What is the fundamental principle behind the two-round system (TRS) of voting?

The two-round system is an electoral method designed to elect a single winner who has the support of a majority of voters. It achieves this through two rounds of voting, where voters select one preferred candidate in each round. The top two vote-getters from the first round advance to the second round, ensuring the eventual winner secures a majority of the votes cast in that final round.

How does the two-round system relate to other plurality voting methods?

The two-round system is categorized within the family of plurality voting systems, which also includes single-round plurality, often known as first-past-the-post (FPP). Like FPP and instant-runoff voting (IRV), the two-round system is designed to elect a single winner.

Where did the two-round system first emerge and gain popularity?

The two-round system, known in France as ballotage, first emerged in France during the July Monarchy, with its principles formalized in an 1832 decree. It has since become widely adopted, particularly in South America, Eastern Europe, and Africa, becoming the dominant electoral system in these regions for single-winner contests.

What are some of the main criticisms leveled against the two-round system by social choice theorists?

Critics, particularly within social choice theory, argue that the two-round system is susceptible to certain strategic voting phenomena. These include the 'center squeeze,' where centrist candidates can be disadvantaged by voters strategically supporting more extreme candidates, and the 'no-show paradox,' where a candidate's withdrawal could paradoxically lead to a worse outcome for their supporters.

How is the two-round system used in the United States?

In the United States, the first round of a two-round system is often referred to as a 'jungle primary' or 'top-two primary.' States like Louisiana, Washington, and California utilize this system for various elections, where the top two vote-getters advance to a general election, regardless of party affiliation. Georgia also uses a similar system for elections where no candidate achieves a majority in the first round.

What was the historical origin of the two-round system in France?

The two-round system's origins in France trace back to the July Monarchy, with the term 'ballotage' appearing in the Organic Decree of February 2, 1832. This decree mandated a second-round election if no candidate secured an absolute majority of votes in the initial round.

Can more than two candidates advance to the second round in a two-round system?

Yes, some variants of the two-round system allow for more than two candidates to proceed to the second round. This can occur if there is a tie in the first round or if multiple candidates meet a certain vote threshold. In such cases, the winner of the second round still typically needs only a plurality, not necessarily a majority, to win.

Describe the outcome of the 2002 French presidential election in relation to the two-round system.

In the 2002 French presidential election, the two-round system led to an unexpected second-round matchup between Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen. This occurred because the left-wing vote was divided among multiple candidates, allowing Le Pen to narrowly surpass Lionel Jospin in the first round. Chirac ultimately won the second round with a significant majority.

What is the 'spoiler effect' as demonstrated in the 2002 French presidential election?

The 'spoiler effect' occurred in the 2002 French presidential election when the division of votes among several left-wing candidates in the first round resulted in the elimination of the main left-wing contender, Lionel Jospin. This allowed Jean-Marie Le Pen, a far-right candidate, to advance to the second round alongside Jacques Chirac, an outcome many voters of the eliminated left-wing candidates did not desire.

How does the 'exhaustive ballot' (EB) differ from the two-round system?

The exhaustive ballot (EB) is similar to the two-round system but involves multiple rounds of voting where the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated in each subsequent round. This process continues until one candidate achieves an absolute majority. Due to the multiple voting rounds required, EB is typically used in smaller, non-public elections rather than large-scale public elections.

What is the 'contingent vote' and how does it relate to the two-round system?

The contingent vote, also known as the supplementary vote, is a variant of instant-runoff voting where voters rank candidates. After the first count, all but the top two candidates are eliminated, and their votes are redistributed. This process mirrors the outcome of a two-round system, as it aims to ensure the winner has majority support, and it tends to elect the same candidates as TRS and IRV.

Explain the difference between the two-round system and Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) regarding voter participation.

The key difference lies in how voters participate. In the two-round system, voters cast a ballot in two separate elections. In contrast, Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) requires voters to rank all candidates on a single ballot, and the counting process simulates multiple rounds by transferring preferences computationally, thus requiring only one voting occasion.

How does the two-round system fare regarding the 'majority criterion' under idealized conditions?

