Overview

Approval voting is an electoral method in which each voter may indicate support for any number of candidates on the ballot. Rather than choosing a single candidate, a voter marks every candidate they find acceptable; a candidate's score is the total number of approvals they receive. The winner or winners are simply those with the highest approval totals. The system can be used to elect a single office or to fill multiple seats by taking the top vote-getters.

How it works

The ballot is intentionally simple: for each listed candidate a voter checks or marks the ones they approve. Counting is a straightforward sum of marks for each candidate. In a single-winner election the candidate with the most approvals wins; in a multi-winner contest the top N candidates by approval totals are elected. Ties may be resolved by pre-established rules such as runoffs, random selection, or tie-breaking provisions set by the jurisdiction or organization.

Advantages and typical uses

  • Simplicity: Ballots are easy for voters to understand and for officials to count by hand or machine.
  • Reduced vote-splitting: Voters can support several acceptable candidates without wasting a vote, which can limit the spoiler effect common under plurality systems.
  • Expressive range: Voters can show support for both preferred and compromise candidates rather than being forced to pick only one.
  • Flexible adoption: Organizations, professional societies, and some local jurisdictions have used approval voting because it is inexpensive to implement and transparent to count.

History and development

Forms of approval-style voting have been discussed by political theorists and mathematicians through the 20th century and gained wider attention in the 1970s when scholars analyzed its properties and effects. Since then it has been examined in academic literature alongside other alternatives to plurality voting. While not as widely used as traditional single-choice or ranked systems, approval voting has been adopted in a variety of private and local contexts where simplicity and reduced strategic constraints were priorities.

Criticisms and limitations

No voting system is free of strategic considerations, and approval voting is no exception. Voters must still decide how broadly to approve: approving only a top choice ("bullet voting") or approving multiple candidates can change the outcome. Critics point out scenarios in which a candidate with a slim majority of first-preference support might lose because many supporters also approved a popular compromise candidate. Approval voting also does not satisfy every theoretical criterion valued by voting theorists; for example, it does not guarantee election of a Condorcet winner in every case. Because of these trade-offs, some observers stress that voters may still face tactical decisions when three or more strong candidates run.

Variants and comparisons

Approval voting is often compared with plurality (first-past-the-post), ranked-choice methods such as instant-runoff voting, and score voting. Relative to plurality, approval reduces wasted votes and vote-splitting. Compared with ranking systems, approval is simpler but conveys less information about relative preferences. Compared with score voting (where voters rate candidates on a scale), approval reduces granularity by turning a range of scores into a binary approve/disapprove choice.

Practical considerations and examples

When jurisdictions or organizations consider approval voting they often emphasize clarity of ballot design, tie-breaking rules, and voter education about the implications of approving multiple candidates. Practical implementations have shown that the method is robust, inexpensive to administer, and adaptable to both single- and multi-winner contests. As with any reform, debates continue among advocates and critics about the best way to balance simplicity, expressiveness, and strategic incentives in real-world elections.