Misplaced Pages

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Block preferential voting" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

A joint Politics and Economics series
Social choice and electoral systems
Social choice Mechanism design Comparative politics Comparison List (By country)
Single-winner methodsSingle vote - plurality methods First preference plurality (FPP) Two-round (US: Jungle primary) Partisan primary Instant-runoff UK: Alternative vote (AV) US: Ranked-choice (RCV) Condorcet methods Condorcet-IRV Round-robin voting Minimax Schulze Ranked pairs Maximal lottery Positional voting Plurality (el. IRV) Borda count (el. Baldwin) Antiplurality (el. Coombs) Cardinal voting Score voting Approval voting Majority judgment STAR voting
Proportional representationParty-list Apportionment Highest averages Largest remainders National remnant Biproportional List type Closed list Open list Panachage List-free PR Localized list Quota-remainder methods Hare STV Schulze STV CPO-STV Quota Borda Approval-based committees Thiele's method Phragmen's method Expanding approvals rule Method of equal shares Fractional social choice Direct representation Interactive representation Liquid democracy Fractional approval voting Maximal lottery Random ballot Semi-proportional representation Cumulative SNTV Limited voting
Mixed systemsBy results of combination Mixed-member majoritarian Mixed-member proportional By mechanism of combination Non-compensatory Parallel (superposition) Coexistence Conditional Fusion (majority bonus) Compensatory Seat linkage system UK: 'AMS' NZ: 'MMP' Vote linkage system Negative vote transfer Mixed ballot Supermixed systems Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional Majority jackpot By ballot type Single vote Double simultaneous vote Dual-vote
Paradoxes and pathologiesSpoiler effects Spoiler effect Cloning paradox Frustrated majorities paradox Center squeeze Pathological response Perverse response Best-is-worst paradox No-show paradox Multiple districts paradox Strategic voting Lesser evil voting Exaggeration Truncation Turkey-raising Paradoxes of majority rule Tyranny of the majority Discursive dilemma Conflicting majorities paradox
Social and collective choiceImpossibility theorems Arrow's theorem Majority impossibility Moulin's impossibility theorem McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem Gibbard's theorem Positive results Median voter theorem Condorcet's jury theorem May's theorem Condorcet dominance theorems Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem
Politics portal Economics portal Mathematics portal
v t e

Multiple transferable voting, sometimes called block preferential or block instant-runoff voting, is a winner-take-all system for electing several representatives from a multimember constituency. Unlike single transferable voting (STV), preferential block voting is not a method for obtaining proportional representation, and instead produces similar results to plurality block voting. Preferential block voting can be seen as a multiple-winner version of instant-runoff.

Under both block voting and preferential block voting, a single group of like-minded voters can win every seat, making both forms non-proportional.

Casting and counting the ballots

In preferential block voting, a ranked ballot is used, ranking candidates from most to least preferred. Alternate ballot forms may have two groupings of marks, first giving n votes for an n seat election (as in traditional bloc voting), but also allowing the alternate candidates to be ranked in order of preference and used if one or more first choices are eliminated.

Candidates with the smallest tally of first preference votes are eliminated (and their votes transferred as in instant runoff voting) until a candidate has more than half the vote. The count is repeated with the elected candidates removed and all votes returning to full value until the required number of candidates is elected. An example of this method is described in Robert's Rules of Order.

Effects

With or without a preferential element, block voting systems have a number of features which can make them unrepresentative of the diversity of voters' intentions. Block voting regularly produces complete landslide majorities for the group of candidates with the highest level of support. Under preferential block voting, a slate of clones of the first winning candidate are guaranteed to win every available seat.

Use

Block voting was used in the Australian Senate from 1901 to 1948; from 1919, this was preferential block voting. More recently, the system has been used to elect local councils in Australia’s Northern Territory. In elections in 2007 and 2009, Hendersonville, North Carolina used a form of preferential block voting. In 2009, Aspen, Colorado also used a form of preferential block voting for a single election before repealing the system. In 2018, the state of Utah passed a state law creating a pilot program for municipalities to use instant runoff voting for single seat contests and preferential block voting for multi seat contests, and in 2019, Payson, Utah and Vineyard, Utah each held preferential block voting contests for three and two city council seats respectively.

Ballots

Rank ballot	Hybrid ballots
Three example ballots for a two-seat election, the first using a pure ranked ballot, and the second using a plurality block voting ballot for the initial vote, and ranking only the alternate preferences. The hybrid ballots are intended to clarify the fact that the top n choices are counted simultaneously, and the ranked choices are used conditionally based on elimination.

See also

• Block approval voting, its approval voting equivalent
• Single transferable vote, its proportional equivalent
• Multiple non-transferable vote, its plurality equivalents

References

1. Robert, Henry M. (2011). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th ed., p. 425-428 (RONR)
2. Reilly, Ben; Michael, Maley (2000). "Chapter 3: The Single Transferable Vote and the Alternative Vote Compared". In Bowler, Shaun; Grofman, Bernard (eds.). Elections in Australia, Ireland, and Malta under the Single Transferable Vote: Reflections on an Embedded Institution. University of Michigan Press. pp. 37–58. ISBN 978-0-472-02681-4.
3. Farrell, David M.; McAllister, Ian (2005). "1902 and the Origins of Preferential Electoral Systems in Australia" (PDF). Australian Journal of Politics and History. 51 (2): 155–167. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8497.2005.00368.x. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
4. Sanders, William (2011). "Alice's Unrepresentative Council: Cause for Intervention?". Australian Journal of Political Science. 46 (4): 699–706. doi:10.1080/10361146.2011.623669. S2CID 154563517. Retrieved 2021-02-16.
5. Jack Santucci and Benjamin Reilly, "Utah’s new kind of ranked-choice voting could hurt political minorities — and sometimes even the majority"

• Non-proportional multi-winner electoral systems
• Preferential electoral systems