Limited voting

At the election, the ballot paper appears thus: In this case the voter has voted for Brian and Beryl Blue.

(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.)

The Red Party, aware of its relative weakness, is likely to choose only to run two and thus not to disperse its vote.

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 and 1979 Spanish general elections, the Union of the Democratic Centre won all three seats in the constituency of Gran Canaria.

In the 1880 election for the three Members of Parliament for the English city of Birmingham, electors cast one or two votes.

(The Conservatives' voter support in Birmingham was less than the 40 percent threshold for guaranteed representation mentioned above.)

Estimated number of voters who voted = 47,318 (or more) Eligible electors = 63,398 Turn-out = 74.6 percent [3] Charles Seymour in Electoral Reform in England and Wales explained the reaction of the Liberals of Birmingham after the limited vote was enacted.

The Liberals of Birmingham realized that if they were to retain the third seat, their vote must be divided economically between the three candidates.

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.

If the Conservative party ran two candidates, it is likely Liberals would win all three seats as under Limited voting.