Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Voting methods aren't just procedural details—they fundamentally shape who wins elections, which parties thrive, and how representative our government actually is. When you're covering politics, understanding these systems helps you explain why some democracies have two dominant parties while others have five, why certain candidates win despite lacking majority support, and why electoral reform movements keep pushing for change. You're being tested on how institutional design creates political outcomes.
The key concepts here are electoral thresholds, vote-seat proportionality, strategic voting incentives, and majority vs. plurality outcomes. Each voting method creates different winners and losers—not because of voter preferences, but because of the rules themselves. Don't just memorize how each system works; know what political dynamics it produces and why reformers advocate for or against it.
These methods award victory to whoever gets the most votes in a district, creating strong incentives for two-party competition and often producing governments with clear majorities—but at the cost of proportionality.
The underlying mechanism is Duverger's Law: single-winner districts punish vote-splitting, so voters strategically consolidate around viable candidates.
Compare: FPTP vs. Plurality Voting—both reward whoever gets the most votes without requiring a majority, but FPTP applies to single-member districts while plurality can fill multiple seats. If asked about why third parties struggle in the U.S., FPTP is your go-to example.
These methods guarantee the winner has support from more than half of voters, either through runoffs or instant elimination rounds. They address the legitimacy problem of plurality winners but add complexity.
The core principle is that broader consensus produces more legitimate winners—no one takes office opposed by most voters.
Compare: Two-Round System vs. RCV—both ensure majority winners, but two-round requires voters to return for a second election while RCV accomplishes instant runoffs on a single ballot. RCV is gaining traction in U.S. cities and states as a cost-saving alternative.
These methods aim to match a party's share of legislative seats to its share of the popular vote, producing multi-party systems and coalition governments. They maximize representation but can complicate governance.
The driving principle is that every vote should count equally toward representation—wasted votes undermine democratic legitimacy.
Compare: PR vs. STV—both achieve proportional outcomes, but PR typically uses party lists while STV lets voters rank individual candidates across parties. STV gives voters more control over which candidates from a party win, not just how many.
These systems break from traditional single-vote models, allowing voters to express more nuanced preferences. They're often proposed as reforms to reduce strategic voting and elect consensus candidates.
The innovation here is expanding voter expression beyond "pick one"—more information from voters theoretically produces better collective decisions.
Compare: Approval Voting vs. Borda Count—both aim to elect broadly acceptable candidates, but approval voting is simpler (binary yes/no) while Borda captures preference intensity through rankings. Approval voting is easier to explain to voters, which matters for adoption.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Two-party system incentives | FPTP, Plurality Voting |
| Majority requirement | Two-Round System, RCV |
| Proportional outcomes | PR, STV, MMP |
| Coalition governments | PR, MMP |
| Eliminates spoiler effect | RCV, Approval Voting |
| Minority group representation | Cumulative Voting, STV, PR |
| Consensus candidate selection | Borda Count, Approval Voting |
| Hybrid local/proportional balance | MMP |
Which two voting methods both ensure majority winners but differ in whether voters must return for a second election?
A country wants to maintain local district representation while also achieving proportional outcomes nationally. Which voting method best accomplishes this, and how does it work?
Compare and contrast FPTP and PR: What type of party system does each tend to produce, and why?
If a reform advocate argues that voters should be able to support multiple candidates without strategic calculations, which two voting methods would they most likely champion?
An FRQ asks you to explain why third parties struggle to win seats in U.S. congressional elections. Which voting method is responsible, and what specific mechanism (name it) explains this outcome?