Skip to main content
Log in

The Right to Expressive Voting Methods

  • Published:
Res Publica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In mass democracies, voting—in elections or referendums—is the main way in which most citizens can publicly express their political preferences. And yet this means of expression is sometimes perceived by them as highly frustrating, partly because it does not allow for much expression. Dominant voting methods lead to a reduction of options, pressure citizens to vote tactically at the cost of expressing their genuine preferences, and fail to convey what they really think about different candidates, parties, or options. Yet citizens do not merely have a right to vote; they have a more fundamental right to political expression from which one can derive a right to a voting method that offers the most opportunities for expression among those satisfying other important requirements. The aim of this article is therefore to add this consideration about the importance of political expression to debates about voting methods that have mainly been conducted from the perspective of social choice theory. To illustrate what is at stake, it introduces evaluative voting methods (allowing voters to grade all of the candidates, parties, or options) as a promising way of honoring the right to political expression without jeopardizing other important properties of voting methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a broader and empirically based view on citizens’ frustration with their political institutions, see Harrison 2023.

  2. My focus will be on what voters express through their votes, and not on what the practice of voting in itself expresses. On the latter, see Winkler 1993; Poama and Theuns 2019.

  3. For criticisms of common understandings of this contested notion, see Dummett 1982; Barry 1986, pp. 88–128: Dummett 1997, Chap. 10. On my definition given above, a voting system avoids wasting votes when it allows voters to express judgments about all of the candidates.

  4. Although some have argued that the incentive to vote tactically is a good thing, because it encourages voters to learn about the functioning of their electoral system and about the views of their fellow citizens (Dowding and Van Hees 2008, p. 10).

  5. This is a distinct issue that I will not take up here, having discussed it in previous work (Vandamme 2018). Voting secrecy was already questioned by John Stuart Mill (1861) among others, and has more recently been challenged by Brennan and Pettit (1990), Engelen and Nys (2013), and defended by Lever (2015).

  6. This is not to be understood in the sense of ‘as frequently as possible', but in terms of the richness of expression on a scale ranging from a yes/no answer to a full speech.

  7. And not just any expressive voting method: a more expressive voting method better honors the right than a less expressive one.

  8. In his interesting Principles of Electoral Reform, the Oxford philosopher Michael Dummett rejects the vision of electoral reform as shopping in a supermarket where the various systems on the shelves are those that exist in different countries. He emphasizes that there is room for more creativity: we can try new systems that have only been imagined yet never experimented with, or design new ones to meet our democratic aspirations (Dummett 1997, p. 8).

  9. If it sounds silly, note that first-past-the-post system should sound as silly. Vote splitting is a frequent phenomenon, dramatically illustrated by George W. Bush’s 2000 victory thanks to a splitting of progressive votes between Al Gore and Green challenger Ralph Nader (see Poundstone 2008, pp. 59–91 for a short history of vote splitting in the USA). Two-round systems run a broadly similar risk.

  10. This would mean, here, an equal probability to prevail (when considering probabilities in the absence of knowledge about citizens’ actual preferences).

  11. See www.rangevoting.org

  12. Majority judgment was nonetheless used in the 2022 Primaire populaire in France, a grassroots (and unsuccessful) initiative to select a unifying presidential candidate for the Left. And open-list systems may be seen as incorporating a form of approval voting—within the selected list (Baujard et al. 2018, pp. 14–15).

  13. Evaluative voting is usually thought to be appropriate to identify a single winner, as in a first-past-the-post election, rather than composing a Parliament. Research is ongoing on its possible applicability in parliamentary elections with proportional representation. One option is simply to sum points and allocate seats in proportion to the percentage of points obtained by each party, possibly with a threshold to avoid excessive fragmentation. One problem that must be dealt with, however, is the incentive that this would create to fragment parties in smaller yet coordinated units. See Dummett 1997, pp. 169–173.

  14. This is the most salient advantage of this method compared to preferential methods such as the one recommended by Jean-Charles de Borda in the eighteenth century, and still defended by some voting theorists (such as Dummett 1997), in which voters can only rank candidates. Another is that tactical voting is less hazardous. For some interesting criticisms of preferential voting, see Barry 1986.

  15. For example, those using points instead of qualitative appreciations, as in Fig. 3, or a different scale (e.g. 0–3).

  16. It is unclear to what extent this model applies in more personality-centered elections.

  17. Note that the problem seems more salient for point-summing versions, especially with wide scales, than for majority judgment. See Balinski and Laraki 2010, Chap. 17 and Balinski 2019.

  18. I follow Goldman’s (1999) causal responsibility approach: even if ‘an individual’s vote is not decisive for a given candidate’s victory, such a vote can still qualify as a partial cause of that victory' (p. 217).

  19. For pleas against reducing voting to its instrumental aspect, see Winkler 1993; Brennan and Lomasky 1997; Wodak 2019.

