Misplaced Pages

#637362

74-632: The state constituency was first contested in 1974 and is mandated to return a single Assemblyman to the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly under the first-past-the-post voting system . Ethnic breakdown of Selising's electorate as of 2023 According to the Gazette issued on 30 March 2018, the Selising constituency has a total of 13 polling districts. This Malaysian elections -related article

148-424: A single-winner voting rule. Voters typically mark one candidate as their favorite, and the candidate with the largest number of first-preference marks (a plurality ) is elected, regardless of whether they have over half of all votes (a majority ). It is sometimes called first-past-the-post (FPTP) in reference to gambling on horse races (where bettors would guess which horse they thought would be first past

222-625: A "Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either." However, FPP often results in strategic voting , which has prevented extreme left- and right-wing parties from gaining parliamentary seats , as opposed to proportional representation . This also implies that strategic voting is necessary to keep extremists from gaining seats, which often fails to materialize in practice for multiple reasons. In comparison, many other systems encourage voters to rank other candidates and thereby not (or at least less often to) have to strategically compromise on their first choice at

296-518: A 16-point shift from the 64% who had supported the 2005 ratification. The results of every possible one-on-one election are as follows: 591 (Simpson) 2997 (Smith) 3664 (Wright) 3476 (Kiss) 844 (Simpson) 3576 (Smith) 4061 (Wright) 1310 (Simpson) 3793 (Smith) 721 (Simpson) This leads to an overall preference ranking of: Montroll was therefore preferred over Kiss by 54% of voters, over Wright by 56% of voters, over Smith by 60%, and over Simpson by 91% of voters. Another possible example

370-496: A center squeeze, candidates focused on appealing to a base of core supporters can squeeze the Condorcet winner out of the race by splitting the first-round vote with them, allowing a more-extreme alternative to win. This effect was first predicted by social choice theorists in the 1940s and 50s, and has since been documented in various countries using plurality-style electoral systems . Famous examples of center squeezes include

444-427: A contributory factor in the country adopting the apartheid system after the 1948 general election in that country. Leblang and Chan found that a country's electoral system is the most important predictor of a country's involvement in war, according to three different measures: (1) when a country was the first to enter a war; (2) when it joined a multinational coalition in an ongoing war; and (3) how long it stayed in

518-518: A geographical base, parties that are small UK-wide can still do very well". On the other hand, minor parties that do not concentrate their vote usually end up getting a much lower proportion of seats than votes, as they lose most of the seats they contest and 'waste' most of their votes. The ERS also says that in FPP elections using many separate districts "small parties without a geographical base find it hard to win seats". Make Votes Matter said that in

592-542: A government without being the largest party. The use of proportional representation (PR) may enable smaller parties to become decisive in the country's legislature and gain leverage they would not otherwise enjoy, although this can be somewhat mitigated by a large enough electoral threshold . They argue that FPP generally reduces this possibility, except where parties have a strong regional basis. A journalist at Haaretz noted that Israel's highly proportional Knesset "affords great power to relatively small parties, forcing

666-431: A majority of seats just requires receiving more than half the vote in more than half the districts—even if the other party receives all the votes cast in the other districts—so just over a quarter of the vote is theoretically enough to win a majority in the legislature. With enough candidates splitting the vote in a district, the total number of votes needed to win can be made arbitrarily small . Under first-past-the-post,

740-601: A majority of the votes cast in Canada only three times since 1921: in 1940 , 1958 and 1984 . In the United Kingdom, 19 of the 24 general elections since 1922 have produced a single-party majority government. In all but two of them ( 1931 and 1935 ), the leading party did not take a majority of the votes across the UK. In some cases, this can lead to a party receiving the plurality or even majority of total votes yet still failing to gain

814-505: A minor party in protest at its policies, since to do so would likely only help the major party's main rival. Rather than curtailing extreme voices, FPP today empowers the (relatively) extreme voices of the Labour and Conservative party memberships." For example, the electoral system of Hungary , a mixed system dominated by FPP have seen Fidesz (right-wing, populist party) win 135 seats in the 2022 Hungarian parliamentary election and has remained

