What is the fundamental principle behind the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system?

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a multi-winner electoral system where each voter casts a single vote on a ranked ballot. This system allows votes to be transferred according to the voter's preferences if their initial choice is elected with a surplus or is eliminated, ensuring that the vote contributes to electing a preferred candidate rather than being wasted.

How does STV aim to achieve proportional representation?

STV aims for proportional representation by ensuring that the proportion of seats a party or group wins in a district closely matches the proportion of votes it receives. This is achieved through multi-member districts and the transfer of votes, which allows for a more accurate reflection of the electorate's diverse preferences compared to winner-take-all systems.

What is the role of a ranked ballot in the STV system?

In STV, a ranked ballot allows voters to indicate their preferences for candidates in order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). This ranking is crucial because it guides the transfer of votes if a candidate is elected with a surplus or is eliminated, ensuring that the voter's preferences are considered throughout the counting process.

How does STV differ from winner-take-all or plurality systems like First-Past-the-Post (FPTP)?

Unlike FPTP, where a candidate only needs more votes than any other single opponent to win a single seat, STV operates in multi-member districts. This means that a single party or voting bloc cannot typically win all the seats in a district unless they command an overwhelming majority of the votes, promoting broader representation.

What is a 'quota' in the context of STV, and how is it determined?

A quota in STV is the minimum number of votes a candidate needs to be declared elected. Common formulas for calculating the quota include the Hare quota (valid votes divided by seats to fill) and the Droop quota (floor of valid votes divided by seats to fill plus one, plus one). The quota ensures that elected candidates have a substantial level of support.

What are 'surplus votes' in STV, and how are they handled?

Surplus votes are the votes a candidate receives that are in excess of the required quota. These surplus votes are transferred to other candidates based on the voters' next preferences, ensuring that these extra votes are used effectively to help elect other candidates rather than being discarded.

What happens if a candidate reaches the quota in the first round of an STV count?

If a candidate reaches or exceeds the quota in the first round, they are declared elected. If they have surplus votes, these are then transferred to other candidates according to the voters' subsequent preferences, following specific transfer rules.

How are votes transferred when the least popular candidate is eliminated in STV?

When the least popular candidate is eliminated because no more seats can be filled by surplus votes, their votes are transferred to the next-preferred candidate marked on each ballot. If a subsequent preference has already been elected or eliminated, the process continues to the next available preference.

What are the main variations among different STV systems?

STV systems primarily differ in how surplus votes are transferred (e.g., fractionally or as whole votes, using random selection or specific algorithms like Gregory's method) and the type of quota used (Hare or Droop). Other variations include rules on ticket voting, the number of preferences required, and how casual vacancies are filled.

How does the Gregory method differ from simpler methods of transferring surplus votes in STV?

The Gregory method, unlike simpler methods that might transfer votes randomly or as whole units, transfers surplus votes fractionally based on the proportions of preferences marked on the ballots. This method aims to be non-random and more precisely reflects the distribution of preferences among the remaining candidates.

What is 'vote leakage' in the context of STV?

Vote leakage in STV refers to the phenomenon where votes initially cast for candidates of one party are transferred to candidates of another party due to voters' subsequent preferences. This can reduce the strict adherence to party-line voting and potentially decrease partisanship.

How does district magnitude influence the proportionality of STV results?

District magnitude, which is the number of seats to be filled in a district, directly impacts proportionality. Larger district magnitudes generally lead to more proportional outcomes, as smaller parties or minority viewpoints have a better chance of securing representation.

Who are considered the key figures in the historical development of STV?

Key figures in the development of STV include Thomas Wright Hill, who first proposed transferable voting in 1819, and Carl Andræ, who proposed a single transferable vote system for Danish elections in 1856. Thomas Hare is widely credited with independently developing and advocating for STV in 1857, with Catherine Helen Spence later amending his proposal for multi-member districts.

In what ways did Thomas Hare envision STV being used, and how did it differ from current implementations?

Hare originally proposed STV to be used for electing the entire House of Commons 'at large,' replacing geographical constituencies with 'constituencies of interest.' His system also allowed voters to know how their vote ultimately counted, which was feasible as the secret ballot was not yet standard in the UK at the time.

