Single-member district - Revision history

SanglapGeographer: cleanup content further and cleaned formatting

2026-03-15T07:40:39Z

cleanup content further and cleaned formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:10, 15 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Short description\|Electoral district with one representative in a legislature}}		{{Short description\|Electoral district with one representative in a legislature}}
	{{Redirect\|Single-seat\|a racing car with only one seat\|Single-seater}}		{{Redirect\|Single-seat\|a racing car with only one seat\|Open-wheel car{{!}}Single-seater}}
			{{Use dmy dates\|date=July 2023}}

	{{Electoral systems}}		{{Electoral systems}}
	A '''single-member district''' is an [[electoral district]] represented by a single officeholder. It contrasts with a multi-member district, which is represented by multiple officeholders. Single-member districts are also sometimes called '''single-winner voting''', '''winner-takes-all''', or '''single-member constituencies'''.

	A ~~number of [[electoral system]]s use~~ single-member ~~districts, including~~ [[~~plurality voting~~]] ~~(first-past-the-post),~~ [[~~two~~-~~round system]]s, [[instant-runoff voting]] (IRV), [[approval voting~~]], ~~[[range voting]], [[Borda count]], and [[Condorcet method]]s (such as the [[Minimax Condorcet]], [[Schulze method]], and [[Ranked Pairs]]). Of these, plurality and runoff voting are the most common~~.		A '''single-member district''' or '''constituency''' is an [[electoral district]] represented by a single officeholder. It contrasts with a [[multi-member district]], which is represented by multiple officeholders.

	In some countries, such as [[Australia]] and [[India]], members of the lower house of parliament are elected from single-member districts~~; and~~ members of the upper house are elected from multi-member districts. In some ~~other~~ countries ~~like~~ [[Singapore]], members of parliament ~~can be~~ elected from both single-member ~~districts as well as~~ multi-member districts.		In some countries, such as [[Australia]] and [[India]], members of the lower house of parliament are elected from single-member districts, while members of the upper house are elected from multi-member districts. In some countries, such as [[Singapore]], members of parliament are elected from both single-member and multi-member districts.

	==History in ~~U.S.~~==		==History in the United States==
	The [[United States Constitution]], ratified in 1789, states:<ref>{{Cite web\|title=United States Constitution\|url=https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript~~\|url-status=live~~\|website=[[National Archives and Records Administration]]}}</ref>		The [[United States Constitution]], ratified in 1789, states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States{{nbsp}}... Representatives{{nbsp}}... shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers."<ref>{{Cite web\|title=United States Constitution\|url=https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript\|website=[[National Archives and Records Administration]]\|date=4 November 2015 }}</ref> In other words, the Constitution specifies that each state will be apportioned a number of representatives in the [[US House of Representatives\|House of Representatives]] proportional to its population. It does not, however, specify ''how'' those representatives should be apportioned.<ref name="FairVote">{{Cite web\|last=Mast\|first=Tony\|date=\|title=The History of Single Member Districts for Congress\|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=526\|url-status=live\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201219220856/http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=526\|archive-date=19 December 2020\|access-date=24 January 2020\|website=[[FairVote]]}}</ref> In the early years of the United States, a form of multi-member districts called [[plural district]]s were the norm.<ref name="nyt">{{Cite web\|last=Editorial Board\|date=10 November 2018\|title=A Congress for Every American\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/10/opinion/house-representatives-size-multi-member.html\|archive-url=\|archive-date=\|access-date=\|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> In contrast with modern [[proportional representation\|proportional]] multi-member districts (which had not yet been invented), plural districts were elected at-large in plurality votes.<ref name="FairVote"/>
	~~<blockquote>~~
	The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...Representatives...shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.
	~~</blockquote>~~
	In other words, the Constitution specifies that each state will be apportioned a number of representatives in the [[US House of Representatives\|House of Representatives]] proportional to its population. It does not, however, specify ''how'' those representatives should be apportioned.<ref name="FairVote">{{Cite web\|last=Mast\|first=Tony\|date=\|title=The History of Single Member Districts for Congress\|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=526\|url-status=live\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201219220856/http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=526\|archive-date=19 December 2020\|access-date=24 January 2020\|website=[[FairVote]]}}</ref> In the early years of the United States, a form of multi-member districts called [[plural district]]s were the norm.<ref name="nyt">{{Cite web\|last=Editorial Board~~\|first=~~\|date=10 November 2018\|title=A Congress for Every American\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/10/opinion/house-representatives-size-multi-member.html~~\|url-status=live~~\|archive-url=\|archive-date=\|access-date=\|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> In contrast with modern [[proportional representation\|proportional]] multi-member districts (which had not yet been invented), plural districts were elected ~~by [[plurality~~ at-large]].<ref name="FairVote"/>

