Two Round System (TRS)

The two round system is also known as the run-off or double ballot system. It uses the same system as FPTP except that there are two rounds of voting. The first round of voting is done in the same way as a normal first past the post election. If a candidate receives an absolute majority of the vote (more than 50%), then they are declared the winner. However, if no candidate receives more than 50%, a second round is held. In some countries, such as Ukraine, only the top two candidates run in the second round. Then the winner will definitely receive more than 50% of the votes and be declared the winner. This system is the most common.

However in some countries, such as France, any candidate who has received over 12.5% of the vote can run in the second round. Whoever wins the highest number of votes in the second round is the winner, even if he or she doesn’t win over 50%.

Advantages

• Voters get two chances to vote, diverse groups will often work together to support a candidate in the second round.

• Less problem of “vote splitting”: sometimes if two similar candidates run for the same post, the vote will get split between them and a less popular candidate may win. For example, in a situation where Candidate 1 and 2 are both liberal, and Candidate 3 is conservative: if Candidate 1 takes 39% of the vote, Candidate 2 takes 21% of the vote, and Candidate 3 takes 40%, then the conservative Candidate 3 will win, even though 60% of the population voted liberal. This is not a problem in TRS if only two candidates can run in the final round.

Disadvantages

• It is expensive, time consuming, and like FPTP, produces disproportionate results: France has the most disproportionate results of any Western democracy. In deeply divided societies, such as in the Congo, rebel leaders returned to violence and boycotted the second round of elections once it became clear after the first round that they had no chance of winning the election.

• Two-round systems are used to elect over 30 national parliaments. They are also often used for electing presidents. Many of the countries which use two round systems have been historically influenced by France.

Block Vote (BV)

The same as First Past the Post, except that the voting districts are multimember. This means that each district elects more than one representative. Voters vote for the candidates they choose, and have as many votes as there are seats to be filled. For example, in a district with five representatives, voters can vote for up to five candidates. Some countries that use BV include Palestine, Laos, and Syria.

Advantages

• Voters can still vote for a person rather than the party, but it increases the role of the political parties compared with FPTP.

Disadvantages

• The gap between the national vote and the number of representatives a party wins can be even more disproportionate under this system, especially if parties nominate a candidate for every vacancy in a district and encourage voters to vote for their “team.” For example, in Mauritius in 1995, the winning party won every single seat in the legislature with only 65% of the popular vote.

• In Thailand, the Block Vote system led members of the same parties to have to compete against each other in the same districts, which caused internal party factionalism. Thailand and the Philippines both abandoned the BV system for these reasons.

Party Block Vote (PBV)

• As in Block Vote, districts are multi-member. However, voters get only one vote. Each party proposes a list of candidates for the district, and voters vote for the party list. The party with the most votes thus wins all the seats for that district.

• Countries that use this system include Cameroon, Dijbouti, Chad and Singapore.

Advantages

• Easier and simpler as voters only have to vote once. Also, many countries that use PBV require parties to propose a list of candidates with some ethnic diversity.

Disadvantages

• Like BV, can produce highly disproportionate results. In the 1997 election in Dijbouti, the ruling party won every single seat, which meant that the opposition parties were not represented at all in the legislature.

Alternative Vote (AV)

Like First Past the Post, uses single member districts. Voters under this system get to rank the candidates in order of preference rather than just voting for one person. So their first choice candidate would be marked as number 1, the second choice as number 2, etc. This system is known as preferential voting. Unlike FPTP, the winner must get an absolute majority of votes: i.e. more than 50%.

If no candidate gets an absolute majority, then the candidate with the lowest number of “1” votes is eliminated. Anyone who voted for that candidate has their 2nd choice vote used instead. This process of elimination goes on until someone receives an absolute majority.

This system is used in Australia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and for presidential elections in the Republic of Ireland. United Kingdom held a referendum in 2011 to switch from FPTP to AV; it was rejected.

Advantages

• Voters who support smaller and unsuccessful parties still have a chance to have their vote counted through their second choice. Promotes centrist politics because politicians seek the votes of supporters not only of their own party, but also to be the “second choice” for supporters of other parties.

• Incentive for inter-ethnic/clan cooperation: in Papua New Guinea, a country with several thousand clans and tribal groups, candidates found that they could not get enough votes to secure a majority if they relied only on votes from their clan/tribe. Candidates also had to try to be the next-best choice of other clan groups, which meant taking a stance that would be supportive of the interests of all groups in their region. When they switched to FPTP in 1975, candidates no longer needed an absolute majority so it became easy for the candidate from the largest clan to win the election. There was no longer any incentive to cooperate and election violence increased because it was in the interest of candidates to force other clan groups not to vote. As a result, in 2003, Papua New Guinea returned to the AV system.

Disadvantages

• Complex and also still produces disproportionate results. It also does not work as well with multi-member districts.