SECTION 10

#1733085574638

888-470: A plurality of legislative seats. This results in a situation called a majority reversal or electoral inversion . Famous examples of the second-place party (in votes nationally) winning a majority of seats include the elections in Ghana in 2012 , New Zealand in 1978 and 1981 , and the United Kingdom in 1951 . Famous examples of the second placed party (in votes nationally) winning a plurality of seats include

962-622: A powerful electoral incentive for large parties to target similar segments of voters with similar policies. The effect of this reduces political diversity in a country because the larger parties are incentivized to coalesce around similar policies. The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network describes India's use of FPTP as a "legacy of British colonialism". Duverger's law is an idea in political science which says that constituencies that use first-past-the-post methods will lead to two-party systems , given enough time. Economist Jeffrey Sachs explains: The main reason for America's majoritarian character

1036-492: A principle known in political science as Duverger's Law . Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections. However, most countries with first-past-the-post elections have multiparty legislatures (albeit with two parties larger than the others), the United States being the major exception. There is a counter-argument to Duverger's Law, that while on the national level a plurality system may encourage two parties, in

1110-728: A public election in 1840 by his son Rowland for the Adelaide City Council in Australia. STV saw its first national use in Denmark in 1855, and was reinvented several times in the 19th century. Center squeeze Condorcet methods Positional voting Cardinal voting Quota-remainder methods Approval-based committees Fractional social choice Semi-proportional representation By ballot type Pathological response Strategic voting Paradoxes of majority rule Positive results Center squeeze

1184-483: A significant number of safe seats , where a representative is sheltered from any but the most dramatic change in voting behavior. In the UK, the Electoral Reform Society estimates that more than half the seats can be considered as safe. It has been claimed that members involved in the 2009 expenses scandal were significantly more likely to hold a safe seat. The House of Commons of England originated in

1258-539: A small party may draw votes and seats away from a larger party that it is more similar to, and therefore give an advantage to one it is less similar to. For example, in the 2000 United States presidential election , the left-leaning Ralph Nader drew more votes from the left-leaning Al Gore , resulting in Nader spoiling the election for the Democrats. According to the political pressure group Make Votes Matter , FPTP creates

1332-453: A system based on plurality voting spread over many separate districts is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distributed support gain a disproportionately small share. This is because in doing this they win many seats and do not 'waste' many votes in other areas. As voting patterns are similar in about two-thirds of

1406-563: A tendency for Independentista voters to support Populares candidates. This phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the Estadistas have the most voters on the island, and is so widely recognised that Puerto Ricans sometimes call the Independentistas who vote for the Populares "melons", because that fruit is green on the outside but red on the inside (in reference to

1480-519: A traditional, one-dimensional political spectrum . A center squeeze can occur in any situation where voters prefer candidates who hold views similar to their own . Center-squeeze has been observed in Australia , and various US cities. Center squeeze is a major feature of two-party systems using primaries or other multiple-round systems. In these methods, candidates must focus on appealing to their core supporters to ensure they can make it past

1554-461: A vote could be considered as wasted . FPP wastes fewer votes when it is used in two-party contests. But waste of votes and minority governments are more likely when large groups of voters vote for three, four or more parties as in Canadian elections. Canada uses FPP and only two of the last seven federal Canadian elections ( 2011 and 2015 ) produced single-party majority governments. In none of them did

SECTION 20

#1733085574638

1628-484: A voter's ballot has the opposite of its intended effect (e.g. where a candidate would need more votes to lose). In this race, Peltola would have lost if she had received more support from Palin voters, and won as a result of 5,200 ballots that ranked her last (after Palin then Begich). However, social choice theorists were careful to note the results likely would have been the same under Alaska's previous primary system as well. This led several to recommend replacing

1702-417: A war after becoming a party to it. When the people are fairly represented in parliament, more of those groups who may object to any potential war have access to the political power necessary to prevent it. In a proportional democracy, war and other major decisions generally requires the consent of the majority. The British human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell , and others, have argued that Britain entered

1776-552: Is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . First-past-the-post voting Condorcet methods Positional voting Cardinal voting Quota-remainder methods Approval-based committees Fractional social choice Semi-proportional representation By ballot type Pathological response Strategic voting Paradoxes of majority rule Positive results First-preference plurality ( FPP ) also known as single-member district plurality ( SMDP )—often shortened simply to plurality —is