	By 1842, single-member House districts had become the norm, with twenty-two states using single-member districts and only six using at-large multi-member districts. On ~~Dec~~ 14, 1967, single-member House districts were mandated by law ([[Title 2 of the United States Code\|2 U.S. Code §2c]]), under the justification that they served as bulwarks against southern Democrats diluting the electoral power of African Americans by using strategically drawn at-large multi-member districts ~~(they could, for~~ instance, create a single statewide multi-member district elected by plurality vote, all but guaranteeing the white majority would elect ~~all~~ Democrats<ref>{{Cite web\|last=Yglesias\|first=Matthew\|date=20 July 2015\|title=There's a simple way to end gerrymandering. Too bad Congress made it illegal.\|url=https://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8980137/fix-gerrymandering-multiple-member-districts~~\|url-status=live~~\|archive-url=\|archive-date=\|access-date=\|website=[[Vox (website)\|Vox]]}}</ref~~>).<ref name="nyt"/~~>		By 1842, single-member House districts had become the norm, with twenty-two states using single-member districts and only six using at-large multi-member districts. On 14{{nbsp}}December 1967, single-member House districts were mandated by law pursuant to the [[Uniform Congressional District Act]] ([[Title 2 of the United States Code\|2{{nbsp}}U.S.{{nbsp}}Code{{nbsp}}§2c]]), under the justification that they served as bulwarks against southern Democrats diluting the electoral power of African-Americans by using strategically drawn at-large multi-member districts. For instance, southern Democrats could create a single statewide multi-member district elected by plurality vote, all but guaranteeing the white majority would elect only Democrats.<ref name="nyt"/><ref>{{Cite web\|last=Yglesias\|first=Matthew\|date=20 July 2015\|title=There's a simple way to end gerrymandering. Too bad Congress made it illegal.\|url=https://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8980137/fix-gerrymandering-multiple-member-districts\|archive-url=\|archive-date=\|access-date=\|website=[[Vox (website)\|Vox]]}}</ref>

	==Aspects==		==Aspects==
Line 25:		Line 22:

	===Fewer minority parties===		===Fewer minority parties===
	It has been argued that single-member districts tend to promote [[two-party system]]s (with some regional parties). Called [[Duverger's law]], this principle has also been empirically supported by the [[cube rule]], which shows how the winning party in a [[first-past-the-post]] system is mathematically over-represented in the legislature. For example, in the [[2014 United States House of Representatives elections]], the [[Republican Party (United States)\|Republican Party]] won 51.2% of the popular vote but 56.7% of the seats.		It has been argued that single-member districts tend to promote [[two-party system]]s (with some regional parties). Called [[Duverger's law]], this principle has also been empirically supported by the [[cube rule]], which shows how the winning party in a [[first-past-the-post]] system is mathematically over-represented in the legislature. For example, in the [[2014 United States House of Representatives elections]], the [[Republican Party (United States)\|Republican Party]] won 51.2% of the popular vote but 56.7% of the seats.{{fact\|date=August 2024}}

	Supporters view this effect as beneficial, claiming that two-party systems are more stable, and that the minority opposition does not have undue power to break a coalition. First-past-the-post minimizes the influence of third parties and thus arguably keeps out forms of opposition outside of the dominant rival party. Critics of two-party systems believe that two-party systems offer less choice to voters, create an exaggerated emphasis on issues that dominate more marginal seats, and does not completely remove the possibility of a balanced chamber (or [[hung parliament]]), which can also give undue power to independents and lead to more, not less, stability.		Supporters view this effect as beneficial, claiming that two-party systems are more stable, and that the minority opposition does not have undue power to break a coalition. First-past-the-post minimizes the influence of third parties and thus arguably keeps out forms of opposition outside of the dominant rival party. Critics of two-party systems believe that two-party systems offer less choice to voters, create an exaggerated emphasis on issues that dominate more marginal seats, and does not completely remove the possibility of a balanced chamber (or [[hung parliament]]), which can also give undue power to independents and lead to more, not less, stability.{{or?\|date=August 2024}}