Under idealized conditions, assuming voters determine their preferences before the election and vote consistently, the two-round system can emulate the contingent vote. If voters act rationally in a game-theoretical equilibrium with perfect information, the system can satisfy the majority criterion, meaning a majority can elect their preferred candidate.

What is the 'center squeeze' phenomenon in relation to the two-round system?

The 'center squeeze' is a potential vulnerability of the two-round system where a centrist candidate might be disadvantaged. This occurs if voters strategically cast their first-round votes for more extreme candidates, potentially leading to the elimination of the centrist candidate even if they are preferred by a majority when paired against others.

How does the two-round system aim to reduce tactical voting compared to first-past-the-post?

The two-round system aims to reduce tactical voting by providing a second chance for voters to express their preference between the top two candidates. In a first-past-the-post system, voters might feel compelled to vote strategically for a leading candidate rather than their true favorite to avoid 'wasting' their vote. TRS allows voters whose first choice is eliminated to still influence the final outcome in the second round.

What is 'strategic nomination' in the context of the two-round system?

Strategic nomination refers to the practice where candidates or political factions influence election outcomes by strategically nominating or withdrawing candidates. For instance, a faction might avoid nominating a candidate likely to split the vote of a preferred candidate, or they might withdraw a candidate to help another preferred candidate advance to the second round.

What is the intended outcome regarding majority support for a winner in the two-round system?

The primary intention of the two-round system is to ensure that the candidate who wins the election has the support of a majority of the voters. This is achieved by requiring the top two candidates from the first round to compete in a second round, where one candidate must receive more than 50% of the votes cast.

How does the two-round system's approach to majority differ from Condorcet methods?

Condorcet methods aim to identify a candidate who would defeat every other candidate in a head-to-head comparison. The two-round system, while aiming for a majority winner, only ensures a majority in the final head-to-head contest between the top two candidates from the first round, which may not always align with the Condorcet winner.

What is the 'push over' tactic in a two-round system election?

The 'push over' tactic is a form of strategic voting where a voter supports an unpopular candidate in the first round. The intention is to ensure that this weak candidate, rather than a stronger rival, advances to the second round to challenge their preferred candidate. However, this can backfire if it inadvertently removes too many votes from their preferred candidate.

How can eliminated candidates influence the outcome of a two-round election?

Between the two rounds of voting, eliminated candidates and their supporting factions often issue recommendations to their voters on whom to support in the second round. This influence can lead to political bargaining, where the remaining candidates may make policy concessions to gain the support of these groups.

Does the two-round system typically produce proportional representation?

No, the two-round system is designed for single-seat constituencies and, like other non-proportional methods, does not produce proportional representation (PR). It tends to favor larger parties and can lead to a two-party system, similar to plurality methods, and often results in single-party governments rather than coalitions.

What is the 'two-party-preferred vote' (TPP) in Australian politics?

The two-party-preferred vote (TPP), also known as 2PP, is a measure used in Australian politics to indicate the final outcome of an election or poll after preferences have been distributed to the two leading candidates. It represents the percentage of votes each of the two major parties would receive if the election were a direct contest between them.

What is a common criticism regarding the practical implementation of the two-round system?

A frequent criticism of the two-round system is the practical implication of requiring voters to go to the polls twice. This increases the cost and logistical effort of conducting elections, effectively doubling the process compared to a single-round system.

How does the counting process of the two-round system compare to Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV)?

The counting process for the two-round system is generally simpler and less complex than for IRV. Each round involves a straightforward tally of votes. In contrast, IRV requires a more intricate counting procedure involving the transfer of ranked preferences, which can be difficult to audit locally.

What potential for political instability exists between the two rounds of a two-round system election?

The period between the first and second rounds of a two-round system election can sometimes lead to political instability. This is often due to the intense campaigning, negotiations, and potential policy shifts that occur as candidates seek to win over voters whose first-choice candidates were eliminated.

Which type of election is most commonly decided using the two-round system globally?

The two-round system is most commonly used worldwide for the direct election of heads of state, such as presidents. Approximately 87 countries utilize this system for electing their heads of state, significantly more than the 22 countries that use single-round plurality for the same purpose.

