Main >> Personal Pages >> All About Me

 
STVWorld
STVWorld
The Single Transferrable Vote
Why our current voting system is unfair
At the last British general election Labour obtained 40.7% of the vote but 62.5% of the seats. Over half the votes cast failed to count towards the election of anyone. The Conservatives won four general elections (and ruled for eighteen years) with votes of between 43.9% and 41.9%.
What electoral system do we use at present?
For elections to Westminster ( the House of Commons) we use a system referred to as First Past The Post (FPTP). The candidate who obtains the most votes is elected regardless of wether this constitutes a majority (50%+) of the vote. In the western world this system is only used in the United Kindgom, Canada and The USA.
What other electoral systems are there?
Alternative methods for single member constituencies
There are two commonly used alternative methods for filling single member seats- the second ballot which is used for elections to the French National Assembly and direct prresidential elections in a number of countries and the Alternative Vote (AV) also known as IRVing ( Instant Run-off Voting) whcih is used in Australia for elections to the House of Representatives and the lower houses of most state legislatures.
The Second Ballot    In an election held under the second ballot if no candidate obtains more than 50% of the vote a second round of voting is held with the less popular candidates choosing or being required to withdraw. In French presidential elections only the two most popular candidates from the first round are allowed to compete in the second. In French National Assembly elections the two most popular candidates plus any other candidate who obtained the votes of 15% of the electorate are allowed to compete in the second round.
The Alternative Vote (IRVing)     Under the Alternative Vote electors vote by writing a 1 against the name of their first choice candidate, 2 against the name of their second choice, 3 against their third choice, etc. The votes are counted according to their first preferences. If no candidate obtains more than 50% of the first preferences the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and the votes transferred according to theor second preferences. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes.

Both the Second Ballot and the Alternative Vote have the advantage that a candidate is required to obtain 50% of the vote in order to win a seat. A candidate cannot be elected with minority support due to a divided opposition. Therefore, for this reason, these systems can be considered an improvement on FPTP. However they do not ensure that a party obtains a share of seats proportional to its vote. Indeed If AV had been used in the British general elections of 1997 and 2001 because a majority of Labour voters would have given a second preference to the Liberal Democrats and vice versa Labour would have ended up with  even more seats and the Conservatives with considerably less.
Proportional Systems  What is Proportional Representation?
As the name suggests in an assembly elected using proportional representation parties are allocated seats approximately in proportion to the number of votes that they obtain.
Types of Proportional System
Mixed Member Systems- Mixed member systems of PR are used for national elections in Germany and New Zealand and also in the United Kingdom to elect the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London Authority. Under a mixed member system (also known as the Additional Member System (AMS)) a proportion of the MPs are elected from single member constituencies and then top-up members are elected from regional or national lists to ensure that each party obtains seats in proportion to its vote.

The major criticism of Mixed member systems is that it creates two classes of representatives, those with constituencies and those without.
List Systems- In a list sytem of proportional representation electors vote for a list of candidates and seats are allocated to the lists in proportion to the number of votes the list obtains. List sytems can be classified into three types according the degree of freedom given to the voter in deciding which individual candidates are elected.

Fixed Lists- in a fixed list system the order in which candidates on the list are elected is determined by the party. The first candidate on the list is elected to fill the first seat won by the party, the second candidate to fill the second seat, etc. The electors vote for an entire list and cannot vary the order of candidates on the list. Which individuals are elected is entirely determined by the party. A fixed list system is used in England, Scotland and Wales to elect members of the European Parliament and also to elect the top-up members to the Scottish, Welsh and London Assemblies. Not Surprisingly the fixes list system (also known as a rigid or closed list) is often criticised as being undemocratic.
Loose Lists- in a loose list system the elector can only vote for one list but can vary the order of candidates on that list. There are a variety of different ways this can be done. For example in a 7 member the elector may vote for one list and then for 3 individual candidates on that list or the elector may cross off the names of candidates s/he doesn't like or may rank the candidates on the list in order of preference. In my opinion the loose list system is the best way of chossing which individual candidates are elected when a party list system is used.
Open Lists- in an open list system the elector is allowed to vote for candidates on different lists. A vote counts both for the party and the individual candidate. Whilst many people support open lists as providing the greatest degree of freedom to the voter I dislike them because situations can arise which are unintended by the electors and contray to their wishes. For example candidate A on party list X is very popular in his constituency. Many voters who support party list Z cast one of their votes for candidate A in recognition of his abilities. Candidate A is extremely popular with his own party's supporters as well and would have obtained the highest number of votes of any candidate on list X and been elected without the support of Party Z's voters. But the additional votes given to party X by party Z supporters have the effect of giving party X enough voters to obtain an additional seat which is awarded  to the candidate B who is extremely hostile to Party Z.
Doesn't proprtional representation lead to weak government?
No, weak and unstable government is generally the result of a fragmented and divided party system which is in turn pften a reflection of a fragmented and divided society. For example the French Fifth Republic (1958- present day) has virtually the same electoral system as the Third Republic (1870- 1940) yet its stable governments are a complete contrast to the instability and weakness which characterised governments of the Third. The electoral system is the same it is the political system that has changed.
The Single Transferrable Vote
The Single Transferrable Vote (STV) allows voters to individually rank candidates in order of preference (1,2,3,etc) as in AV. STV is conducted in multi-member constituencies typically electing between 3 and 7 members. A quota (the minimum number of votes a candiate requires to be elected is established according to the formula:
 
                   Quota =  Total votes cast        + 1
                                 Number of seats +1

The votes are counted according to their first preference and any candidate who exceeds the quota is elected and his/her excess votes transferred to the remaining candidates. When all votes in excess of quota have been transferred the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and the votes transferred to the remaining candidates. This process of transferring excess votes from elected candidates and eliminating the lowest candidate is repeated until all the seats have been filled. STV is used in the Republic of Ireland, Malta, in Northern Ireland for local, European and  Northern Ireland Assembly elections, Tasmania and to elect the Australian Senate.
New Zealand has recently enacted legislation for the use of  the single transferrable vote in local elections (Green Party poster)
As a candidate based system STV has the advantage that it can provide proportional representation of opinion as well as party. If electors wish to vote for candidates purely on party lines it will give parties seats in proportion to their votes. If electors wish to vote for candidates on issues that cut across party lines (such as abortion or fox hunting) they can do so. It is the system that gives the voter the maximum degree of choice over which individuals represent them, taking power from parties and giving it to voters. It is also the only proportional system that gives independent candidates a real chance of election. Because it provides both proportionality and maximises voter choice it is, in my opinion the best electoral system.
Andrew Clarke (left) and Thomas Hare (right) the originators of the Single Transferrable Vote.
Want To Know More?
For more information on electoral systems and STV visit the Electoral Reform Society. The Scottish Parliment has recently published a bill to introduce STV for local elections in Scotland. For details of the campaign to make Scottish local government more representative visit the Fairshare Campaign.
Useful Links- for comprehensive information on elections around the world visit Adam Carr's Electoral Archive, to read learn about the more technical side of STV  (and read some of my ideas on the subject) visit Yahoo Groups STV-voting, Yahoo Groups Election-System-Designers is also interesting.

 

page created with Easy Designer