References

  • Balinski, M. 2019. Réponse à des critiques du jugement majoritaire. Revue Économique 70 (4): 589–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balinski, M., and R. Laraki. 2010. Majority judgment: Measuring, ranking, and electing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. (1986). Wasted votes and other mares' nests: A view of electoral reform. Unpublished book. Available at https://authors.library.caltech.edu/81389/1/sswp612.pdf

  • Baujard, A., H. Igersheim, I. Lebon, F. Gavrel, and J.F. Laslier. 2014. Who’s favored by evaluative voting? An experiment was conducted during the 2012 French presidential election. Electoral Studies 34: 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baujard, A., F. Gavrel, H. Igersheim, J.F. Laslier, and I. Lebon. 2018. How voters use grade scales in evaluative voting. European Journal of Political Economy 55: 14–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baujard, A., H. Igersheim, and I. Lebon. 2021. Some regrettable grading scale effects under different versions of evaluative voting. Social Choice and Welfare 56: 803–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beerbohm, E. 2012. In our name: The ethics of democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S., and P. Fishburn. 1983. Approval voting. Birkhauser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, G., and L. Lomasky. 1997. Democracy and decision: The pure theory of electoral preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, G., and P. Pettit. 1990. Unveiling the vote. British Journal of Political Science 20: 311–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brighouse, H., and M. Fleurbaey. 2010. Democracy and proportionality. Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (2): 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S., and M.E. Warren. 2023. Why deliberation and voting belong together. Res Publica https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-023-09635-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christin, O. 2014. Vox populi: Une histoire du vote avant le suffrage universel. Paris: Seuil.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Déloye, Y., and O. Ihl. 2008. L’acte de vote. Paris: Presses Sciences Po.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dowding, K., and M. van Hees. 2008. In praise of manipulation. British Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M. 1982. Voting procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M. 1997. Principles of electoral reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • El-Wakil, A., and F. Cheneval. 2018. Designing popular vote processes to enhance democratic systems. Swiss Political Science Review 24 (3): 348–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelen, B., and T. Nys. 2013. Against the secret ballot: Toward a new proposal for open voting. Acta Politica 48: 490–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, D.M., and I. McAllister. 2006. Voter satisfaction and electoral systems: Does preferential voting in candidate-centred systems make a difference? European Journal of Political Research 45 (5): 723–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gay-Para, G., and P.-E. Vandamme. 2023. Introduction: Les élections, un objet philosophique indigne? Raison Publique 26: 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard, A. 1973. Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica Journal of the Econometric Society 41: 587–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A.I. 1999. Why citizens should vote: A causal responsibility approach. Social Philosophy and Policy 16 (2): 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R.E. 2008. Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gueniffey, P. 1993. Le nombre et la raison: La révolution française et les élections. Paris: Éditions de l'EHESS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, S. 2023. Pathologies of democratic frustration: Voters and elections between desire and dissatisfaction. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., and C. Welzel. 2005. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R.S., and P. Mair. 1995. Changing models of party organization and party democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics 1 (1): 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laslier, J.F. 2019a. The strange ‘Majority judgment’. Revue Économique 70 (4): 569–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laslier, J.F., and M.R. Sanver. 2010. Handbook on approval voting. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laslier, J.F., A. Blais, D. Bol, S. Golder, P. Harfst, L. Stephenson, and K. Vanderstraeten. 2015. The Euro vote plus experiment. European Union Politics 16 (4): 601–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laslier, J.F. 2019b. Voter autrement. Editions de l’ENS.

  • Lever, A. 2015. Privacy and democracy: What the secret ballot reveals. Law, Culture and the Humanities 11 (2): 164–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A., and B. Grofman, eds. 1984. Choosing an electoral system. In Choosing an electoral system: Issues and alternatives. New York: Praeger.

  • Manin, B. 1997. Principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. 2003. Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskivker, J. (2018). The duty to vote. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. 1861/1948. Considerations on representative government. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  • Mráz, A., and A. Lever. 2021. Voter-centred perspectives vs. alternative approaches to electoral democracy (Report No. 870996–3.5; p. 31). REDEM project. www.redem-h2020.eu

  • Núñez, M., and J.F. Laslier. 2014. Preference intensity representation: Strategic overstating in large elections. Social Choice and Welfare 42: 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacuit, E. 2019. Voting methods. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2019 edn.), ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/voting-methods/

  • Papp, Z. 2022. The indirect effect of electoral rules on citizens’ satisfaction with democracy: A comparative study. Swiss Political Science Review 28 (1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, H. 1967. The concept of representation. University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poama, A., and T. Theuns. 2019. Making offenders vote: Democratic expressivism and compulsory criminal voting. American Political Science Review 113 (3): 796–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poundstone, W. (2008). Gaming the vote: Why elections aren’t fair (and what we can do about it). Hill and Wang.

  • Powell, G.B. 2000. Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A. 2010. Democracy and the limits of self-government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ridge, M. 2021. Voting for less than the best. Journal of Political Philosophy 29 (3): 404–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosema, M. 2004. The sincere vote. PhD Dissertation. Leiden University.

  • Satterthwaite, M.A. 1973. Existence of a strategy proof voting procedure: A topic in social choice theory. PhD Dissertation. The University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  • Thompson, D.F. 2004. Election time: Normative implications of temporal properties of the electoral process in the United States. American Political Science Review 98 (1): 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandamme, P.-E. 2018. Voting secrecy and the right to justification. Constellations 25 (3): 388–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, C.C.L. 2020. Lessons from international multi-option referendum experiences. The Political Quarterly 91: 192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, A. 1993. Expressive voting. NYUL Review 68: 330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, D. 2019. The expressive case against plurality rule. Journal of Political Philosophy 27 (3): 363–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to thank Alice el-Wakil and Simone Marsilio for detailed comments on a previous version of the manuscript, and all the participants in the workshop on decision-making methods organized by Suzanne Bloks and Dorota Mokrosinska in Hamburg in September 2022 for their helpful suggestions. 

Funding

FWO, 1283723N, Pierre-Etienne Vandamme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre-Étienne Vandamme.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vandamme, PÉ. The Right to Expressive Voting Methods. Res Publica (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-023-09645-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-023-09645-9

Keywords

Navigation