Which countries currently use STV for their national legislatures?

As of the provided text, Australia (for the Senate), Ireland (for Dáil Éireann), and Malta (for the House of Representatives) use STV for their national legislatures.

What are some of the benefits attributed to the STV system?

Benefits of STV include producing balanced and mixed representation within districts, preventing landslide victories that don't reflect voter intent, ensuring most voters have a representative who shares their views, and using a high proportion of votes to elect candidates, leading to greater fairness and proportionality.

What are some of the criticisms or issues raised regarding STV?

Criticisms of STV include its complexity compared to simpler voting methods, potential for elector confusion, the difficulty of implementation (especially before computers), and the impact of district magnitude on proportionality. Some also note that tactical voting, while reduced, is still possible.

How does STV handle by-elections or casual vacancies?

Filling vacancies between elections in STV systems can be problematic due to multi-member districts. Methods vary, including countbacks (re-examining previous ballots), appointment by officials or remaining members, holding a new by-election, or the vacant member's party nominating a successor.

What is the 'countback' method for filling vacancies in STV?

The countback method involves re-examining the ballot papers from the previous election to determine the next-ranked candidate supported by voters whose elected representative has vacated their seat. This process aims to fill the vacancy based on the original preferences expressed by the electorate.

How does STV differ from the Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV) system?

SNTV, like STV, is used in multi-member districts and can produce roughly proportional representation. However, SNTV uses single votes for each seat (without ranking) and does not involve the complex vote transfers and surplus calculations characteristic of STV.

What is the 'exhausted vote' in the context of STV?

An exhausted vote in STV is a ballot that cannot be transferred further during the counting process. This occurs when the voter has ranked too few candidates, or when all the candidates they ranked have already been elected or eliminated.

How does the degree of proportionality in STV relate to district magnitude?

The proportionality of STV results is directly related to district magnitude. Larger districts, meaning more seats are elected per district, generally result in more proportional outcomes because smaller parties and minority viewpoints have a greater chance of achieving representation.

What is the 'plurality block voting' system, and how does it compare to STV?

Plurality block voting allows voters to cast as many votes as there are seats to fill, typically without ranking. In multi-member districts, this system can lead to highly unrepresentative results, where a majority of voters might elect all representatives from a single party, unlike the proportional outcomes typically achieved by STV.

What is the 'spoiler effect' in electoral systems, and how might STV mitigate it?

The spoiler effect occurs in plurality systems when votes for a less popular candidate draw votes away from a more popular candidate with similar views, potentially causing both to lose to a less preferred candidate. STV, by allowing voters to rank preferences, can mitigate this by transferring votes from eliminated candidates to their next choices, ensuring votes are not 'spoiled' in the same way.

What is the 'no-show paradox' in voting systems, and is it relevant to STV?

The no-show paradox is when a voter abstaining from an election causes a better outcome for their preferred candidate. While not explicitly detailed as a paradox within the STV description, the complex transfer mechanisms in STV can sometimes lead to unexpected results, though generally aiming for greater voter satisfaction.

How does STV differ from Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV)?

IRV is the single-winner analogue of STV, aiming to elect a single representative who has majority support. STV, conversely, is designed for multi-winner districts and seeks not only majority support for elected candidates but also proportional representation of various voting blocs within the district.

What is 'ticket voting' in the context of STV, and where is it used?

Ticket voting allows voters to indicate a preference for a party's slate of candidates rather than ranking individual candidates. This option has been used in some Australian STV systems, such as for the Senate, but has also been abolished in some instances due to concerns about distorting election results.

What is the 'Hare quota' and the 'Droop quota' in STV, and how do they compare?

The Hare quota is calculated by dividing the total valid votes by the number of seats plus one. The Droop quota is generally lower, calculated as the floor of (valid votes / (seats to fill + 1)) + 1. The Droop quota is more commonly used and is considered to be the lowest quota that guarantees election, potentially giving smaller parties a better chance than the Hare quota.

How does STV address the representation of minority factions within a district?

STV ensures that substantial minority factions within a district have a chance to win at least one seat. The more seats available in a district (higher district magnitude), the smaller the proportion of votes needed to elect a representative, thus facilitating minority representation.

What is the 'proportionality for solid coalitions' criterion that STV satisfies?

STV formally satisfies the criterion of 'proportionality for solid coalitions.' This means that if a group of voters consistently ranks a set of candidates together, the proportion of seats won by those candidates will reflect the proportion of voters who form that solid coalition.

How did Catherine Helen Spence contribute to the development of STV?

Catherine Helen Spence, an Australian advocate, amended Thomas Hare's original proposal for STV. She suggested using multi-member districts instead of electing representatives 'at large' across the entire country, which became a foundational aspect of many STV implementations.

What was the significance of Tasmania's adoption of the Hare-Clark electoral system?

Tasmania's adoption of the Hare-Clark system in 1896 made it the first parliament in the world to be at least partially elected by a form of STV. This system, named after Andrew Inglis Clark and Thomas Hare, was a significant early implementation of proportional representation.

How has STV been used in Australian federal elections?

Since 1948, STV has been used to elect Senators to the Australian Senate. This system has contributed to the rise of minor parties like the Australian Democrats and the Greens, who have utilized STV to gain parliamentary representation.

What changes were made to the Australian Senate's STV system in 2016?

In 2016, the Australian Senate abolished 'group voting tickets' (GVTs), which had allowed parties to control the order of candidates elected and transfers between lists. This reform aimed to reduce the undue influence of preference deals among parties and was accompanied by a move towards optional preferential voting.

What is the 'BC-STV' system, and what was its fate in British Columbia?

BC-STV was a type of STV recommended for provincial elections in British Columbia by a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in 2004. Although it received majority support in a 2005 referendum, it failed to meet the government's 60 percent threshold and was later defeated in a second referendum in 2009.

What are some of the arguments for and against using larger district magnitudes in STV?

Proponents argue that larger districts increase proportionality and representation for minorities. Critics suggest that larger districts might require more campaign funds to reach voters and could lead to a greater disconnect between representatives and their constituents, although Scotland's use of STV in local government demonstrates that large districts can be managed effectively.

How does STV compare to 'party-list proportional representation'?

Unlike party-list PR, where voters choose parties and parties determine candidate order, STV involves voters ranking individual candidates. This direct candidate choice in STV can give voters more influence over who is elected, even across party lines, compared to the more party-centric approach of list systems.

What is the 'modified d'Hondt electoral system' in relation to STV?

The modified d'Hondt electoral system is described as a variant of STV that incorporates an electoral threshold for parties. This means that parties must achieve a certain percentage of votes to be eligible for representation, even under an STV framework.

What is 'indirect single transferable voting'?

Indirect STV is a variation where citizens do not vote directly for representatives. Instead, elected bodies vote for another body, using STV in that secondary election. This is distinct from the 'indirect STV' term that refers to vote transfers based on pre-set instructions rather than voter rankings.

What are the potential impacts of STV on political partisanship and polarization?

STV may reduce partisanship and polarization because candidates can be elected through transfers from voters of other parties ('vote leakage'). This can lessen the strict reliance on party loyalty and encourage broader appeal among candidates.

How does STV handle the issue of 'wasted votes' compared to FPTP?

STV aims to minimize wasted votes by transferring ballots from surplus winners and eliminated candidates. In contrast, under FPTP, votes for losing candidates or surplus votes for winners do not contribute to the election outcome and are considered wasted.

What is the 'clone paradox' or 'independence of clones' criterion in relation to voting systems?

The clone paradox refers to situations where adding or removing identical ('clone') candidates can change the election outcome. STV is generally considered resistant to this paradox, meaning the election result should not change significantly if a candidate identical to another is added or removed.

What is the 'center squeeze' phenomenon in voting systems, and how might STV address it?

The center squeeze occurs in plurality systems when two similar centrist candidates split the vote, allowing a more extreme candidate to win. STV's ranked-choice mechanism and vote transfers can potentially mitigate this by allowing voters to express preferences beyond their first choice, potentially favoring more broadly acceptable candidates.

How does STV ensure that most votes are used to elect someone?