	===Safe seats===		===Safe seats===
Line 35:		Line 32:
	===Gerrymandering===		===Gerrymandering===
	{{Main\|Gerrymandering}}		{{Main\|Gerrymandering}}
	Single-member districts enable gerrymandering, the practice of manipulating district boundaries to favor one political party.<ref>{{Cite web\|last=\|first=\|date=\|title=Single Member Districts\|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=765\|url-status=live\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201016134856/http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=765\|archive-date=16 October 2020\|access-date=24 January 2021\|website=[[FairVote]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web\|last=Salam\|first=Reihan\|date=11 September 2014\|title=The Biggest Problem in American Politics\|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/09/forget-gerrymandering-heres-what-we-need-to-fix-to-ensure-truly-fair-elections.html~~\|url-status=live~~\|archive-url=\|archive-date=\|access-date=\|website=[[Slate (magazine)\|Slate]]}}</ref> Whereas proportional multi-member districts ensure that political parties are represented roughly in proportion to the share of the vote they receive, in single-member districts the entire district is represented by a single politician, even if a sizeable minority (or, in the case of a plurality) ~~win a majority~~ of the electorate ~~voted~~ for candidates from other parties. This enables political parties to rig elections in their favor by drawing districts in such a way that more districts are won by their party than their proportion of the overall vote would dictate (in the [[2018 Wisconsin State Assembly election]], for example, the [[Republican Party of Wisconsin\|Republican Party]] won 45% of the popular vote but 64% of the seats, due in part to gerrymandering<ref>{{Cite ~~web~~\|last=Bump\|first=Philip\|date=4 December 2018\|title=The several layers of Republican power-grabbing in Wisconsin\|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/~~\|url-status=live~~\|archive-url=\|archive-date=\|access-date=\|~~website~~=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref>).<ref>{{Cite web\|last=Wines\|first=Michael\|date=27 June 2019\|title=What Is Gerrymandering? And How Does it Work?\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/what-is-gerrymandering.html~~\|url-status=live~~\|archive-url=\|archive-date=\|access-date=\|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>		Single-member districts enable gerrymandering, the practice of manipulating district boundaries to favor one political party.<ref>{{Cite web\|last=\|first=\|date=\|title=Single Member Districts\|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=765\|url-status=live\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201016134856/http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=765\|archive-date=16 October 2020\|access-date=24 January 2021\|website=[[FairVote]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web\|last=Salam\|first=Reihan\|date=11 September 2014\|title=The Biggest Problem in American Politics\|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/09/forget-gerrymandering-heres-what-we-need-to-fix-to-ensure-truly-fair-elections.html\|archive-url=\|archive-date=\|access-date=\|website=[[Slate (magazine)\|Slate]]}}</ref> Whereas proportional multi-member districts ensure that political parties are represented roughly in proportion to the share of the vote they receive, in single-member districts the entire district is represented by a single politician, even if a sizeable minority (or even a majority, in the case of plurality voting) of the electorate votes for candidates from other parties. This enables political parties to rig elections in their favor by drawing districts in such a way that more districts are won by their party than their proportion of the overall vote would dictate (in the [[2018 Wisconsin State Assembly election]], for example, the [[Republican Party of Wisconsin\|Republican Party]] won 45% of the popular vote but 64% of the seats, due in part to gerrymandering<ref>{{Cite news\|last=Bump\|first=Philip\|date=4 December 2018\|title=The several layers of Republican power-grabbing in Wisconsin\|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/\|archive-url=\|archive-date=\|access-date=\|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref>).<ref>{{Cite web\|last=Wines\|first=Michael\|date=27 June 2019\|title=What Is Gerrymandering? And How Does it Work?\|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/what-is-gerrymandering.html\|archive-url=\|archive-date=\|access-date=\|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>

