Unit 1: Another explanation of STV

Single Transferable Vote STV from mattbentley34

Click here to access a really simple explanation of STV. Remember, we are not concerned with the 'Droop' formula as such, although it would be useful to remember the name.

What you do need to know is how it affects representation in an assembly or parliament. Remember, this is used in Northern Ireland (due to the specific needs in this part of the UK)

This clip from New Zealand explains the system really well....with no Droop formula to be seen!



How does the Single Transferable Vote work? The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a form of proportional representation which uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies. Candidates don't need a majority of votes to be elected, just a known 'quota', or share of the votes, determined by the size of the electorate and the number of positions to be filled.

Each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference, so if your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to another candidate in accordance with your instructions.

STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike other systems, especially First Past the Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result.

Advantages & Disadvantages of the Single Transferable Vote

The case for	The arguments against
STV gives voters more choice than any other system. This in turn puts most power in the hands of the voters, rather than the party heads, who under other systems can more easily determine who is elected. Under STV MPs' responsibilities lie more with the electorate than those above them in their party.	In sparsely populated areas, such as the Scottish Highlands, STV could lead to massive constituencies. This was one of the reasons cited by the Arbuthnott Commission for not recommending STV for non-local Scottish elections.
Fewer votes are 'wasted' (i.e. cast for losing candidates or unnecessarily cast for the winner) under STV. This means that most voters can identity a representative that they personally helped to elect. Such a link in turn increases a representative's accountability.	The process of counting the results takes longer under STV, meaning that results cannot usually be declared on the same night as the vote took place.
With STV and multi-member constituencies, parties have a powerful electoral incentive to present a balanced team of candidates in order to maximise the number of higher preferences that would go to their sponsored candidates. This helps the advancement of women and ethnic-minority candidates, who are often overlooked in favour of a 'safer' looking candidate.	A voting system that allows voters to rank candidates is prone to so-called 'Donkey voting', where voters vote for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot
STV offers voters a choice of representatives to approach with their concerns post-election, rather than just the one, who may not be at all sympathetic to a voter's views, or may even be the cause of the concern.	Voters only tend to come into contact with candidates at election time, whereas people in the party know them much better. It could be argued, therefore, that a system that allows a political party to parachute its preferred candidates into safe seats is better than one that leaves the choice more in the hands of the voters.
Competition is generally a good thing and competition to provide a good service to constituents is no different.	In large multi-member constituencies, ballot papers can get rather big and confusing.
Parliament is more likely to be both reflective of a nation's views and more responsive to them. Parties are broad coalitions, and can be markedly split on certain key issues, such as war. With only one party person per constituency, the representatives elected may well not reflect the views of their electorate. Many voters in the UK general election of 2005 were faced with a dilemma, as they wanted to support a certain party, but did not want to support the war in Iraq. STV would have helped them express these views much more clearly.
Under STV, as opposed to hybrid systems such as AMS, all MPs are elected on the same basis, thus lessening the chances of there being animosity between them.
There are no safe seats under STV, meaning candidates cannot be complacent and parties must campaign everywhere, and not just in marginal seats.
When voters have the ability to rank candidates, the most disliked candidate cannot win, as they are unlikely to pick up second-, third- and lower-preference votes.
By encouraging candidates to seek first-, as well as lower-preference votes, the efficacy of negative campaigning is greatly diminished.
There is no need for tactical voting.
There is a more sophisticated link between a constituency and its representative. Not only is there more incentive to campaign and work on a more personal and local level, but also, the constituencies are likely to be more sensible reflections of where community feeling lies. For example, there is more of an attachment to the City of Leeds or the City of Manchester, than there is to, say, Leeds North East or Manchester Withington, whose boundaries have a habit of changing fairly regularly anyway.