Embedded Files
DODO is holding its first ever fundraising event in DC on 8/27. Please join us and help this DODO take flight
In most countries, democracy looks very different than it does in the United States.
In most countries, democracy looks very different than it does in the United States.
There are an infinite number of electoral systems—the rules that govern the conduct of elections and determine the winners. Every town, city, state, nation, and groups of nations across the world uses a different electoral system. Each choice about electoral systems reflects particular goals, values, and interests. Each choice also has consequences for the character of politics and democracy within a polity.
As an introduction to electoral systems, this primer describes key concepts necessary for analyzing an electoral system or reform to electoral system, grouped into three areas:
1. The geography of elections
2. The number of winners per contest
3. The logic of choosing winners
The Geography of Elections
The Geography of Elections
Elections can happen in a set of districts (with separate contests) that together form a polity or “at-large,” with the same contest across the whole polity.
District: Geographical subregions into which a city, county, state, or country is divided for election purposes.
At-large: A single contest that takes place across the whole polity, such as a whole city, county, state, or nation.
Electoral systems can elect representatives by district, at-large, or a combination of the two. Executive offices such as mayor or lieutenant governor are usually elected at-large, since there is typically only one office per polity.
When there are multiple offices to elect, such as in the case of legislative bodies or regional courts, choosing between districts and at-large election largely comes down to whether the polity wants to represent geographically distinct constituencies, such as those defined by race and ethnicity, economic interests, or local identity.
The Number of Winners Per Contest
The Number of Winners Per Contest
A second part of the electoral system to consider is the number of winners elected per contest, technically known as “district magnitude.” Each district or at-large contest can elect one (in “single-winner” contests) or multiple officers (in “multi-winner” contests).
District Magnitude: The number of candidates elected in each contest.
Single Winner: A district or at-large contest in which only one office is elected. Also known as a “single member” or “single seat .”
Multi Winner: A district or at-large contest in which two or more offices are elected from the same set of candidates.
Electoral systems can use any combination of single-winner and multi-winner contests.
Executive offices such as mayor or lieutenant governor tend to lend themselves to single-winner contests, since there is typically only one office per polity.
When there are multiple offices to elect, such as in the case of legislative bodies or regional courts, the chief considerations when deciding district magnitude are the desire for multi-party or minority representation and the extent to which politically salient constituencies are geographically concentrated.
The cartoon that gave birth to the term "Gerrymandering" in 1812. Image: Library of Congress, Rare Book and Special Collections Division.
Legislatures Using Multi-winner Districts
Legislatures Using Multi-winner Districts
More third parties and independents
Legislatures using multi-winner districts, especially ones with high district magnitudes, tend to elect more third party and independent candidates.
More political parties
When combined with proportional representation, these legislatures have more and varied political parties without any one majority party. Coalition governance is common.
More women elected
Multi-winner districts are also associated with greater numbers of elected women.
Legislatures Using Single-winner Districts
Legislatures Using Single-winner Districts
Smaller, more local, constituencies
Single-winner districts allow for smaller constituencies (in both population and geographic size) and so can provide for more local representation.
Designed and gerrymandered districts
They are also easier to draw (or gerrymander) to encompass politically salient constituencies, like a community of color or a political party. For this reason, single-winner districts have been favored in the United States as a way to ensure some representation to African American communities in cities with high levels of geographic segregation.
Disproportionate results
In legislatures using single-winner districts, the winner(s) of each contest are identified in isolation, without consideration of the make-up of the legislative body overall. This means overall results in the number of seats won can be very disproportionate to aggregated vote counts. A political party will often win a majority of seats in a body without winning a majority or even the most votes across the polity.
The Logic of Choosing Winners
The Logic of Choosing Winners
Electoral systems reflect different ideas about what it means to “win.”
The most common idea is that whichever candidate(s) gets the most votes in a particular contest wins that contest, without any regard for the composition of larger elective body or set of representatives (“plurality”).
Alternatively, a system may demand that the winner wins a majority of votes, either in a particular contest or across the polity, or both.
Or an electoral system may seek to achieve representation that is proportional to the vote across the polity.
Finally, an electoral system may seek to provide diverse or "pluralistic" representation, ensuring some third-party or independent representation in addition to majority or plurality winners.
Plurality: Winner(s) must get the most votes to win, irrespective of whether (in a single-winner contest) they receive half of more of the votes.
Majority: Winner(s) must win a majority (more than half) of the votes to win. Single-winner majoritarian systems typically employ a device to thin the field (like runoffs or ranked-choice voting) to manufacture a majority when one does not exist among the full field of candidates.
Proportional: Winners are determined in multi-winner contests proportionally to the aggregate number of votes for each party or candidate. For example, if a party wins 25% of the vote, they should win close to 25% of the seats.
Pluralistic: Most winners are majority or plurality winners with some formula or device to ensure representation of minority and minor parties and/or independent candidates.
Proportional Outcomes
In recent years, observers often highlight that one or other political parties wins more seats in Congress than their national vote share. This is by design. The single-winner plurality and majority systems used in the U.S. are designed to represent the majority or plurality in each district, not provide for proportional outcomes across Congress.
On the other hand, proportional systems are designed to ensure that seats won more closely match votes cast. Proportional systems can only operate in multi-winner contexts (since it is possible to proportionally assign a single seat). Proportional systems get more proportional the higher the district magnitude.
Who Should Have Representation?
In plurality and majority systems, a large number (even a majority) of votes do not contribute to election a candidate. Proportional systems use information from more voters votes to elect a set of candidates in proportion to the overall vote.
While proportional systems represent the idea that it is not only the supporters of the most popular candidates who deserve representation, they also rarely produce single-party majorities, which means sometimes unstable coalitions of parties organize the legislature.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse