Single Transferable Vote Explained: Fair Multi-Winner Elections

Candidates reaching the quota have their surplus votes redistributed to continuing candidates. Originally only surplus votes were redistributed, but this was amended in 1983 so that all second preferences are redistributed using fractional values called transfer values. The transfer value is calculated by dividing the number of surplus votes by the total first preference votes received by that candidate. Votes are then multiplied by this fraction and added to other candidates' totals, ensuring fairer distribution of preferences.

In STV elections with multiple seats, any candidate reaching a quota (just over 20% of total votes cast) is elected. Any votes exceeding the quota are considered surplus votes and are redistributed to other candidates according to the lower preferences of those voters. For example, in Hell Head Ward, one SNP candidate exceeded the quota by almost 300 votes on the first count, and these surplus votes were redistributed in subsequent counts.

When a candidate receives more votes than the quota (surplus), those extra votes are distributed to other candidates based on voter preferences. The transfer value is calculated by dividing the surplus votes by the total votes received by that candidate. For example, with 19 surplus votes out of 100 total votes, the transfer value is 0.19. Each second-choice vote is then multiplied by this value to determine how many votes are transferred to subsequent candidates.

When a candidate receives more votes than needed to win, surplus votes are redistributed to other candidates using a mathematical formula. The surplus transfer value equals (votes minus threshold) divided by total votes received. For example, with 10,000 votes and a 9,000-vote threshold, 10% of each ballot transfers to the voter's next choice. This prevents majority parties from locking out minority representation and ensures votes are efficiently distributed across all winners.

When a candidate receives more votes than the quota (surplus), their excess votes are redistributed to other candidates based on voters' second-choice preferences. The surplus votes are scaled down proportionally to the size of the surplus. This ensures that votes are not wasted and continue to count toward electing additional candidates.

This section compares three major proportional electoral system alternatives. Single Transferable Vote (STV) with both small (4.1 MPs) and large (nearly 11 MPs) ridings proves well-behaved, with larger ridings performing better proportionally. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) with two sizes of top-up regions also demonstrates good behavior. Rural-Urban Proportional emerges as the most efficient option, maintaining current 338 ridings while requiring only about 50 top-up MPs compared to MMP's larger requirements for equivalent proportionality. The system addresses riding size disparities by keeping large ridings single-member while using multi-member ridings in densely populated areas, supplemented by a modest top-up layer. This approach achieves excellent proportionality while preserving local accountability connections and meeting constitutional constraints on seat distribution.

The Royal Commission chose MMP over Single Transferable Vote (STV) because New Zealand had no pre-existing pressure groups advocating for different systems. STV is not designed to be proportional but can work without political parties, making it accidentally proportional. MMP and list proportionality is guaranteed to be proportional because the way votes are turned into seats is based on proportionality. One suggested modification is implementing open party lists, where voters can indicate which candidates they prefer. The debate involves balancing geographic representation against ideological representation, with some believing geographic representation is as important as ideological representation.

Single Transferable Vote (STV) is used in multi-member districts where voters rank candidates by preference. The system calculates a quota for election, transfers surplus votes to second choices, and eliminates candidates with fewest votes, transferring their votes to next preferences. This dramatically reduces wasted votes and forces candidates to seek broader support. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) systems, used in Germany and New Zealand, combine local representation with proportional outcomes. Voters cast two votes: one for a local candidate and one for a political party. The party vote determines overall seat percentages, with compensatory list seats ensuring proportional representation. This corrects distorting effects of winner-take-all in local districts while giving voters a direct local representative. Both systems create structural incentives for moderation because forming a government usually requires compromise.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is an electoral system where voters rank candidates in order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) rather than selecting a single candidate. Seats are allocated based on a quota (typically calculated as total votes divided by seats plus one), with surplus votes from winning candidates transferred to voters' next preferences, and votes from eliminated candidates redistributed. This system ensures votes are not wasted, prevents large parties from dominating with minority support, maintains local representation, and allows voters to support candidates from different parties across their preference rankings.

