A type of semiproportional voting system. Voters are given one vote for each candidate running, and may use them as they see fit. You might put all your votes on one person, or split them between your three favorites. This gives a much better representation of what the people want, as you no longer feel that you have to limit yourself to only voting for people who might win, nor do you have to make those hard choices between two great candidates. On the other hand, this can make for bulky and sometimes confusing ballots. You'll also notice that it could easily fall back into a competition between only two candidates if it were clear that they were likely to be neck-to-neck and well out in front. No one would want to waste votes on minorities when your 17th vote might be the one to push the leader over the top….

At the time of this noding, no country uses the cumulative vote to elect their national legislature. It is used in several cities and counties in Alabama to elect their legislative bodies, and some towns in Texas use it to elect either their local school boards or city councils.

Compare to Limited Vote, another type of semi proportional vote.
You might also look at Alternative Vote and Approval Vote.

Cumulative voting is a common method for electing the board of directors of a corporation. The logic is simple: If you allow the shareholders to elect each director separately, a person who holds 51% of the shares can elect every director on the board. With cumulative voting, a minority shareholder can secure at least one seat on the board provided they have enough shares to do so.

Here's a hypothetical: The "Imperial Palace" casino has 100 shares outstanding. Donald Trump owns 51, Kirk Kerkorian owns 30 and Warren Buffett owns 19. There are five seats on the board of directors.

Under plurality voting, the shareholders would vote for each director separately. Trump has 51% of the votes, so he gets to choose each of the five directors.

Under cumulative voting, each shareholder has a number of votes equal to

(shares owned * number of directors)

So Trump has 255 votes, Kerkorian has 150 votes and Buffett has 95 votes. They can allocate these votes however they choose.

Kerkorian starts by voting for himself, using all 150 votes. He is now guaranteed one seat on the board.

Buffett is also guaranteed a seat on the board. This is because if Trump split his vote four ways (to cover all four remaining seats), each would only have 63 or 64 votes. By putting all 95 votes on a single seat, Buffett would squeeze out whichever of Trump's directors had the least votes.

Different jurisdictions have different approaches to cumulative voting. New York, for instance, requires a corporation to affirmatively adopt cumulative voting in its articles of incorporation. Absent this adoption, the corporation has to use plurality voting instead. (If cumulative voting is adopted but later abandoned, minority shareholders have appraisal rights to leave the corporation.) Japan does things differently: shareholders are free to demand cumulative voting unless the system is affirmatively disclaimed in the articles.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.