1850-497: Is a kind of independence of irrelevant alternatives violation seen in a number of election rules, such as two-round and instant runoff , for example. In a center squeeze, the Condorcet winner is eliminated before they have the chance to face any of the other candidates in a one-on-one race (which by definition, they would win). The term can also refer to tendency of such rules to encourage polarization among elected officials. In

1924-406: Is a prospect of a change in representation, leaving safer areas excluded from participation in an active campaign. Political parties operate by targeting districts, directing their activists and policy proposals toward those areas considered to be marginal, where each additional vote has more value. This feature of FPTP has often been used by its supporters in contrast to proportional systems. In

1998-431: Is elected, despite an overwhelming two-thirds majority preferring M {\displaystyle M} . Ranked-choice voting (RCV) tries to address vote-splitting in FPP by replacing it with a series of FPP elections, with the loser being eliminated in each round. The first round of the election is the same as the FPP election. M {\displaystyle M} has the least first preferences and

2072-407: Is related to kingmakers in that the lesser-known candidates may encourage their supporters to rank the other candidates a certain way. Supporters of electoral reform generally see this as a positive development, and claim that alternatives certain to FPP will encourage less negative and more positive campaigning, as candidates will have to appeal to a wider group of people. Opinions are split on whether

2146-489: Is that a portion of the electorate (2.7%) voted for Ralph Nader of the Green Party , and exit polls indicated that more of them would have preferred Gore (45%) to Bush (27%). The election was ultimately determined by the results from Florida , where Bush prevailed over Gore by a margin of only 537 votes (0.009%), which was far exceeded by the 97488 (1.635%) votes cast for Nader in that state. In Puerto Rico , there has been

2220-434: Is the 2016 United States presidential election , where polls found several alternatives including Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson defeating both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton under a majority- or rated-voting rules but being squeezed out by both RCV and the primary election rules. Election law scholar Ned Foley criticized the two-round system variant used in the United States, which has been described as

2294-676: Is the majority-preferred (Condorcet) winner . M {\displaystyle M} is the socially-optimal winner as well. Thus, M {\displaystyle M} is the "best" or "most popular" candidate under both common metrics of candidate quality in social choice . Z {\displaystyle Z} wins under a single-round of FPP, with 35.9% of voters choosing them as their favorite. However, over substantially more voters considered Z {\displaystyle Z} to be their least favorite, with 63.1% of voters preferring M {\displaystyle M} . Z {\displaystyle Z}

Selising - Misplaced Pages Continue

2368-408: Is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two,

2442-424: Is therefore eliminated. Their votes are reassigned to A {\displaystyle A} and Z {\displaystyle Z} , according to their ballot. In the second round, enough voters who preferred M {\displaystyle M} as their first choice took A {\displaystyle A} as their second choice and A {\displaystyle A} wins

2516-685: The 2017 general election , "the Green Party, Liberal Democrats and UKIP (minor, non-regional parties) received 11% of votes between them, yet they shared just 2% of seats", and in the 2015 general election , "[t]he same three parties received almost a quarter of all the votes cast, yet these parties shared just 1.5% of seats." According to Make Votes Matter, in the 2015 UK general election UKIP came in third in terms of number of votes (3.9 million/12.6%), but gained only one seat in Parliament, resulting in one seat per 3.9 million votes. The Conservatives on

2590-419: The 2022 Alaska special election (where Nick Begich III was eliminated in the first round by Sarah Palin ) as well as the 2007 French presidential election , where moderate liberal François Bayrou was eliminated by left-wing populist candidate Ségolène Royal , allowing Nicolas Sarkozy to win the second round. Center squeezes are a kind of independence of irrelevant alternatives violation in which

2664-434: The 1970s , where the first round selects two major contenders who go on to receive the overwhelming majority of votes. [REDACTED] Suppose that Tennessee is holding an election on the location of its capital . The population is concentrated around four major cities. All voters want the capital to be as close to them as possible. The options are: The preferences of each region's voters are: In FPTP, only

2738-539: The 2009 election, incumbent Burlington mayor Bob Kiss won reelection as a member of the Vermont Progressive Party , defeating Kurt Wright in the final round with 48% of the vote. The election results were criticized by mathematicians and voting theorists for several pathologies associated with RCV. These included a no-show paradox , where Kiss won only as a result of 750 votes ranking Kiss in last place. Several electoral reform advocates branded

