Single non-transferable vote

under SNTV a single party seldom will take all seats in a city or district, as generally happens with winner-take-all systems.

Under certain assumptions, such as perfect tactical voting SNTV is equivalent to proportional representation by the D'Hondt method.

However, its extreme simplicity and easy vote-counting makes the system particularly popular for small elections to offices such as city councils, particularly when compared to the more-intricate single transferable vote (STV) system, and has resulted in the method becoming commonly used for ordering open party lists.

In any election, each voter casts one vote for one candidate in a multi-candidate race for multiple offices.

Thus, in a three-seat constituency, the three candidates receiving the largest numbers of votes would win office.

But not having transfers, SNTV sees more votes wasted than under STV due to votes being placed on un-electable candidate or due to surpluses received by successful candidate over and above the quota used in STV elections that are not able to be transferred under SNTV.

[3] SNTV produces representation that is most proportional (proportional representation) when political parties have accurate information about their relative levels of electoral support, and nominate candidates in accordance with their respective levels of electoral support or when all parties suffer from poor information of that sort.

Under 'perfect' tactical voting and strategic nomination, SNTV would be equivalent to the D'Hondt (Jefferson) method of proportional representation.

It is rare for one party to make a sweep of a city's seats, a thing common in First past the post elections.

[6][7] Under SNTV, parties often do not receive representation exactly proportional to their strength, because it is difficult to accurately judge their strength when deciding how many candidates to field (strategic nomination) and difficult to direct party supporters as a whole to spread their votes efficiently.

Like all multiple-winner selections, parties find it advantageous to run a range of candidates in SNTV elections.

[9] Cox has an explanation of real-world data finding the, "two systems [plurality and semi-proportional] are alike in their strategic voting equilibria.

"[9] His research found that voters use the information offered in campaigns (polls, reporting, fundraising totals, endorsements, etc.

Because running on issues may lead to a situation in which a candidate becomes too popular and therefore draws votes away from other allied candidates, SNTV may encourage legislators to join factions that consist of patron-client relationships in which a powerful legislator can apportion votes to his or her supporters.

Historically, in Taiwan, the Kuomintang did this by sending members a letter telling them which candidate to vote for.

[10] Japan was the first country to adopt SNTV for election of government members a hundred years later than Saint-Just's proposal.

[11] SNTV is used for elections in Puerto Rico, Kuwait, Indonesia, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Libya, Iraq, Hong Kong and Vanuatu.

SNTV was once used to elect the legislatures of Japan, South Korea and the Republic of China (Taiwan),[12] but its use has been discontinued for the most part.

Starting with the 2008 legislative elections, SNTV was discarded in favor of a mixed single member district (SMD) with proportional representation based on national party votes, similar to Japan.

For example, the Democratic Party fielded three separate lists in the eight-seat New Territories West constituency in the 2008 election, aiming to win three seats (they won two).

In the 2021 Hong Kong electoral reform, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress instituted SNTV in its amendment to Annex 2 of the Basic Law on 30 March 2021.

[14] 20 seats of the Legislative Council are returned by geographical constituencies (GC) through single non-transferable vote with a district magnitude of 2.

[15] In accordance with its post-Gaddafi electoral law, Libya in 2012 elected 80 members of its 200-seat General National Congress using single non-transferable vote.

[17] After the 2015 electoral reform, Chileans elect their representatives to both houses of Congress through open lists presented by parties or party coalitions in each of the electoral districts into which the country is divided for the contest, allowing only one vote for one of the candidates inside any list.

The Jordanian opposition parties were heavily critical of the voting reform as it significantly hurt their electoral results.