In which countries are legislative chambers exclusively elected using the two-round system in single-member districts?

Legislative chambers are exclusively elected using the two-round system in single-member districts in countries such as Bahrain (lower house only), Comoros (unicameral), Republic of the Congo (lower house only), Czech Republic (upper house only), France (lower house only), Gabon (both houses, though upper is indirect), Haiti (both houses), Mali (unicameral), and Uzbekistan (lower house only).

Provide examples of sub-national legislatures that exclusively use the two-round system in single-member districts.

Sub-national legislatures that exclusively use the two-round system in single-member districts include those in Georgia (United States) for both houses, Mississippi (United States) for both houses, Montserrat (United Kingdom) for its unicameral legislature, Texas (United States) for both houses, and Louisiana (United States) for both houses.

Are there instances where the two-round system is used in multi-member districts?

Yes, there are instances where the two-round system is adapted for multi-member districts. Examples include Iran, where 25% of the vote is required to win in the first round, and Mongolia, where 28% is needed. Vietnam uses it for its unicameral legislature, and Kiribati also employs a modified version.

How is the two-round system used in mixed electoral systems?

In mixed electoral systems, the two-round system is often used for electing representatives in single-member districts, while other methods, like party-list proportional representation, are used for multi-member districts. Examples include Egypt, France (for its upper house), Lithuania, Tajikistan, and the United States (in states like Louisiana and Washington).

What historical elections utilized the two-round system?

Historically, the two-round system was used to elect the Reichstag in the German Empire (1871-1918) and the Storting in Norway (1905-1919). It was also used in New Zealand's general elections in 1908 and 1911, and in Israel for electing the Prime Minister in 1996, 1999, and 2001. El Salvador used it for presidential elections until 2024.

What is the significance of the 'majority bonus system' in relation to the two-round system?

The majority bonus system, sometimes incorporating elements of the two-round system, is used in Italy for city council elections. It aims to ensure a stable majority for the elected mayor or council by allocating bonus seats to the winning party or coalition, often determined through a process similar to a two-round election.

How does the two-round system encourage conciliation and negotiation among political factions?

The two-round system encourages conciliation because candidates in the second round must appeal to voters whose preferred candidates were eliminated in the first round. This often leads to political bargaining, where eliminated candidates' supporters' preferences are considered, potentially resulting in policy concessions and broader coalition-building.

What is the relationship between the two-round system and the 'no-show paradox'?

The 'no-show paradox' is a criticism leveled against the two-round system, suggesting that a candidate's withdrawal from the race could paradoxically lead to a worse outcome for their supporters. This occurs if the withdrawal causes a shift in voting patterns that benefits a candidate less preferred by those supporters.

How does the two-round system handle elections where a candidate receives over 50% of the vote in the first round?

In most jurisdictions, if a candidate secures an absolute majority (over 50%) in the first round, a second round is not held, and that candidate is declared the winner. This is because the condition for winning the second round (a majority) has already been met.

What is the primary goal of the two-round system in terms of voter preference?

The primary goal of the two-round system is to ensure that the elected winner has the support of a majority of the voters. It seeks to avoid the situation in single-round plurality systems where a candidate can win with only a plurality (less than 50%) of the votes, potentially alienating a majority of the electorate.

How might the two-round system influence the number of political parties that gain representation?

As a non-proportional system, the two-round system tends to encourage a two-party system. It makes it more difficult for smaller parties to gain representation because candidates need to appeal broadly to win the second round, often leading to strategic alliances or consolidation around larger political blocs.

What is the 'jungle primary' in the context of the US electoral system?

The 'jungle primary,' also known as a top-two primary, is a variation of the two-round system used in some US states. In this system, all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, compete in the first round (the primary), and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, even if they belong to the same political party.

What is the 'double simultaneous vote' mentioned in relation to Bolivia and Uruguay?

The 'double simultaneous vote' is a system used in Bolivia and Uruguay where the first round of presidential elections and legislative elections are conducted concurrently. This system is a form of the two-round system, implying that if no presidential candidate achieves a majority, a second presidential round would follow.

How does the two-round system's impact on legislative representation differ from proportional representation systems?