2812-414: The 20th century, many countries that previously used FPP have abandoned it in favor of other electoral systems, including the former British colonies of Australia and New Zealand . Most U.S. states still officially retain FPP for most elections. However, the combination of partisan primaries with the two-party system mean the country has effectively used a variation on the two-round system since

2886-502: The Condorcet and Borda count methods, which were respectively reinvented in the 18th century by the Marquis de Condorcet and Jean-Charles de Borda . More serious investigation into electoral systems came in the late 18th century, when several thinkers independently proposed systems of proportional representation to elect legislatures. The single transferable vote in particular was invented in 1819 by Thomas Wright Hill , and first used in

2960-411: The Condorcet winner is eliminated before the final round of an election. Candidates focused on appealing to a small base of core supporters can squeeze Condorcet winners out of the race, by splitting the first-round vote needed to survive earlier rounds. The "center" in "center squeeze" refers to candidates who are close to the center of public opinion , and is not limited to centrists along

3034-666: The Condorcet winner. The opposite situation—a bias in favor of bland, inoffensive, or unknown candidates—is not common in any widely-used voting rules. However, it can occur for "negative" voting methods that choose candidates with the least opposition, like anti-plurality , D21 – Janeček , or Coombs' method . In Alphabet Land, voters are divided based on how names should be arranged on lists. A {\displaystyle A} thinks names should always be in alphabetical order; Z {\displaystyle Z} thinks they should be in reverse-alphabetical order; and M {\displaystyle M} thinks

Selising - Misplaced Pages Continue

3108-478: The Iraq War primarily because of the political effects of FPP and that proportional representation would have prevented Britain's involvement in the war. To a greater extent than many others, the first-past-the-post method encourages "tactical voting". Voters have an incentive to vote for a candidate who they predict is more likely to win, as opposed to their preferred candidate who may be unlikely to win and for whom

3182-634: The Middle Ages as an assembly representing the gentry of the counties and cities of the Kingdom, each of which elected either one or two members of parliament (MPs) by block plurality voting . Starting in the 19th century, electoral reform advocates pushed to replace these multi-member constituencies with single-member districts. Elections to the Canadian House of Commons have always been conducted with FPP. The United States broke away from British rule in

3256-434: The absence of) of party primaries maybe strengthen or weaken this effect. In general, FPP has no mechanism that would benefit more moderate candidates and many supporters of FPP defend it electing the largest and most unified (even if more polarizing) minority over a more consensual majority supported candidate. Allowing people into parliament who did not finish first in their district was described by David Cameron as creating

3330-450: The alternative vote (better known as instant runoff voting outside the UK) achieves this better than other systems. Supporters and opponents of FPP often argue whether FPP advantages or disadvantages extremist parties. Among single-winner systems, FPP suffers from the center squeeze phenomenon , where more moderate candidates are squeezed out by more extreme ones. However, the different types (or

3404-416: The country in question in circumstances where the government's legislative agenda has broad public support, albeit potentially divided across party lines, or at least benefits society as a whole. However handing a legislative voting majority to a government which lacks popular support can be problematic where said government's policies favor only that fraction of the electorate that supported it, particularly if

3478-436: The districts, it is more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats under FPP than happens in a proportional system, and under FPP it is rare to elect a majority government that actually has the support of a majority of voters. Because FPP permits many wasted votes , an election under FPP is more easily gerrymandered. Through gerrymandering , electoral areas are designed deliberately to unfairly increase

3552-399: The election a center squeeze . By contrast, both Condorcet methods and score voting would return Nashville (the capital of Tennessee). Perhaps the most striking effect of FPP is the fact that the number of a party's seats in a legislature has nothing to do with its vote count in an election, only in how those votes were geographically distributed. This has been a target of criticism for

3626-398: The election a failure after Kiss was elected despite 54% of voters voting for Montroll over Kiss, violating the majority-rule principle . Later analyses showed the race was spoiled, with Wright pulling moderate votes away from Montroll, who would have beat Kiss in a one-on-one race. The controversy culminated in a successful 2010 initiative that repealed RCV by a vote of 52% to 48%,

