Single transferable vote
Single transferable vote systems can be thought of as a variation on the largest remainders method that uses candidate-based solid coalitions, rather than party lists.
[5] In a single transferable vote (STV) system, the voter ranks candidates in order of preference on their ballot.
Using FPTP, it could happen that under any three-district single-winner system, none of the groups elect Pears, if the 7 votes for it are split and in each "district" there is another food that beats it (e.g. Oranges, Hamburgers and Chicken).
Even if they held two rounds of voting (as in the two-round system), the bare majority that prefers some other kind of fruit (Oranges, Pears, Strawberries) would have dominated all other choices.
In an extreme example, where no faction can command an absolute majority, the largest of the minority groups can force a one-outcome result by running clone candidates.
Single transferable vote election results are roughly proportional (as much as the number of seats allows) and take into account more than the first preferences of voters.
The mixed ballot transferable vote (MBTV) is a mixed version of single transferable vote, where voters may rank both candidates and parties, even both interchangeably, depending on the ballot type, but must choose at least a local (district) candidate (1st preference) and a national list (2nd preference).
Voters do not mark their ballots with rankings, but votes are transferred, as needed, based on the eliminated or elected candidate's pre-set instructions.
The Gregory method (also known as Newland–Britain or Senatorial rules) eliminates randomness by examining all the preferences marked on the last parcel of ballots received by the elected candidate.
Hare's view was that single transferable vote should be a means of "making the exercise of the suffrage a step in the elevation of the individual character, whether it be found in the majority or the minority."
In the 1890s in Australia, Catherine Helen Spence amended Hare's proposal by adding multi-member districts instead of at-large voting.
The political essayist John Stuart Mill was a friend of Hare's and an early proponent of single transferable vote, praising it at length in his essay Considerations on Representative Government, in which he writes: "Of all modes in which a national representation can possibly be constituted, this one affords the best security for the intellectual qualifications desirable in the representatives.
In 1896, Andrew Inglis Clark was successful in persuading the Tasmanian House of Assembly to be the first parliament in the world to be at least partially elected by a form of single transferable vote, specifically the Hare-Clark electoral system, named after himself and Thomas Hare.
[46] Single transferable vote in large constituencies and multiple-member districts permits an approach to the Hare-Mill-Wells ideal of mirror representation.
In 1979, the UK National Health Service used single transferable vote to proportionally elect women and immigrant GPs, and specialists, to the General Medical Council.
Beginning in the 1970s, Australian states began to reform their upper houses to introduce proportional representation in line with the Federal Senate.
[52] The single transferable vote was also introduced for the elections to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly after a 1992 referendum.
[58][59] Concerning the development of single transferable vote in Australia researchers have observed: "... we see real evidence of the extent to which Australian politicians, particularly at national levels, are prone to fiddle with the electoral system".
[60]: 86 As a result of a parliamentary commission investigating the 2013 election, from 2016 the system has been considerably reformed, with group voting tickets (GVTs) abolished and voters no longer required to fill all boxes.
In 2023, the single transferable vote was also chosen as the electoral method in South Australia for the state's First Nation's Voice to Parliament as part of Schedule 1 of the Act.
In the United States, the Proportional Representation League was founded in 1893 to promote single transferable vote, and their efforts resulted in its adoption by many city councils in the first half of the 20th century.
The Fair Representation Act, introduced in the US Congress in June 2017, would have established single transferable vote for US House elections starting in 2022.
[98] Hence, single transferable vote may reduce the role of political parties in the electoral process and corresponding partisanship in the resulting government.
In practice, the majority of voters express preference for candidates from the same party in order,[citation needed] which minimizes the impact of this potential effect of single transferable vote.
[103] The difficulty of manipulating results under single transferable vote is credited with why it is chosen for use in part of the process of allocating the Academy Awards.
As part of the process of selecting winners for the Academy Awards, single transferable vote is used to choose nominees within each category.
[105] Single transferable vote systems vary, both in ballot design and in whether or not voters are obliged to provide a full list of preferences.
argue that single transferable vote can lower campaign costs because like-minded candidates can share some expenses.
Single transferable vote ensures that each substantial group gets at least one seat, allowing candidates to focus campaign spending primarily on supportive voters.
[112] The relative performance of political parties in single transferable vote systems is sometimes analysed in a different fashion from that used in other electoral schemes.
