Plurality block, also called as multiple non-transferable vote, and block plurality voting, is a type of block voting method for multi-winner elections. Each voter may cast as many votes as the number of seats to be filled. The candidates with the most votes are elected. The usual result when the candidates divide into parties is that the most popular party in the district sees its full slate of candidates elected, even if the party does not have support of majority of the voters.In 1921 Liberal party took all the Edmonton seats with about 35 percent of the votes. A Report on Alberta Elections, 1905-1982
The term plurality at-large is in common usage in elections for representative members of a body who are elected or appointed to represent the whole membership of the body (for example, a city, state or province, nation or country, club or association). (The plurality at-large election system is common in cities. The Senate of the Philippines is elected by the rare country-wide use of block voting.) Where the system is used in a territory divided into multi-member electoral districts, the system is commonly referred to as "block voting" or the "bloc vote". These systems are usually based on a single round of voting.
The party-list version of block voting is party block voting (PBV), also called the general ticket, which also elects members by plurality in multi-member districts. In such a system, each party puts forward a slate of candidates, a voter casts just one vote, and the party winning a plurality of votes sees its whole slate elected, winning all the seats; and is thus distinct from plurality block voting.
Casting and counting ballots
Block voting In a block voting election, all candidates run against each other for m number of positions, where m is commonly called the district magnitude. Each voter selects up to m candidates on the ballot. Each of the voters have m votes, and are able to cast no more than one per candidate. They cannot vote for the same candidate more than once, as is permitted in cumulative voting.
Voters are permitted to cast their votes across candidates of different parties (ticket splitting).
The m candidates with the most votes (who may or may not obtain a majority of available votes or support from the majority of the voters) are declared elected and will fill the positions.
Due to multiple voting, when a party runs more than one candidate, it is impossible to know if the party had support of as many voters as the party tally of votes (up to number of voters participating in the election) or if it had support of just the number of voters equivalent to the votes received by the most popular candidate and the other candidates of that party merely received votes from subset of that group.
Example Candidates are running in a three-member district; each of the 10,000 voters may cast three votes (but do not have to). Voters may not cast more than one vote for a single candidate.
Party A has about 35% support among the electorate, Party B around 25% and the remaining voters primarily support independent candidates. CandidatePartyVotes%Elected?Candidate A1Party A355536%3.YesCandidate A2Party A370037%1.YesCandidate A3Party A360036%2.YesCandidate B1Party B260026%4.Candidate B2Party B250025%5.Candidate B3Party B240024%6.Candidate I1Independent230023%8.Candidate I2Independent239520%7.Candidate I3Independent190019%9.Candidate I4Independent180015%10Candidate I5Independent6507%11.Candidate I6Independent6006%12.TOTAL28,000TOTAL possible votes (3 per voter)30,000Voters10,000100% Candidates of Party A won in a landslide, even though they only received a plurality (35–37%) among the voters (10,000). This is because most parties run as many candidates as there are open seats and voters of a party usually do not split their ticket, but vote for all candidates of that party.
By contrast, a single transferable vote system would likely elect 1 candidate from party A, 1 candidate from party B and 1 independent candidate in this scenario.
Effects of block voting The block voting system has a number of features which can make it unrepresentative of the voters' intentions. Block voting regularly produces complete landslide majorities for the group of candidates with the highest level of support. Additionally, like first past the post methods, if there are many parties running and voters do not engage in tactical voting, a small cohesive group of voters, making up only a minority of the voters, can elect all the open seats by merely constituting a plurality.
Landslide victories Under block voting, a slate of clones of the top-place candidate may win every available seat. A voter does have the option to vote for candidates of different political parties if they wish, but if the largest group of voters have strong party loyalty, there is nothing the other voters or parties can do to prevent a landslide.
While many criticize block voting's tendency to create landslide victories, some cite it as a strength. Since the winners of a block voting election generally represent the same slate or group of voters, there is greater agreement among those elected, potentially leading to a reduction in political gridlock.
Tactical voting and strategic nomination Block plurality voting, like single-winner plurality voting, is particularly vulnerable to tactical voting. Supporters of relatively unpopular third parties have a substantial incentive to avoid wasted votes by casting all of their votes for a slate of candidates from a major party.
Parties in block voting systems can also benefit from strategic nomination. Coalitions are actively hurt when they have more candidates than there are seats to fill, as vote-splitting will occur. Similarly, a coalition has a substantial incentive to nominate a full slate of candidates, as otherwise supporting voters may cast some of their remaining votes for opposing candidates.