3700-532: The election. RCV thus fails to have a substantial moderating impact, instead causing only a swing from one extreme to the other. The 2022 Alaska special election seat was an example of a center squeeze, where Nick Begich III was eliminated in the first round by right-wing spoiler Sarah Palin , despite a majority of voters preferring Begich to either one of his opponents. The ranked-choice runoff election involved one Democrat ( Mary Peltola ) and two Republicans ( Sarah Palin and Nick Begich III ). Because

3774-608: The elections in Canada in 2019 and 2021 as well as in Japan in 2003 . Even when a party wins more than half the votes in an almost purely two-party-competition, it is possible for the runner-up to win a majority of seats. This happened in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in 1966 , 1998 , and 2020 and in Belize in 1993 . Even with only two parties and equally-sized constituencies, winning

SECTION 50

#1733085574638

3848-407: The electorate divides on tribal, religious, or urban–rural lines. There is also the perceived issue of unfair coalitions where a smaller party can form a coalition with other smaller parties and form a government, without a clear mandate as was the case in the 2009 Israeli legislative election where the leading party Kadima , was unable to form a coalition so Likud , a smaller party, managed to form

3922-529: The finishing post). In social choice , FPP is generally treated as a degenerate variant of ranked voting , where voters rank the candidates, but only the first preference matters. As a result, FPP is usually implemented with a choose-one ballot , where voters place a single bubble next to their favorite candidate. FPP has been used to elect the British House of Commons since the Middle Ages . Throughout

3996-407: The first preferences matter. As such, the votes would be counted as 42% for Memphis, 26% for Nashville, 17% for Knoxville, and 15% for Chattanooga. Since Memphis has the most votes, it would win a FPTP election, even though it is far from the center of the state and a majority of voters would prefer Nashville . Similarly, instant-runoff voting would elect Knoxville , the easternmost city. This makes

4070-503: The first round, where only first-preferences count. If voters assign scores to candidates based on ideological distance, score voting will always select the candidate closest to some central tendency of the voter distribution. As a result, while score voting does not always elect the candidate closest to the median voter, it often behaves like methods that do. Under most models of strategic voting, spoilerproof cardinal methods tend to behave like approval voting and thus converge on

4144-469: The full ballot data for the race was released, social choice theorists were able to confirm that Palin spoiled the race for Begich, with Peltola winning the race as a result of several pathological behaviors that tend to characterize center-squeeze elections. The election produced a winner opposed by a majority of voters, with a majority of voters ranking Begich above Peltola and Palin, and more than half giving Peltola no support at all. The election

4218-439: The government to give in to political blackmail and to reach compromises"; Tony Blair , defending FPP, argued that other systems give small parties the balance of power, and influence disproportionate to their votes. The concept of kingmakers is adjacent to how Winston Churchill criticized the alternative vote system as "determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates." meaning that votes for

4292-481: The individual constituencies supermajorities will lead to the vote fracturing. It has been suggested that the distortions in geographical representation provide incentives for parties to ignore the interests of areas in which they are too weak to stand much chance of gaining representation, leading to governments that do not govern in the national interest. Further, during election campaigns the campaigning activity of parties tends to focus on marginal seats where there

4366-568: The largest party in Hungary since 2010 by changing the electoral system to mostly use FPP instead of the previous mixed system using mostly the two-round system . Since 2010, Fidesz has implemented other anti-democratic reforms that now mean the European Parliament no longer qualifies Hungary as a full democracy. Electoral reform campaigners have argued that the use of FPP in South Africa was

4440-514: The late 18th century, and its constitution provides for an electoral college to elect its president. Despite original intentions to the contrary, by the mid-19th century this college had transformed into a de facto use of FPP for each state's presidential election. This further morphed through the introduction of the party primary , which made American elections into a two-round system in practice. Non-plurality voting systems have been devised since at least 1299, when Ramon Llull came up with both

4514-526: The latter, smaller parties act as 'kingmakers' in coalitions as they have greater bargaining power and therefore, arguably, their influence on policy is disproportional to their parliamentary size- this is largely avoided in FPP systems where majorities are generally achieved. FPP often produces governments which have legislative voting majorities, thus providing such governments the legislative power necessary to implement their electoral manifesto commitments during their term in office. This may be beneficial for

