Comparison of electoral systems

Comparison of electoral systems is the result of comparative politics for electoral systems. Electoral systems are the rules for conducting elections, a main component of which is the algorithm for determining the winner (or several winners) from the ballots cast. This article discusses methods and results of comparing different electoral systems, both those that elect a unique candidate in a 'single-winner' election and those that elect a group of representatives in a multiwinner election. Various electoral systems can be judged using expert opinions, pragmatic considerations, and candidacy effects. As well, there are 4 main types of reasoning that have been used to try to determine the best voting method: Results of simulated elections Adherence to logical criteria Results of real elections Argument by example. Systems can be by judged according to advantages or disadvantages of different ballot formats or district formats, whether single-member districts or multi-member districts. One intellectual problem posed by voting theory is that of devising systems that are accurate in some sense. However, there are also practical reasons why one system may be more socially acceptable than another. The important factors include: Intelligibility, which Tideman defines as "the capacity of the rule to gain the trust of voters" and "depends on the reasonableness and understandability of the logic of the rule". Ease of voting. Different forms of ballot make it more or less difficult for voters to fill in ballot papers fairly reflecting their views. Ease of counting. Voting systems that make their decisions from a small set of counts derived from ballots are logistically less burdensome than those that need to consult the entire set of ballots. Some voting systems require powerful computational resources to determine the winner. Even if the cost is not prohibitive for electoral use, it may preclude effective evaluation. Other considerations include barriers to entry to the political competition and the proportionality of the seats-to-votes ratio.