STV ensures that a high percentage of votes (often 80% or more) are used to elect a candidate. This is achieved through the transfer of surplus and eliminated votes, ensuring that ballots continue to count towards a candidate's total until they are elected or the ballot becomes non-transferable.

What is the 'no-show paradox' in voting systems, and is it relevant to STV?

The no-show paradox occurs when a voter abstaining from an election leads to a better outcome for their preferred candidate. While not explicitly detailed as a paradox within the STV description, the complex transfer mechanisms in STV can sometimes lead to unexpected results, though generally aiming for greater voter satisfaction.

What is the 'majority rule principle' as it applies to STV?

STV is said to satisfy the majority rule principle because the collective group of elected winners is supported by a majority of the valid votes cast in the district. This means the overall outcome reflects the preferences of more than half of the voters.

How does STV handle 'tactical voting' compared to other systems?

Tactical voting, where voters cast ballots strategically rather than sincerely, is considered more difficult to execute effectively in STV than in FPTP systems. The complexity of STV vote transfers and the need for detailed ballot information make manipulation challenging, with some analyses suggesting the problem is NP-complete.

What are the arguments regarding campaign costs in STV elections?

Some argue that larger districts in STV increase campaign costs. Conversely, proponents suggest STV can lower costs as like-minded candidates might share expenses, and negative advertising is less effective due to vote transfers and the need for broader appeal beyond just winning a plurality.

How does STV ensure fairness in the number of votes required for election?

STV aims for fairness by ensuring that successful candidates are generally elected with approximately equal numbers of votes. This is achieved through the use of quotas, meaning that a candidate needs a specific threshold of support to win, promoting a more equitable distribution of representation.

What is the role of 'independent candidates' in STV elections?

Independent candidates can participate and be elected under STV, similar to candidates from parties. Their success depends on garnering enough first-preference votes or receiving sufficient transfers from other candidates, reflecting their appeal directly to voters rather than through party affiliation.

How does STV's approach to representation differ from 'gerrymandering' in FPTP systems?

STV's use of multi-member districts and proportional representation inherently reduces the impact of gerrymandering, which is the manipulation of single-member district boundaries to favor a particular party. STV aims for representation based on overall voter preference distribution rather than strategically drawn district lines.

Single Transferable Vote Wiki: The Architecture of Equitable Representation: Understanding Single Transferable Vote

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

What is STV?

Core Concept

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a multi-winner electoral system where voters rank candidates by preference. Votes are transferred based on these rankings, aiming for proportional representation and ensuring each vote contributes effectively to electing a representative.

Proportionality and Equity

STV seeks to mirror the electorate's diversity of opinion in the elected body. It ensures that substantial minority groups gain representation, and that votes are not wasted on candidates who are either elected with a surplus or are eliminated without their votes contributing to an election.

Comparison to Other Systems

Unlike winner-take-all systems (like First-Past-The-Post), STV operates in multi-member districts. It differs from party-list systems by focusing on individual candidate preferences, allowing for greater voter choice and potentially reducing partisan rigidity.

The STV Process

Vote Counting

The process begins with counting first preferences. A quota (e.g., Hare or Droop) is calculated to determine the minimum votes needed for election. Candidates reaching this quota are elected.

The quota ensures that elected candidates have a demonstrable level of support. The Droop quota, commonly used, is calculated as (Total Valid Votes / (Seats + 1)) + 1, rounded down. This method aims to minimize the number of wasted votes.

Vote Transfers

Surplus votes from elected candidates (votes exceeding the quota) are transferred to the voter's next preferred candidate. If seats remain unfilled, the least popular candidate is eliminated, and their votes are transferred similarly.

Transfers can be done using whole votes or fractional votes, depending on the specific STV variant (e.g., Gregory method for fractional transfers). This ensures that voter preferences continue to influence the outcome even after their initial choice is resolved.

Election Completion

The process continues through rounds of transfers and eliminations until all seats are filled. Candidates may be elected by reaching the quota or by being the last remaining candidates for unfilled seats, even if they haven't met the quota.

Illustrative Examples

Non-Partisan Scenario

Consider an election for three party foods. Voters rank their preferences. The process involves calculating a quota, transferring surplus votes from elected candidates (like Pears), and eliminating least popular options (like Chocolate), demonstrating how preferences guide the final selection.