			=== Geographic representation ===
			Contrary to conventional wisdom, a 2023 study found that single-member district systems do not have more geographically representative parliaments than systems with multi-member districts.<ref>{{Cite journal \|last1=Carella \|first1=Leonardo \|last2=Eggers \|first2=Andrew \|date=2023 \|title=Electoral Systems and Geographic Representation \|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/electoral-systems-and-geographic-representation/4D2AFEDB873BD3EA47C623085E0A38B4 \|journal=British Journal of Political Science \|volume=54 \|pages=40–68 \|language=en \|doi=10.1017/S0007123423000121 \|issn=0007-1234}}</ref>

	==Comparison of single-member district election methods==		==Comparison of single-member district election methods==
Line 44:		Line 44:

	==References==		==References==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist\|30em}}

	{{Authority control}}		{{Authority control}}

	[[Category:Constituencies]]		[[Category:Constituencies]]

73.152.13.151: robot: import pages using Special:Import

2022-03-28T21:38:18Z

robot: import pages using Special:Import

New page

{{Short description|Electoral district with one representative in a legislature}}
{{Redirect|Single-seat|a racing car with only one seat|Single-seater}}
{{Electoral systems}}
A '''single-member district''' is an [[electoral district]] represented by a single officeholder. It contrasts with a multi-member district, which is represented by multiple officeholders. Single-member districts are also sometimes called '''single-winner voting''', '''winner-takes-all''', or '''single-member constituencies'''.

A number of [[electoral system]]s use single-member districts, including [[plurality voting]] (first-past-the-post), [[two-round system]]s, [[instant-runoff voting]] (IRV), [[approval voting]], [[range voting]], [[Borda count]], and [[Condorcet method]]s (such as the [[Minimax Condorcet]], [[Schulze method]], and [[Ranked Pairs]]). Of these, plurality and runoff voting are the most common.

In some countries, such as [[Australia]] and [[India]], members of the lower house of parliament are elected from single-member districts; and members of the upper house are elected from multi-member districts. In some other countries like [[Singapore]], members of parliament can be elected from both single-member districts as well as multi-member districts.

==History in U.S.==
The [[United States Constitution]], ratified in 1789, states:<ref>{{Cite web|title=United States Constitution|url=https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript|url-status=live|website=[[National Archives and Records Administration]]}}</ref>
<blockquote>
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...Representatives...shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.
</blockquote>
In other words, the Constitution specifies that each state will be apportioned a number of representatives in the [[US House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] proportional to its population. It does not, however, specify ''how'' those representatives should be apportioned.<ref name="FairVote">{{Cite web|last=Mast|first=Tony|date=|title=The History of Single Member Districts for Congress|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=526|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201219220856/http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=526|archive-date=19 December 2020|access-date=24 January 2020|website=[[FairVote]]}}</ref> In the early years of the United States, a form of multi-member districts called [[plural district]]s were the norm.<ref name="nyt">{{Cite web|last=Editorial Board|first=|date=10 November 2018|title=A Congress for Every American|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/10/opinion/house-representatives-size-multi-member.html|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> In contrast with modern [[proportional representation|proportional]] multi-member districts (which had not yet been invented), plural districts were elected by [[plurality at-large]].<ref name="FairVote"/>

By 1842, single-member House districts had become the norm, with twenty-two states using single-member districts and only six using at-large multi-member districts. On Dec 14, 1967, single-member House districts were mandated by law ([[Title 2 of the United States Code|2 U.S. Code §2c]]), under the justification that they served as bulwarks against southern Democrats diluting the electoral power of African Americans by using strategically drawn at-large multi-member districts (they could, for instance, create a single statewide multi-member district elected by plurality vote, all but guaranteeing the white majority would elect all Democrats<ref>{{Cite web|last=Yglesias|first=Matthew|date=20 July 2015|title=There's a simple way to end gerrymandering. Too bad Congress made it illegal.|url=https://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8980137/fix-gerrymandering-multiple-member-districts|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=[[Vox (website)|Vox]]}}</ref>).<ref name="nyt"/>

==Aspects==

===Constituency link===
It has been argued by proponents of single-member constituencies that it encourages a stronger connection between the representative and constituents and increases accountability and is a check on incompetence and corruption. In countries that have multi-member constituencies, it is argued that the constituency link is lost. For example, in Israel the whole country is a single constituency and representatives are selected by party-lists.

