| A joint Politics and Economics series |
| Social choice and electoral systems |
|---|
 |
 Mathematics portal |
Bullet,[1] single-shot,[2] or plump voting[3] is when a voter supports only a single candidate, typically to show strong support for a single favorite.
Every voting method that does not satisfy either later-no-harm (most methods) or monotonicity (such as instant-runoff voting) will encourage bullet voting or truncation in some situations.[4][5]
In systems that fail later-no-harm, voters who feel strongly about their favorite candidate can use bullet voting to maximize the chances their favorite candidate will be elected, at the cost of reducing the chances that one of their later preferences will win.[6][7]
In non-participatory systems (such as instant-runoff), voters can sometimes strategically bullet-vote to hide their support for additional candidates; this strategy works because such systems can cause candidates to lose when they receive too much support from voters.[4][5]
Setups where voters may benefit from truncating their ballots are sometimes called a truncation paradox or Burr dilemma. This name comes from Aaron Burr, who tied with Thomas Jefferson in the Electoral College during the 1800 election after one Jefferson-Burr elector forgot to truncate their block plurality ballot to exclude Burr. The resulting tie nearly caused a constitutional crisis.[8][9]
In systems like cumulative voting, bullet voting is actively encouraged as a way for minority groups to achieve proportional representation, by allowing small groups to concentrate all their support on one candidate and win at least one seat on a city council.[2][7][10] During the Jim Crow era, municipalities often banned or disparaged bullet voting in an attempt to prevent black voters from being able to achieve representation on city councils, creating a stigma that in some cases lasts to the present day.[2][10]
- ^ Bullet Voting Explained
- ^ a b c "Drawing the Line". Southern Poverty Law Center. Archived from the original on 2017-02-21. Retrieved 2017-07-13.
4. Anti-single-shot provisions: These provisions compel voters to cast a vote for every open seat, even if voters do not want to support more than one candidate. A voter who casts a vote for less than the entire number of seats open (a "full slate") will not have their ballot counted. Requiring minority voters to vote for a full slate dilutes their voting strength by preventing them from concentrating their support behind one candidate.
- ^ EDITORIAL: To plump, or not to plump your vote
- ^ a b "Later-No-Harm Criterion". The Center for Election Science. Retrieved 2024-02-02.
- ^ a b Graham-Squire, Adam; McCune, David (2023-06-12). "An Examination of Ranked-Choice Voting in the United States, 2004–2022". Representation: 1–19. arXiv:2301.12075. doi:10.1080/00344893.2023.2221689. ISSN 0034-4893.
- ^ "Does "Bullet Voting" Really Work? - Philadelphia Magazine". Philadelphia Magazine. 2015-10-27. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
- ^ a b "Ocean City Maryland News | OC MD Newspapers | Maryland Coast Dispatch » Merits Of Single-Shot Voting Questioned". mdcoastdispatch.com. 22 October 2008. Retrieved 2017-07-13.
Single-shot voting is essentially a tactic used by voters ... choosing only one candidate or a lesser amount of candidates than open seats.
- ^ Nagel, Jack H. (February 2007). "The Burr Dilemma in Approval Voting". The Journal of Politics. 69 (1): 43–58. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00493.x. JSTOR 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00493.x – via JSTOR.
- ^ Nagel, Jack H. (2006). "A Strategic Problem in Approval Voting". In Simeone, B.; Pukelsheim, F. (eds.). Mathematics and Democracy. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 133–150. doi:10.1007/3-540-35605-3_10. ISBN 978-3-540-35603-5.
- ^ a b Decision 1997: Constitutional Change in New York By Henrik N. Dullea, 1997