Unlike proportional representation (PR) systems that aim to allocate seats based on the overall percentage of votes received by parties, the two-round system, used in single-member districts, does not produce proportional representation. It tends to result in a smaller number of larger parties dominating the assembly and can lead to a disconnect between a party's national vote share and its seat count.

What is the 'majority criterion' in voting theory, and how does the two-round system relate to it?

The majority criterion states that if a candidate is preferred by a majority of voters over every other candidate (a Condorcet winner), that candidate should win the election. While the two-round system aims for a majority winner in the final round, it does not guarantee that the Condorcet winner will always be elected, especially if they do not perform strongly enough in the first round.

What are the implications of the two-round system for government formation in a parliamentary system?

In a parliamentary system, the two-round system is more likely to produce single-party governments compared to proportional representation methods. This is because it tends to reinforce a two-party dynamic, making it easier for one party to secure a majority of seats, whereas PR systems often lead to coalition governments.

How does the two-round system address the issue of vote splitting compared to first-past-the-post?

The two-round system aims to mitigate vote splitting, a problem in first-past-the-post (FPTP) where multiple similar candidates can divide votes, allowing a less popular candidate to win. By ensuring the top two candidates advance, TRS gives voters a second opportunity to consolidate their support, reducing the impact of vote splitting on the final outcome.

What role do eliminated candidates' endorsements play in the second round of a two-round system election?

Endorsements from eliminated candidates are crucial in the second round of a two-round system. These endorsements can sway the votes of their former supporters, influencing the final result. This dynamic often leads to strategic negotiations and policy discussions between the remaining candidates and the eliminated parties.

What is the 'center squeeze' and how might it affect a centrist candidate in a two-round system?

The 'center squeeze' is a phenomenon where a centrist candidate can be disadvantaged in a two-round system. Voters might strategically support more extreme candidates in the first round, fearing that their preferred centrist candidate might not advance or might be easily defeated in the second round, thus potentially eliminating the centrist candidate prematurely.

How does the two-round system's requirement for two separate voting days impact its cost-effectiveness?

Conducting two separate voting days for the two rounds of an election increases the overall cost and logistical complexity compared to single-round systems. This is often cited as a significant practical drawback of the two-round system.

What is the 'independence of clones' criterion in voting theory, and how does the two-round system relate to it?

The 'independence of clones' criterion suggests that if a candidate has identical vote counts to another candidate (clones), their presence should not change the election outcome. The two-round system can be vulnerable to this, as the presence of a clone might affect who advances to the second round, potentially altering the winner compared to a scenario without the clone.

What is the 'no-show paradox' in the context of the two-round system?

The 'no-show paradox' refers to a situation where a voter abstaining from the second round of a two-round election could paradoxically lead to a better outcome for them. This happens if their abstention causes a less-preferred candidate to win, whereas their vote might have secured a more-preferred candidate.

How does the two-round system encourage candidates to appeal to a broader electorate?

To win the second round, candidates must secure votes from individuals whose first choices were eliminated. This necessity compels candidates to appeal beyond their core base, seeking support from a wider range of voters and potentially moderating their platforms to attract these swing voters.

What is the 'majority judgment' criterion in voting theory, and how does it compare to the two-round system's goal?

Majority judgment focuses on a candidate receiving the highest 'grade' or 'judgment' from the majority of voters. While the two-round system aims for a majority of votes, majority judgment is a different criterion that evaluates candidates based on their perceived quality across the electorate, not just vote counts.

What is the 'plurality criterion' in voting theory, and does the two-round system always satisfy it?

The plurality criterion states that if a candidate receives more first-preference votes than any other candidate, they should win the election. The two-round system does not always satisfy this criterion, as a candidate leading in the first round might not necessarily win the second round if their opponent garners more support in the runoff.

Two-round System Wiki: The Two-Round System: A Scholarly Examination of Electoral Mechanics

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

System Overview

Core Principle

The two-round system (TRS), also known as ballotage or top-two runoff, is a single-winner electoral method designed to ensure the elected candidate possesses majority support. It involves two distinct voting rounds. In the first round, voters cast a single, non-transferable vote for their preferred candidate. If no candidate secures an absolute majority (more than 50% of the votes), the top two vote-getters advance to a second round. The candidate who wins a plurality in this subsequent runoff is declared the winner.

