An Empirical Evaluation of Six Voting Procedures: Do They Really Make Any Difference?
- 27 January 1993
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in British Journal of Political Science
- Vol. 23 (1), 1-27
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123400006542
Abstract
Six single- or multi-winner voting procedures are compared to one another in terms of the outcomes of thirty-seven real elections conducted in Britain by various trade unions, professional associations and non-profit-making organizations. The six procedures examined are two versions of plurality voting (PV), approval voting (AV), the Borda-count (BR), the alternative and repeated alternative vote (ALV–RAL) and the single transferable vote (STV). These procedures are evaluated in terms of two general and five specific criteria that are common in social-choice theory. In terms of these criteria one version of the PV procedure (PVO) is found to be inferior to the other five procedures among which no significant difference has been found.Keywords
This publication has 41 references indexed in Scilit:
- Constituency Characteristics, Individual Characteristics and Tactical Voting in the 1987 British General ElectionBritish Journal of Political Science, 1992
- Normative properties of four single-stage multi-winner electoral proceduresBehavioral Science, 1992
- Collectivities as ActorsRationality and Society, 1990
- The condorcet-efficiency of sophisticated voting under the plurality and approval proceduresBehavioral Science, 1990
- A comparative analysis of sincere and sophisticated voting under the plurality and approval proceduresBehavioral Science, 1988
- Single-peaked preferences and probabilities of cyclical majoritiesBehavioral Science, 1974
- A note on some generalizations of the paradox of cyclical majoritiesPublic Choice, 1972
- Some mathematical remarks on the paradox of votingBehavioral Science, 1971
- The Closed Rule and the Paradox of VotingThe Journal of Politics, 1971
- The occurrence of the paradox of voting in University electionsPublic Choice, 1970