The effective use of Supplementary Vote in mayoral elections: London 2000 and 2004

Hendrik van der Kolk, C. Rallings, M. Thrasher

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    8 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Abstract: Directly elected mayors in England are currently elected by a voting system known as the Supplementary Vote (SV). This method was first used to elect the London mayor in 2000 and used also for all other subsequent mayoral elections. Only when voters use either their first or their second vote (or both) for one of the top two candidates, can their vote be called 'effective'. If they do not vote for one of the top two candidates, their vote is wasted and ineffective in deciding between the top two candidates. If the group of ineffective vote(r)s is large, the outcome might not reflect the preferences of the electorate. By identifying seven types of voters within SV, we show which groups of voters may be ineffective in expressing their preference between the top two candidates. We discuss the way voters have or have not effectively used SV in London mayoral elections in both 2000 and 2004. At the London mayoral elections of 2000 and 2004, about 20 per cent of the voters were, in this respect, ineffective. This high percentage resulted in the election of a mayor with less than a clear majority of the votes.
    Original languageUndefined
    Pages (from-to)91-102
    Number of pages12
    JournalRepresentation
    Volume42
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2006

    Keywords

    • METIS-235650

    Cite this

    @article{38f6294895604d9bbb80020cdc201ff0,
    title = "The effective use of Supplementary Vote in mayoral elections: London 2000 and 2004",
    abstract = "Abstract: Directly elected mayors in England are currently elected by a voting system known as the Supplementary Vote (SV). This method was first used to elect the London mayor in 2000 and used also for all other subsequent mayoral elections. Only when voters use either their first or their second vote (or both) for one of the top two candidates, can their vote be called 'effective'. If they do not vote for one of the top two candidates, their vote is wasted and ineffective in deciding between the top two candidates. If the group of ineffective vote(r)s is large, the outcome might not reflect the preferences of the electorate. By identifying seven types of voters within SV, we show which groups of voters may be ineffective in expressing their preference between the top two candidates. We discuss the way voters have or have not effectively used SV in London mayoral elections in both 2000 and 2004. At the London mayoral elections of 2000 and 2004, about 20 per cent of the voters were, in this respect, ineffective. This high percentage resulted in the election of a mayor with less than a clear majority of the votes.",
    keywords = "METIS-235650",
    author = "{van der Kolk}, Hendrik and C. Rallings and M. Thrasher",
    year = "2006",
    doi = "10.1080/00344890600736325",
    language = "Undefined",
    volume = "42",
    pages = "91--102",
    journal = "Representation",
    issn = "0034-4893",
    publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
    number = "2",

    }

    The effective use of Supplementary Vote in mayoral elections: London 2000 and 2004. / van der Kolk, Hendrik; Rallings, C.; Thrasher, M.

    In: Representation, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2006, p. 91-102.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The effective use of Supplementary Vote in mayoral elections: London 2000 and 2004

    AU - van der Kolk, Hendrik

    AU - Rallings, C.

    AU - Thrasher, M.

    PY - 2006

    Y1 - 2006

    N2 - Abstract: Directly elected mayors in England are currently elected by a voting system known as the Supplementary Vote (SV). This method was first used to elect the London mayor in 2000 and used also for all other subsequent mayoral elections. Only when voters use either their first or their second vote (or both) for one of the top two candidates, can their vote be called 'effective'. If they do not vote for one of the top two candidates, their vote is wasted and ineffective in deciding between the top two candidates. If the group of ineffective vote(r)s is large, the outcome might not reflect the preferences of the electorate. By identifying seven types of voters within SV, we show which groups of voters may be ineffective in expressing their preference between the top two candidates. We discuss the way voters have or have not effectively used SV in London mayoral elections in both 2000 and 2004. At the London mayoral elections of 2000 and 2004, about 20 per cent of the voters were, in this respect, ineffective. This high percentage resulted in the election of a mayor with less than a clear majority of the votes.

    AB - Abstract: Directly elected mayors in England are currently elected by a voting system known as the Supplementary Vote (SV). This method was first used to elect the London mayor in 2000 and used also for all other subsequent mayoral elections. Only when voters use either their first or their second vote (or both) for one of the top two candidates, can their vote be called 'effective'. If they do not vote for one of the top two candidates, their vote is wasted and ineffective in deciding between the top two candidates. If the group of ineffective vote(r)s is large, the outcome might not reflect the preferences of the electorate. By identifying seven types of voters within SV, we show which groups of voters may be ineffective in expressing their preference between the top two candidates. We discuss the way voters have or have not effectively used SV in London mayoral elections in both 2000 and 2004. At the London mayoral elections of 2000 and 2004, about 20 per cent of the voters were, in this respect, ineffective. This high percentage resulted in the election of a mayor with less than a clear majority of the votes.

    KW - METIS-235650

    U2 - 10.1080/00344890600736325

    DO - 10.1080/00344890600736325

    M3 - Article

    VL - 42

    SP - 91

    EP - 102

    JO - Representation

    JF - Representation

    SN - 0034-4893

    IS - 2

    ER -