In a simplified party scenario with 23 guests and 7 food options, STV ensures a balanced outcome. For instance, Pears might be elected first, with surplus votes transferring to Strawberry. Elimination of less popular items like Chocolate and subsequent transfers can lead to Pears, Cake, and Hamburgers being selected, reflecting a broader range of preferences.

Key Outcome: 19 out of 23 votes contributed to electing a preferred candidate, highlighting STV's efficiency in utilizing voter preferences.

Party-Based Election

In a multi-seat district election with political parties, STV aims for proportional representation of party strengths. Candidates are elected based on their individual vote counts and transfers, reflecting the party's overall support and the voters' secondary preferences.

An election for five seats might involve Party A (48% first preferences), Party B (45%), and an Independent (7%). With a 20% quota, Party A's candidate A3 is elected first. Surplus votes transfer within Party A. Subsequent eliminations and transfers can lead to a proportional outcome, such as Party A securing two seats, Party B securing two seats, and the Independent securing one seat, reflecting their overall support.

Comparison: This contrasts sharply with First-Past-The-Post, where Party A might win all five seats despite not having a majority of the total vote.

Advantages of STV

Diverse Representation

STV promotes proportional representation by ensuring that the composition of the elected body reflects the electorate's diverse political leanings. This leads to more balanced and representative outcomes compared to plurality systems.

Voter Empowerment

Voters have greater freedom to express nuanced preferences, ranking multiple candidates. This system maximizes the utility of each vote, as preferences are transferred until all seats are filled, reducing the likelihood of votes being "wasted."

Reduced Polarization

By encouraging broader coalition-building and reducing the incentive for negative campaigning (as candidates may need second or third preferences from diverse voters), STV can foster a less polarized political environment.

Challenges and Criticisms

Complexity

The multi-stage counting process, involving quotas and vote transfers, can be complex for voters and election officials to understand and implement, especially without computational assistance.

Proportionality Nuances

The degree of proportionality achieved by STV is significantly influenced by district magnitude (the number of seats per district). Smaller districts may yield less proportional results, potentially disadvantaging smaller parties.

Elector Confusion

While ranking preferences is intuitive, understanding the full implications of vote transfers and potential strategic voting can lead to elector confusion, potentially impacting ballot marking accuracy.

Historical Context

Origins and Proponents

The concept of transferable voting dates back to Thomas Wright Hill in 1819. Carl Andræ refined the system in Denmark in the mid-19th century. Thomas Hare is widely credited with developing the modern STV system, advocating for it as a means to ensure equitable representation.

Key proponents included Thomas Hare, Carl Andræ, John Stuart Mill, and Catherine Helen Spence. Their advocacy spread STV throughout the British Empire, leading to its adoption in various forms across Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand.

Global Adoption

STV has seen significant adoption in English-speaking countries. It is used federally in Malta and Australia, and nationally in Ireland. Many local governments and sub-national legislatures also employ STV.

Early adoption occurred in Denmark and parts of Australia in the late 19th century. Ireland adopted it for national elections in 1921. Australia introduced it for Senate elections in 1948. Its use in local government is widespread globally.

Current Applications

National Legislatures

Countries like Ireland (Dáil Éireann), Malta (House of Representatives), and Australia (Senate) utilize STV for electing national legislative bodies, ensuring proportional representation of political parties and diverse viewpoints.

Local Governance

STV is frequently employed in local government elections across Australia, New Zealand, the UK (Scotland), and parts of the United States, promoting community representation at the local level.

Other Uses

Beyond formal government elections, STV is utilized in student government elections at universities and by organizations like the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for award nominations, valuing its fairness and resistance to manipulation.

Analyzing STV Results

Preference Migration

Analysis of STV elections often focuses on vote transfers. Understanding how preferences migrate between candidates and parties reveals voter behavior and the system's effectiveness in translating preferences into representation.

Proportionality Metrics

The degree of proportionality is assessed by comparing the percentage of seats won by parties to their percentage of first-preference votes. STV generally achieves high proportionality, especially in districts with larger magnitudes.

