore, even if only six Apple Pie supporters prefer Fruit to Water ice Foam, the outcome of the 2nd circular volition exist:

Water ice Cream: 49
Fruit: 51

Fruit will therefore exist elected. The success of this tactic relies on the Fruit supporters being able to predict that Water ice Foam can exist beaten by Fruit in the second round. If a large bulk of Apple Pie supporters had voted for Water ice Cream and so the 'push over' tactic would have backfired, leading to the election of Ice Cream, which Fruit partisans like fifty-fifty less than Apple Pie.

Strategic nomination [edit]

The exhaustive ballot can also be influenced by strategic nomination; this is where candidates and political factions influence the result of an ballot by either nominating actress candidates or withdrawing a candidate who would otherwise take stood. The exhaustive ballot is vulnerable to strategic nomination for the same reasons that it is open to the voting tactic of 'compromising'. This is considering a candidate who knows they are unlikely to win can bring about the ballot of a more than desirable compromise candidate by withdrawing from the race, or by never standing in the first place. Past the same token a candidate tin bring about a less desirable result past unwisely choosing to stand in an election; this is because of the spoiler effect, by which a new candidate tin can 'carve up the vote' and price some other similar candidate the ballot.

The exhaustive vote'south system of multiple rounds makes it less vulnerable to the spoiler effect than the plurality arrangement or the two round system. This is because a potential spoiler candidate oft has only modest back up; therefore he volition be eliminated early and his supporters will accept the opportunity to influence the result of the election by voting for more popular candidates in afterward rounds. Voters can besides counteract the effect of vote splitting by using the 'compromise' tactic.

The exhaustive vote is substantially vulnerable to the aforementioned forms of strategic nomination equally instant-runoff voting, the departure being that nether the exhaustive vote candidates tin use the results of early rounds to inform whether or not they should strategically withdraw in subsequently rounds. This is impossible nether IRV. In IRV the electorate votes simply once, and then candidates must make the judgement of whether or not to participate in an election before the poll, and before even i round of counting has occurred.

Effect on candidates and factions [edit]

The exhaustive ballot encourages candidates to appeal to a wide cross-section of voters. This is because, in lodge to eventually receive an accented majority of votes, it is necessary for a candidate to win the back up of voters whose favourite candidate has been eliminated. Under the exhaustive ballot, eliminated candidates, and the factions who previously supported them, oft issue recommendations to their supporters as to whom they should vote for in the remaining rounds of the contest. This ways that eliminated candidates are still able to influence the consequence of the ballot.

Notes [edit]

^
DFL Call 2008/2009 Archived 2008-02-21 at the Wayback Auto Folio 27: Eight. Endorsement for U.Due south. Senate: 22. Full general ENDORSEMENT RULES:
- Dropoff rule: Candidates receiving less than v% will be dropped after the first ballot. On subsequent ballots, the dropoff threshold will be raised by 5% each ballot to a maximum of 25%. After the fifth ballot and each subsequent ballot, the lowest remaining candidates will be dropped so that no more than two candidates remain. In the event that awarding of the dropoff rule would eliminate all but one candidate, and so the two candidates who received the highest pct of the vote on the prior ballot shall be the remaining candidates.
^ Note: Nashville is in reality both the capital and most populous city of Tennessee, just please ignore this for the sake of example
^ ^a ^b ^c "House of Commons - Procedure - 2d Report". publications.parliament.uk . Retrieved 2021-03-08 .
^ "Infographic: how the European Parliament president gets elected | News | European Parliament". www.europarl.europa.eu. 2019-05-28. Retrieved 2021-03-08 .

External links [edit]

Balloter Reform Lodge: Briefing on the electoral organization for the Speaker of the British House of Commons

bratcheryousbantor.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustive_ballot