Comparison to Other Systems

Unlike single-round plurality (First-Past-the-Post), which can elect a candidate with less than majority support, TRS aims to mitigate this by forcing a majority outcome. It shares similarities with instant-runoff voting (IRV) in its goal of achieving majority preference, but differs significantly in its procedural requirement for voters to cast ballots in separate rounds, rather than ranking candidates on a single ballot.

Global Prevalence

Originating in France, the two-round system has become the most widely adopted method for directly electing heads of state globally. Its application extends to numerous legislative elections across continents, reflecting its perceived efficacy in fostering majority mandates and political stability.

Historical Context

French Roots

The foundational principles of the two-round system, termed "ballotage," were first codified in France during the July Monarchy. The Organic Decree of February 2, 1832, mandated a second round of voting if no candidate achieved an absolute majority in the initial election. This mechanism aimed to ensure a decisive mandate for elected officials.

International Adoption

From its French origins, the TRS model has seen substantial diffusion, becoming particularly prevalent in South America, Eastern Europe, and Africa. Its widespread adoption underscores its status as a dominant electoral system for single-winner contests worldwide.

Illustrative Case Study

2002 French Presidential Election

The 2002 French presidential election serves as a notable example of the TRS in action. While 16 candidates were initially on the ballot, the first round saw Jacques Chirac (Centre-right) and Jean-Marie Le Pen (Far-right) emerge as the top two contenders, narrowly surpassing Lionel Jospin (Centre-left). Chirac secured 19.88% of the vote, Le Pen garnered 16.86%, and Jospin received 16.18%. The division of the left-wing vote contributed to Jospin's elimination.

In the subsequent runoff, Jacques Chirac achieved a decisive victory, capturing 82.21% of the vote against Jean-Marie Le Pen's 17.79%. This outcome highlighted the system's capacity to produce a clear majority winner, even when the first round results are fragmented. Analysts noted that Chirac was the Condorcet winner in this scenario, meaning he would have defeated any other candidate in a head-to-head contest.

System Variations

Top-Two Primaries

In the United States, certain states employ variations of the TRS. "Top-two primaries" or "jungle primaries" (used in states like California and Washington) advance the two candidates with the most votes in the primary election to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Other states, like Georgia, may hold a runoff election if no candidate achieves a majority in the initial primary.

Exhaustive Ballot & Contingent Vote

The Exhaustive Ballot is a multi-round system where the lowest-polling candidate is eliminated after each round until a majority is achieved. It is typically used in smaller contests due to its complexity. The Contingent Vote (or Supplementary Vote) is a ranked-choice system that functions similarly to TRS by eliminating all but the top two candidates after the first count, then reallocating votes to determine a majority winner.

Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV)

IRV, also known as Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) in the US, differs from TRS by requiring voters to rank candidates on a single ballot. Votes are then iteratively transferred from eliminated candidates to their next preferences until a candidate secures a majority. While aiming for a similar outcome, IRV avoids the need for multiple voting days.

Theoretical Compliance

Ordinal Preferences & Game Theory

From a social choice theory perspective, TRS is analyzed based on voter preferences. If voters consistently adhere to their ordinal preferences across rounds, TRS outcomes align with the Contingent Vote. However, when voters strategically adjust their second-round choices based on first-round results—acting within a game-theoretic framework—TRS can potentially elect a Condorcet winner (a candidate preferred over all others in pairwise comparisons) under certain conditions, a feat not guaranteed by the Contingent Vote model.

Limitations

Critics point to TRS's susceptibility to the "center squeeze" paradox, where centrist candidates can be disadvantaged if voters strategically support more extreme candidates in the first round to avoid a perceived "wasted vote." Furthermore, the system can be vulnerable to "no-show paradoxes," where a voter's abstention or change of vote between rounds can alter the outcome in unexpected ways. The need for two separate voting events also presents logistical and financial challenges.