Tactical Voting

While STV is designed to minimize strategic voting, analysis considers potential tactics. However, the complexity of the counting process makes manipulation difficult, often requiring computational analysis of ballot data.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Single Transferable Vote" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about single_transferable_vote while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

li lisan

seaside heights new jersey

david suzuki foundation

silhouette

american discovery trail

References

Based on single vote cast for 1st preference, no tactical voting so Party A has poor distribution of its votes, and assuming that each candidate in party A and B gets more votes than the independent's 7 percent

Likely outcome based on first preferences and assuming most voters also cast their second, third, fourth and fifth vote for candidates of the same party as the first preference. Most supporters of the Independent candidate just cast one vote.

George Howatt, Democratic Representation under the Hare-Clark System â The Need for Seven-Member Electorates

BjÃ¶rn Benken: What is Dual Level Voting?, retrieved on 14 May 2022.

Cork North Central results 2024 https://www.electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2024&cons=57

Irish Times "Election 2020 Dublin Bay South" https://www.irishtimes.com/election2020/dublin-bay-south

Report of meeting on "Proportional representation," or effective voting, held at River House, Chelsea, on Tuesday, July 10th 1894. Addressed by Miss Spence, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Courtney, Sir John Lubbock and Sir John Hall

Electoral Reform Society, 1979 audit, which records the gratitude of the British medical profession for introducing STV.

First Nations Voice Act 2023 (SA)

Local Electoral Regulations 2001 (NZ), reg Schedule 1A.

"News Release: Final Proposals for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands council areas submitted to Scottish Ministers" (PDF) (Press release). Boundaries Scotland. 28 May 2021

Irish Times "Election 2020 Dublin Bay South" https://www.irishtimes.com/election2020/dublin-bay-south

Irish Times "Election 2020 Wexford" https://www.irishtimes.com/election2020/wexford

Irish Times "Election 2020 Dublin Bay South" https://www.irishtimes.com/election2020/dublin-bay-south

Model City Charter National Civic League

"Legislative Council â State Election 2019". vtr.elections.nsw.gov.au. Archived from the original on 26 March 2019. Retrieved 26 March 2019

A full list of references for this article are available at the Single transferable vote Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer

Important Notice

This content has been generated by an Artificial Intelligence model, drawing upon publicly available data. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and clarity, the information is intended for educational and informational purposes only.

This is not professional advice. The complexities of electoral systems and their implementation can vary significantly. Readers are encouraged to consult official documentation and academic resources for definitive guidance on electoral processes and their legal frameworks.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any errors, omissions, or actions taken based on the information provided herein.

The Architecture of Equitable Representation

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

What is STV? ℹ️

🗳️ Core Concept

⚖️ Proportionality and Equity

↔️ Comparison to Other Systems

The STV Process ⚙️

🔢 Vote Counting

➡️ Vote Transfers

🏁 Election Completion

Illustrative Examples 📊

🍎 Non-Partisan Scenario

🏛️ Party-Based Election

Advantages of STV ✅

🌍 Diverse Representation

👍 Voter Empowerment

🤝 Reduced Polarization

Challenges and Criticisms ⚠️

🧠 Complexity

📏 Proportionality Nuances

❓ Elector Confusion

Historical Context 📜

💡 Origins and Proponents

🌍 Global Adoption

Current Applications 📍

🏛️ National Legislatures

🏘️ Local Governance

🎓 Other Uses

Analyzing STV Results 📈

🔄 Preference Migration

📊 Proportionality Metrics

🎯 Tactical Voting

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Notice

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

What is STV?

Core Concept

Proportionality and Equity

Comparison to Other Systems

The STV Process

Vote Counting

Vote Transfers

Election Completion

Illustrative Examples

Non-Partisan Scenario

Party-Based Election

Advantages of STV

Diverse Representation

Voter Empowerment

Reduced Polarization

Challenges and Criticisms

Complexity

Proportionality Nuances

Elector Confusion

Historical Context

Origins and Proponents

Global Adoption

Current Applications

National Legislatures

Local Governance

Other Uses

Analyzing STV Results

Preference Migration

Proportionality Metrics

Tactical Voting

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Academic Disclaimer

Important Notice