Single transferable vote
STV has not been widely adopted, being used in national elections in Ireland and Malta, in Australian Senate elections, and in local and European Parliament elections in Northern Ireland. Under STV, voters rank candidates on the ballot in order of preference. In the 1860s Henry Richmond Droop developed a quota (the so-called Droop quota) to determine the number of votes a candidate needed to capture to win election under STV. The quota is calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes cast by the number of seats to be filled plus one, and one is then added to the quotient, which is expressed in the following formula: Quota = (Total Votes/Total Seats + 1) + 1 For example, if 250,000 votes are cast and 4 seats are to be allocated, the quota would equal 250,000 divided by 5, plus 1, or 50,00l. After the first preference votes are counted, any candidate whose votes exceed the quota is elected. Votes received by successful candidates in excess of the quota are transferred to other candidates according to the voters’ second preferences. Any surplus among subsequently elected candidates is similarly transferred, and so on, if necessary. If any seats are still vacant, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and all his ballots are transferred to the voters’ second preferences, and so on, until all seats are filled. In this way the results reflect fairly accurately the preferences of the electors and, therefore, their support for both individuals and parties. Although the system provides representation to minor parties, results in STV elections generally have shown that minor centrist parties benefit from the system and minor radical parties are penalized. For example, though the Democratic Left (Daonlathas Clé) and Sinn Féin, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, received similar shares of the national vote in the Irish general election of 1997, the more centrist Democratic Left won four seats to the Dáil to Sinn Féin’s one.
Under the party-list system, the elector votes not for a single candidate but for a list of candidates. Each list generally is submitted by a different party, though an individual can put forward his own list. District magnitude (i.e., the number of members per district) varies from country to country; for example, the Netherlands uses a single national district to elect the 150 members of its Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber), and Chile elects members of its legislature by using two-seat constituencies. The overall proportionality of the system is dependent upon the district magnitude, with higher district magnitudes associated with more proportional results. Each party gets a share of the seats proportional to its share of the votes. There are various alternative rules for achieving this; the two principal ones are the largest-remainder rule and the highest-average rule (the latter referred to as the d’Hondt rule, named after Belgian Victor d’Hondt). Under the largest-remainder rule a quota is set, and each party is assigned one seat for each time it meets the quota. These votes are deducted from each party’s total, and when no party has enough votes remaining to meet the quota, the remaining seats are assigned on the basis of whatever votes are left. Under the highest-average rule, seats are assigned one at a time to the party with the highest total. After each seat is assigned, the winning party’s total is adjusted: the original vote total is divided by the number of seats it has won plus one. Although there are variations, the seats that a party wins generally are assigned to its candidates in the order in which they are named in the list.
First Past the Post versus Proportional Representation Voting Systems
1269 Words6 Pages
Britain is considering changing current first past the post voting system (FPTP) to proportional representation (PR). The main reason is that FPTP is “quasi-democratic” voting system under which there is only one majority party ruling the government and it does not represent wishes of all voters as some votes are wasted. Whereas, PR seems to be the best alternative voting system with proportionality of seats in mandatory places, more parties ruling government and etc. Let us look at these two voting systems and analyze whether PR is suitable and alternative change for FPTP and do advantages of PR outweigh disadvantages. First of all, let us start with First Past The Post. FPTP is the current voting system which is used for…show more content…
In 1997 Labour pledged a referendum on PR, but it was postponed and it has been argued that two strong political parties, Labour and Torries, would have lost the most if there were any changes in voting systems. If the referendum took place in 1997 elections, Labour majority would have to share, approximately, from 46 seats to 166 MPs with Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrats gained 16,8% of the total votes, but won less than 10% of the total seats. To clearly understand the concept of PR and how does it work, two most common forms of PR must be evaluated. They are Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Additional Member System (AMS). In Single Transferable Vote (STV) each voter has only one vote. As in the name of the system word “Transferable” occurs, so votes may go from a candidate who is first preference, to the second and continues if there is no opportunity for a preferred candidate to win or a candidate already has enough votes. In this case it is not obligatory to have a majority of votes, because all is needed is just to reach a “quota” of 50%. Candidates, who have the least votes are eliminated and votes are redistributed. Using this voting system, voters have more choice than in any other systems. Additional Member System is the fusion of FPTP and Party List. Also it is known as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). Under