Strategic Considerations

Tactical Voting

TRS aims to reduce tactical voting compared to single-round plurality by providing a second chance for voters whose initial preference is eliminated. However, strategic voting can still occur. Voters might engage in "compromising" by voting for a leading candidate in the first round to prevent an undesirable outcome in the second, or employ "push-over" tactics by supporting a weak candidate to eliminate a stronger rival.

Strategic Nomination

The system is also susceptible to strategic nomination, where candidates or parties strategically enter or withdraw from the race. Nominating multiple candidates from one faction can split the vote, potentially preventing any of them from reaching the second round, or conversely, ensuring that only candidates from a particular bloc advance. This can be used to manipulate the electoral landscape and influence the final outcome.

Sociopolitical Ramifications

Broad Appeal & Bargaining

The TRS encourages candidates to appeal to a wider electorate beyond their initial base, as success in the second round often requires consolidating support from voters whose first choices were eliminated. This dynamic fosters inter-candidate bargaining and policy negotiation between rounds, potentially leading to broader consensus-building and conciliation among political factions.

Governance & Party Systems

In parliamentary systems, TRS tends to favor larger parties and can lead to single-party governments more frequently than proportional representation systems, which often result in coalition governments. While ensuring individual winners have majority support within their constituency, TRS does not guarantee proportional representation at the national level, potentially skewing legislative outcomes relative to the overall popular vote.

Global Application

Heads of State

The two-round system is the predominant method for directly electing presidents or heads of state in numerous countries worldwide. Approximately 87 nations utilize TRS for these executive elections, significantly outnumbering the 22 that employ single-round plurality methods.

Legislative Elections

TRS is also widely applied in legislative elections. Many countries use it for their lower or upper houses, often in single-member districts. Some mixed systems incorporate TRS for a portion of legislative seats, combining it with proportional representation methods for other seats to balance majority mandates with broader representation.

Sub-national Use

Beyond national elections, TRS finds application at sub-national levels, including the election of mayors and members of regional or local legislative bodies. Examples include its use in various US states for state legislatures and local executive offices.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Two-round System" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about two-round_system while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

naval network warfare command

albert and david maysles

wehrmacht

qin state

ocnus

References

A full list of references for this article are available at the Two-round system Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer

Important Considerations

This document has been generated by an Artificial Intelligence, drawing upon publicly available data to provide an educational overview of the Two-Round System. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and comprehensiveness, the content is based on a snapshot of information and may not encompass all nuances or the most current developments.

This is not professional advice. The information presented herein should not be construed as expert guidance in political science, electoral strategy, or legal matters. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and qualified professionals for in-depth analysis and specific applications. The creators of this content are not liable for any errors, omissions, or actions taken based on the information provided.

The Two-Round System

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

System Overview ℹ️

🗳️ Core Principle

⚖️ Comparison to Other Systems

📈 Global Prevalence

Historical Context 📜

🏛️ French Roots

🌍 International Adoption

Illustrative Case Study 💡

🇫🇷 2002 French Presidential Election

System Variations 🔄

🇺🇸 Top-Two Primaries

❓ Exhaustive Ballot & Contingent Vote

📊 Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV)

Theoretical Compliance 🔬

🧠 Ordinal Preferences & Game Theory

🤔 Limitations

Strategic Considerations ♟️

🎭 Tactical Voting

🤝 Strategic Nomination

Sociopolitical Ramifications 🏛️

🗣️ Broad Appeal & Bargaining

⚖️ Governance & Party Systems

Global Application 🌐

👑 Heads of State

🏛️ Legislative Elections

📍 Sub-national Use

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Considerations

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

System Overview

Core Principle

Comparison to Other Systems

Global Prevalence

Historical Context

French Roots

International Adoption

Illustrative Case Study

2002 French Presidential Election

System Variations

Top-Two Primaries

Exhaustive Ballot & Contingent Vote

Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV)

Theoretical Compliance

Ordinal Preferences & Game Theory

Limitations

Strategic Considerations

Tactical Voting

Strategic Nomination

Sociopolitical Ramifications

Broad Appeal & Bargaining

Governance & Party Systems

Global Application

Heads of State

Legislative Elections

Sub-national Use

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Academic Disclaimer

Important Considerations