SECTION 60

#1733085574638

4588-501: The leading party receive a majority of the votes. The position is sometimes summarized, in an extreme form, as "all votes for anyone other than the runner-up are votes for the winner." This is because votes for these other candidates deny potential support from the second-placed candidate, who might otherwise have won. Following the extremely close 2000 U.S. presidential election , some supporters of Democratic candidate Al Gore believed one reason he lost to Republican George W. Bush

4662-403: The least supported candidates may change the outcome of the election between the most supported candidates. In this case however, this is a feature of the alternative vote, since those votes would have otherwise been wasted (and in some sense this makes every vote count, as opposed to FPP), and this effect is only possible when no candidate receives an outright majority of first preference votes. it

4736-428: The method, many arguing that a fundamental requirement of an election system is to accurately represent the views of voters. FPP often creates "false majorities" by over-representing larger parties (giving a majority of the parliamentary/legislative seats to a party that did not receive a majority of the votes) while under-representing smaller ones. In Canada, majority governments have been formed due to one party winning

4810-411: The north of England. This pattern hides the large number of votes for the non-dominant party. Parties can find themselves without elected politicians in significant parts of the country, heightening feelings of regionalism. Party supporters (who may nevertheless be a significant minority) in those sections of the country are unrepresented. In the 2019 Canadian federal election Conservatives won 98% of

4884-411: The number of seats won by one party by redrawing the map such that one party has a small number of districts in which it has an overwhelming majority of votes (whether due to policy, demographics which tend to favor one party, or other reasons), and many districts where it is at a smaller disadvantage. The British Electoral Reform Society (ERS) says that regional parties benefit from this system. "With

4958-468: The number required for victory. For example, in the UK general election of 2005 , 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes—a total of 70% "wasted" votes. On this basis a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. This winner-takes-all system may be one of the reasons why "voter participation tends to be lower in countries with FPP than elsewhere." The effect of

5032-413: The order should be randomized. In this example, voters' happiness with the outcome falls linearly with the distance (number of letters) between the voter and the candidate. Because M {\displaystyle M} is preferred to both A {\displaystyle A} and Z {\displaystyle Z} in head-to-head match-ups, M {\displaystyle M}

5106-629: The other hand received one seat per 34,000 votes. The winner-takes-all nature of FPP leads to distorted patterns of representation, since it exaggerates the correlation between party support and geography. For example, in the UK the Conservative Party represents most of the rural seats in England, and most of the south of England, while the Labour Party represents most of the English cities and most of

5180-585: The party colors). Because voters have to predict who the top two candidates will be, results can be significantly distorted: Proponents of other voting methods in single-member districts argue that these would reduce the need for tactical voting and reduce the spoiler effect . Examples include preferential voting systems, such as instant runoff voting , as well as the two-round system of runoffs and less tested methods such as approval voting and Condorcet methods . Wasted votes are seen as those cast for losing candidates, and for winning candidates in excess of

5254-540: The same time. On the other hand, the Constitution Society published a report in April 2019 stating that, "[in certain circumstances] FPP can ... abet extreme politics , since should a radical faction gain control of one of the major political parties, FPP works to preserve that party's position. ...This is because the psychological effect of the plurality system disincentivises a major party's supporters from voting for

5328-639: The seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan with only 68% of the vote. The lack of non-Conservative representation gives the appearance of greater Conservative support than actually exists. Similarly, in Canada's 2021 elections, the Conservative Party won 88% of the seats in Alberta with only 55% of the vote, and won 100% of the seats in Saskatchewan with only 59% of the vote. First-past-the-post within geographical areas tends to deliver (particularly to larger parties)

5402-478: The system with any one of several alternatives without these behaviors , such as STAR , approval , or Condorcet voting . The 2009 Burlington mayoral election was held in March 2009 for the city of Burlington, Vermont , and serves as an example of a four-candidate center squeeze. This was the second mayoral election since the city's 2005 change to ranked-choice runoff voting , after the 2006 mayoral election . In

5476-433: Was also notable as a no-show paradox , where a candidate is eliminated as a result of votes cast in support of their candidacy. In this case, ballots ranking Palin first and Begich second instead allowed Peltola to win. Many social choice theorists criticized the ranked-choice runoff procedure for its pathological behavior . Along with being a center squeeze, the election was a negative voting weight event , where

#637362