Editing Limited voting (section)

== Practice and issues ==
Limited Voting frequently enables minority groupings to gain representation – unlike [[first past the post]] or [[Plurality-at-large voting|bloc voting]] systems.

For example, in Voterville 54% of electors support the Blue Party while 46% support the Red Party. The Blue Party would win all three seats with bloc voting and also under [[first past the post]] assuming an even distribution of support across the town, and the Red Party would win no representation.

With limited voting the Red Party would usually win one seat.

Assuming 20,000 electors in the town cast ''two'' votes each and the Blue party getting 54 percent of the votes and the Red party getting 46 percent, the results might be:

{|border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" align="center"
|-
|'''Brian Blue'''
|9800 votes
|'''Elected'''
|-
|'''Beryl Blue'''
|9600 votes
|'''Elected'''
|-
|'''Boris Blue'''
|2200 votes
|
|-
|'''Rory Red'''
|9,200 votes
|'''Elected'''
|-
|'''Rachel Red'''
|9,200 votes
|
|}

Thus two parties obtain representation. 

But a minority getting representation (at least one seat) under limited voting is not guaranteed, since a sectional vote may not be effective due to the number of candidates fielded and the manner in which votes are cast for party candidates.

To ensure a minority winning one seat out of three when each voter has two votes and only two parties are in the contest, it is necessary to get the votes of a full two-fifths of the voters. In the above case the Red party had support from just more than two-fifths of the voters. 

In cases where there are more than two parties running candidates and voters cast their two votes along party lines, the smaller of the two largest parties must have 40 percent of the total valid votes, or 40 percent of the valid votes of the largest and second-largest parties combined, to be sure to take a seat, and then might elect both of its candidates. If voters do not cast their votes along party lines or do not cast both votes, the smaller of the two largest parties can take a seat only if its most-popular candidate is more popular than the least-popular candidate of the largest party.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hoag and Hallett |title=Proportional representation |year=1926 |pages=43-45}}</ref>

If the largest party runs three candidates hoping to take all the seats, it may suffer from vote splitting and take just one seat. (It could happen that both parties would each run three candidates and suffer vote splitting and then the outcome could be conjectured in countless ways.)

If the larger party runs three candidates and the smaller runs two, it is possible for the larger party to win all three seats. 

But it is also possible for the least-popular of the two parties to win more seats than the other. The Blue Party, even if it is the most-popular party, may win only one of the available seats if it attempts to win all three and overreaches itself.  

Since the Blue party has nearly 60% of the vote, it may be tempted to try to win all three seats.  To do this, it must field three candidates. The Red Party, aware of its relative weakness, is likely to choose only to run two and thus not to disperse its vote. (With each voter having two votes, there is no reason to run only one candidate.)

Assuming 20,000 electors in the town cast ''two'' votes each, the results might thus be:

{| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" align="center"
|-
|'''Brian Blue'''
|8600 votes
|'''Elected'''
|-
|'''Beryl Blue'''
|8000 votes
|
|-
|'''Boris Blue'''
|5000 votes
|
|-
|'''Rory Red'''
|9,200 votes
|'''Elected'''
|-
|'''Rachel Red'''
|9,200 votes
|'''Elected'''
|}

By fielding three candidates the Blue Party split their vote and lost out, despite having a clear majority of voter support in the town.

As can be seen from this example, limited voting does not always produce proportional representation.

Another way in which the system may fail to achieve fair representation is if the largest party is very well organised and can arrange the distribution of its supporters' vote for maximum advantage, while other parties are not so well organized.  

In Spain, where limited voting was used for most elections until 1936 and where it is still used today for the Senate, this practice was known as ''ir al copo'' (from the verb ''copar'', 'to fulfill'). In both [[1977 Spanish general election|1977]] and [[1979 Spanish general election|1979 Spanish general elections]], the [[Union of the Democratic Centre (Spain)|Union of the Democratic Centre]] won all three seats in the [[Gran Canaria (Senate constituency)|constituency of Gran Canaria]].  

In this next example, a party first secured a one-party sweep of a district's seats and then manipulated the vote so as to methodically sweep the seats again. In the 1880 election for the three Members of Parliament for the English city of [[Birmingham (UK Parliament constituency)|Birmingham]], electors cast one or two votes.
Liberal candidates filled all three seats, leaving the Conservatives without representation. This is despite the Liberal vote being split among three candidates.
Thus the limited vote did not produce mixed representation. The Conservative party may have had only about 15,000 supporters and the Liberal candidates may have had support from about 31,000 so the unfairness of the result is not as stark as it seems from seeing 29,000 Conservative votes disregarded. (The Conservatives' voter support in Birmingham was less than the 40 percent threshold for guaranteed representation mentioned above.) 

But due to Limited Voting, it could have been that Conservative candidates received one vote from 29,000 voters and Liberal candidates received at least one vote from all 47,000 voters. Judging the fairness of elections results (and perceiving the portion of voters who saw their choice elected) is much easier when each voter has just one vote. 

{{Election box begin |
 |title=[[1880 United Kingdom general election|General Election 1880]]: [[Birmingham (UK Parliament constituency)|Birmingham]] (3 seats); each voter casting one or two votes}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
 |party = Liberal Party (UK)
 |candidate = '''[[Philip Henry Muntz]]'''
 |votes = 22,969
 |percentage = 24.27
 |change = ''N/A''
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
 |party = Liberal Party (UK)
 |candidate = '''[[John Bright]]'''
 |votes = 22,079
 |percentage = 23.33
 |change = ''N/A''
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
 |party = Liberal Party (UK)
 |candidate = '''[[Joseph Chamberlain]]'''
 |votes = 19,544
 |percentage = 20.65
 |change = ''N/A''
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
 |party = Conservative Party (UK)
 |candidate = F.G. Burnaby
 |votes = 15,735
 |percentage = 16.63
 |change = ''N/A''
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link|
 |party = Conservative Party (UK)
 |candidate = Hon. A.C.G. Calthorpe
 |votes = 14,308
 |percentage = 15.12
 |change = ''N/A''
}}
{{Election box end}}
Total votes cast  = 94,635.

Estimated number of voters who voted = 47,318 (or more)

Eligible electors = 63,398

Turn-out = 74.6 percent <ref>[[Birmingham (UK Parliament constituency)]]</ref>

* Note: Turnout is based on estimated number of voters who voted, calculated by dividing votes cast by two. To the extent that electors did not use both their possible votes (and thus more voted than the number of votes cast divided by two), turnout will be underestimated.<ref>Craig, ''British Parliamentary Election Results 1832–1885''</ref>

Charles Seymour in ''Electoral Reform in England and Wales'' explained the reaction of the Liberals of Birmingham after the '''limited vote''' was enacted.

<blockquote>
The Liberals of Birmingham realized that if they were to retain the third seat, their vote must be divided economically between the three candidates. 
To prevent waste of votes, an organization must be built up which could control absolutely the choice of the elector; and each elector must vote invariably as he was told. The success of the Birmingham organization, which soon became known as the Caucus, was unbroken and no Conservative candidate was returned. It was copied in many other constituencies and inaugurated a new era in the development of party electoral machinery, the effect of which upon the representative system has been profound.
</blockquote>

Under single voting in 3-seat district (such as [[Single non-transferable voting]]), with the same (likely) voting behavior -- 31,000 Liberal voters and 15,000 Conservative voters -- it seems likely that the Conservatives would have filled one seat if they had run just one candidate. If the Conservative party ran two candidates, it is likely Liberals would win all three seats as under Limited voting.