Bullet voting is a strategy in which a voter only votes for a single candidate in an attempt to stop them being beaten by additional choices. Because the voter is essentially wasting a portion of their vote, bullet voting is only a good strategy when the voter has a strong preference for their favorite and is unsure of, and/or indifferent to, the other candidates' relative chances of winning, for example, if the voter supports an independent candidate or a minor party which has only nominated one candidate. Thus, block voting may look like single non-transferable voting.
This system sometimes fosters the creation of an electoral alliance between political parties or groups as opposed to a coalition. This has been the case in the National Assembly of Mauritius; the New Hampshire House of Representatives, with the election of multiple Free State Project as well as New Hampshire Liberty Alliance members; and in the Vermont Senate, with the elections of Vermont Progressive Party members Tim Ashe and Anthony Pollina. Historically, similar situations arose within the multi-member constituencies in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Compared to preferential block voting Block voting, or block plurality voting, is often compared with preferential block voting as both systems tend to produce landslide victories for similar candidates. Instead of a series of checkboxes, preferential block voting uses a preferential ballot. A slate of clones of the top preferred candidate will win every seat under both systems, however in preferential block voting this is instead the instant-runoff winner.
Vacancies In Brazil, where Senatorial elections alternate between FPTP and block voting, each main candidate is registered along with two substitutes. Votes in either election are cast and counted based on these three-candidate slates; when a Senator leaves office before their eight-year term ends, the first substitute takes their place, and then the second if needed.
On the other hand, in political systems with a culture of by-elections, filling vacancies under Block Voting can be harder than in other voting methods. This is because by-elections to fill a single seat in a multi-member district can be expensive. In the Philippine Senate that has staggered elections, the seat is filled up on the next scheduled election, such as in 1951, 1955 and 2001. In the first two elections, the seat for the vacancy is a separate ballot question, where the voters voted for eight senators, then a separate ninth senator from a separate candidate list. In 2001, it was in one ballot question, where voters voted for 13, instead of 12, senators, all from one candidate list.
There are alternative ways of selecting a replacement in such systems: one way is to fill any seat that becomes empty by appointing the most popular unsuccessful candidate in the last election, i.e. a countback. This was used in the City of Edmonton (Canada) following the 1905 Edmonton municipal election.Edmonton Bulletin, Dec. 7, 1905
Use of block voting
National elections Block voting used for electing national legislatures The Philippines is the country with the most extensive experience in plurality-at-large voting. Positions where there are multiple winners usually use plurality-at-large voting, the exception is the election for sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives. The members of the Senate and all local legislatures are elected via this method. The members of the Interim Batasang Pambansa (the parliament) were also elected under this method in 1978.
The following countries use block plurality voting (not including party block voting using plurality) in their national electoral systems: CountryLegislative bodyLatest election (year)Type of systemSeats per constituencyElectoral systemTotal seatsConstituenciesGovernmental systemNotes BrazilSenate2022block voting via multi-winner districts1 or 2 (staggered elections)Block plurality voting (BV) and First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)81States and the Federal districtPresidential system Islamic Republic of IranIslamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis)2024block voting via multi-winner districts1–30Modified two-round block voting (BV) in multi-member districts, modified two-round system (TRS) in single-member districts (25% of votes required to win in 1st round in every constituency)290 (285 directly elected)electoral districtsPresidential systemAssembly of Experts2024block voting via multi-winner districts1–16Block plurality voting (BV)Presidential system KiribatiHouse of Assembly2024block voting via multi-winner districts1–3Two-round block voting (BV) in multi-member districts, two-round system (TRS) in single-member districts (50% of votes required to win in 1st round in every constituency)46 (44 directly elected + 1 delegate from Banaba Island and 1 ex officio)electoral districts LaosNational Assembly2021block voting via multi-winner districts5–19Block plurality voting (BV)164 (149 directly elected)provinces MaliNational Assembly2020block voting via multi-winner districtsTwo-round block voting (BV) in multi-member districts, two-round system (TRS) in single-member districts (50% of votes required to win in 1st round in every constituency)147electoral districts Marshall IslandsLegislature2023block voting via multi-winner districts1–5First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in single-member constituencies (19 seats) and Block plurality voting (BV) in multi-member constituencies (14 seats)33electoral districts MauritaniaNational Assembly2023mixed-member majoritarian1–3 (local districts), 40 (nationwide constituency)Coexistence+superposition (parallel) supermixed/hybrid: