Preferential Voting Systems

This book examines the effects of preferential voting on intraparty electoral competition and voting behavior. Using data covering 19 countries and over 200 elections, this study sheds light on a somewhat neglected aspect of electoral systems. The author demonstrates that the ability of voters to influence the selection and deselection of MPs under preferential voting systems is not as important as is often assumed. Instead, their ability to shape the election of a given candidate depends heavily on the balance between party power and voter power. In this way, this book advances the understanding of the effect of preferential voting on intra-party dynamics, parliamentary turnover, and voter behavior. Based on a rigorous, data-led methodological approach, the book contributes to both the theory and practice of the study of electoral systems, and should be read by scholars, students and practitioners interested in preferential voting systems.

Both theoretical and empirical aspects of single- and multi-winner voting procedures are presented in this collection of papers. Starting from a discussion of the underlying principles of democratic representation, the volume includes a description of a great variety of voting procedures. It lists and illustrates their susceptibility to the main voting paradoxes, assesses (under various models of voters' preferences) the probability of paradoxical outcomes, and discusses the relevance of the theoretical results to the choice of voting system.

Publisher Description

Essay from the year 2003 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Region: Australia, New Zealand, grade: Distinction, Flinders University (Social Sciences), course: Australian Politcs a comparative study, 14 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: This essay aims to explain the differences between preferential and proportional systems of voting and the consequences of these systems in Australia. The electoral system of Germany is examined in comparison. Why are electoral systems so important? Through elections, citizens of a county can express their views and choose the government they wish to see in power. Therefore, the electoral system is one of the significant features of a democracy and a representative government. The political outcome of an election can vary greatly depending on which of the different types (and/or variations of each type) of systems is in effect. Hence, the organisation of the political system strongly depends on the electoral system.1 The impacts of electoral systems on the political and party system will be examined after looking at the two systems of voting used in Australia at the Commonwealth/ Federal level: the preferential voting system and the system of proportional representation. Preferential voting in single-member seats is used for elections for the House of Representatives and is also often referred to as Alternative Vote.2 A distinctive feature of this voting system is that the winning candidate needs to receive an absolute majority of the primary vote, in other words 50% plus one. Alternatively, the candidate can win the election by securing an absolute majority after the distribution of preferences. 3 Under a system of full preferential voting, electors must indicate a preference for all candidates listed on the ballot paper. Voters show their first preference by giving the number “1” to their preferred candidate. They then rank all other candidates by distributing the remaining numbers in descending order from 2 to X (X = the number of candidates taking part in the election). In the first round of counting votes, the numbers of primary votes are registered. [...] 1 David W. Lovell et al., The Australian Political System, (2nd edition), Longman, South Melbourne, 1998, p. 269. 2 Ben Reilly, ‘The Alternative Vote in Australia’, 6 March 1999, Electoral Systems, Administration and Cost of Elections Project, , consulted 2 June 2003

DigiCat Publishing presents to you this special edition of "Proportional Representation: A Study in Methods of Election" by John H. Humphreys. DigiCat Publishing considers every written word to be a legacy of humankind. Every DigiCat book has been carefully reproduced for republishing in a new modern format. The books are available in print, as well as ebooks. DigiCat hopes you will treat this work with the acknowledgment and passion it deserves as a classic of world literature.

In the summer of 1967, in response to violent demonstrations that rocked 164 U.S. cities, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, a.k.a. the Kerner Commission, was formed. The Commission sought reasons for the disturbances, including the role that law enforcement played. Chief among its research projects was a study of 23 American cities, headed by social psychologist Robert Shellow. An early draft of the scientists’ analysis, titled “The Harvest of American Racism: The Political Meaning of Violence in the Summer of 1967,” provoked the Commission’s staff in November 1967 by uncovering political causes for the unrest; the team of researchers was fired, and the controversial report remained buried at the LBJ Presidential Library until now. ? The first publication of the Harvest report half a century later reveals that many of the issues it describes are still with us, including how cities might more effectively and humanely react to groups and communities in protest. In addition to the complete text of the suppressed Harvest report, the book includes an introduction by Robert Shellow that provides useful historical context; personal recollections from four of the report’s surviving social scientists, Robert Shellow, David Boesel, Gary T. Marx, and David O. Sears; and an appendix outlining the differences between the unpublished Harvest analysis and the well-known Kerner Commission Report that followed it. “The [Harvest of American Racism] report was rejected by Johnson administration functionaries as being far too radical—politically ‘unviable’... Social science can play an extremely positive role in fighting racial and other injustice and inequality, but only if it is matched with a powerful political will to implement the findings. That will has never come from within an American presidential administration—that will has only been forged in black and other radical communities’ movements for justice. The political power for change, as incremental as it has been, has come from within those communities. Washington responds, it does not lead." —from the Foreword by Michael C. Dawson