The Additional Member System (AMS) combines FPTP constituency seats with proportional regional list seats, used in Scotland, Wales, and London. Voters select both a constituency candidate and a party on the regional list. The Hare quota formula allocates list seats proportionally while correcting for constituency performance. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a proportional system using multi-member constituencies and preferential voting with the Droop quota. The Supplementary Vote (SV) is a majoritarian system for mayoral elections requiring second-preference redistribution to ensure majority winners. Each system balances different priorities: proportionality, simplicity, government stability, and voter choice.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system is a proportional representation electoral method using ranked-choice voting. Voters rank candidates by preference (1, 2, 3, etc.) rather than selecting from party lists. The system is used in Ireland, Malta, Australia, India, and increasingly in US cities. The counting process involves: first-preference votes are counted; if a candidate reaches the quota (typically Droop method), they are elected and surplus votes transfer to next preferences. If no candidate reaches the quota, the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated and their votes transfer. This process repeats until all seats are filled. The system eliminates party-list problems, allows cross-party voting, and enables candidates with dispersed support to enter parliament through vote transfers.

Case studies demonstrate STV's impact: In Glasgow 2012, Conservatives won 6% of the vote and secured a seat; in Liverpool 2008, Conservatives got 8.5% of the vote but won no seats because their votes were spread across the city. The Scottish Greens received 5.5% of first-preference votes and won five seats under STV, compared to only one seat in Liverpool with 6.7% of the vote. This shows how STV rewards geographically concentrated support.

STV was invented by John Stuart Mill in 19th century Britain and is used in Malta, Ireland, Australia's Senate, and regionally in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and New Zealand. Politicians oppose STV because it eliminates safe seats - they must constantly campaign and can be replaced. Under First Past the Post, politicians can secure safe seats and stay in power for decades. The Citizens Assembly, composed of randomly selected ordinary voters (not politicians), rejected First Past the Post (90%+) and recommended STV (80%+), representing a clear mandate from ordinary citizens.

Ireland uses proportional representation by means of single transferable vote, a system used nationally in only two other countries (Australia and Malta). Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate reaches the quota, they are elected and surplus votes are transferred. If eliminated, votes transfer to next preferences. This ensures no votes are wasted and each vote carries roughly equal weight.

Single transferable vote, historically Canada's preferred PR method, allows voters to rank candidates across the same party or different parties. Candidates must reach a quota (roughly 20% in five-member ridings) to win seats. If no candidate reaches quota, the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated and their votes redistributed based on next preferences. Ireland has used STV since World War I, Australia for Senate elections, and Canada historically in Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, and 29 municipalities across Western Canada.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is an electoral system where voters rank candidates in order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) rather than selecting a single candidate. Seats are allocated based on a quota (typically calculated as total votes divided by seats plus one), with surplus votes from winning candidates transferred to voters' next preferences, and votes from eliminated candidates redistributed. This system ensures votes are not wasted, prevents large parties from dominating with minority support, maintains local representation, and allows voters to support candidates from different parties across their preference rankings.

STV campaigning requires candidates to engage directly with voters through door-to-door canvassing, emphasizing personal connections and local representation. Unlike FPTP where only first votes matter, STV allows strategic voting where supporters can give second or third preferences to candidates from different parties. This creates complex vote transfer dynamics, especially in multi-member wards where parties must understand that their supporters may also support other parties' candidates on constitutional issues. The system demands thorough mathematical analysis of vote distribution, as demonstrated by Labour's experience losing power unexpectedly when they failed to account for these dynamics. Successful STV campaigns require candidates to build personal recognition while ensuring sufficient first-preference votes to survive elimination rounds.

To contest for President, a candidate needs nomination support from 50 members of the electoral college and endorsement from 50 other members. Candidates must deposit Rs. 15,000 as security money, refunded if they receive more than 1/6th of total votes. Presidential elections use three voting systems: Proportional Representation, Single Transferable Vote (STV), and Secret Ballot. MPs vote with green ballots, MLAs with pink ballots. In STV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. The candidate with the highest first-preference votes is counted first. If no candidate achieves 50%+1 votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are transferred to the next preferred candidate. This process continues until a candidate achieves the required majority.

Under the SNTV system, strategic voting creates complex dynamics. Voters must decide whether to waste their vote on candidates who cannot win or give their vote to candidates who already have high chances of winning. Candidates face internal competition within their own parties, as party members may strategically split votes to help other candidates win. Parties may nominate multiple similar candidates intentionally to split opposition votes, a strategy known as 'bombing.' This system encourages candidates to campaign against both opponents and fellow party members, creating intense internal party competition.

Successful electoral campaigns involve strategic coalition building where allied candidates coordinate efforts to maximize collective voting power. Virotej's campaign coordinated with allied candidates (Sunat, Win, Laksana) to present a unified front. Political campaigns can employ strategic criticism of institutions as a mobilization strategy, clearly articulating institutional concerns to attract voters who share similar views. The effectiveness of such strategies depends on clear message communication and resonance with target voter bases.