On the other hand, today most voters tend to vote for a candidate because they are endorsed by a particular political party or because they are in favor of who would become or remain the leader of the government, more than their feelings for or against the actual candidate standing. Sometimes voters are in favor of a political party but do not like specific candidates. For example, voters in Canada re-elected the [[Alberta]] government in 1989 but, because of dissatisfaction with its leadership, the premier and leader of the governing party, [[Don Getty]], lost his seat.{{needs citation|date=July 2017}}

===Fewer minority parties===
It has been argued that single-member districts tend to promote [[two-party system]]s (with some regional parties). Called [[Duverger's law]], this principle has also been empirically supported by the [[cube rule]], which shows how the winning party in a [[first-past-the-post]] system is mathematically over-represented in the legislature. For example, in the [[2014 United States House of Representatives elections]], the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] won 51.2% of the popular vote but 56.7% of the seats.

Supporters view this effect as beneficial, claiming that two-party systems are more stable, and that the minority opposition does not have undue power to break a coalition. First-past-the-post minimizes the influence of third parties and thus arguably keeps out forms of opposition outside of the dominant rival party. Critics of two-party systems believe that two-party systems offer less choice to voters, create an exaggerated emphasis on issues that dominate more marginal seats, and does not completely remove the possibility of a balanced chamber (or [[hung parliament]]), which can also give undue power to independents and lead to more, not less, stability.

===Safe seats===
{{Main|Safe seat}}
A safe seat is one in which a plurality or majority of voters, depending on the electoral system, support a particular candidate or party so strongly that the candidate's election is practically guaranteed in advance of the vote. This means votes for other candidates effectively make no difference to the result. This results in feelings of disenfranchisement, as well as increased [[abstention|nonparticipation]], by both supporters of the dominant candidate (who can confidently abstain from voting because their preferred candidate's victory is nearly assured) as well as supporters of other candidates (who know their preferred candidate is essentially guaranteed to lose).<ref>{{Cite web|last=Amy|first=Douglas J.|date=1 January 1997|title=The Case for a Better Election System|url=https://www.fairvote.org/the_case_for_a_better_election_system|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201028030037/https://www.fairvote.org/the_case_for_a_better_election_system|archive-date=28 October 2020|access-date=25 January 2021|website=[[FairVote]]}}</ref>

===Gerrymandering===
{{Main|Gerrymandering}}
Single-member districts enable gerrymandering, the practice of manipulating district boundaries to favor one political party.<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Single Member Districts|url=http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=765|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201016134856/http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=765|archive-date=16 October 2020|access-date=24 January 2021|website=[[FairVote]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Salam|first=Reihan|date=11 September 2014|title=The Biggest Problem in American Politics|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/09/forget-gerrymandering-heres-what-we-need-to-fix-to-ensure-truly-fair-elections.html|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]}}</ref> Whereas proportional multi-member districts ensure that political parties are represented roughly in proportion to the share of the vote they receive, in single-member districts the entire district is represented by a single politician, even if a sizeable minority (or, in the case of a plurality) win a majority of the electorate voted for candidates from other parties. This enables political parties to rig elections in their favor by drawing districts in such a way that more districts are won by their party than their proportion of the overall vote would dictate (in the [[2018 Wisconsin State Assembly election]], for example, the [[Republican Party of Wisconsin|Republican Party]] won 45% of the popular vote but 64% of the seats, due in part to gerrymandering<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bump|first=Philip|date=4 December 2018|title=The several layers of Republican power-grabbing in Wisconsin|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/04/several-layers-republican-power-grabbing-wisconsin/|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref>).<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wines|first=Michael|date=27 June 2019|title=What Is Gerrymandering? And How Does it Work?|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/what-is-gerrymandering.html|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>

==Comparison of single-member district election methods==
{{see|Comparison of electoral systems#Compliance of selected single-winner methods}}

==See also==
* [[Duverger's law]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Constituencies]]