|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2012}}
| | == に実行していない、あなたはいけない == |
| {{Electoral systems}}
| |
|
| |
|
| The '''single transferable vote''' ('''STV''') is a [[voting system]] designed to achieve [[proportional representation]] through [[Ranked voting systems|ranked voting]] in multi-seat [[electoral district|constituencies]] (voting districts).<ref>{{cite web|title=Single Transferable Vote|url=http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/?PageID=483|publisher=Electoral Reform Society}}</ref> Under STV, an elector has a single vote that is initially allocated to his or her most preferred candidate and, as the count proceeds and candidates are either elected or eliminated, is transferred to other candidates according to the voter's stated preferences, in proportion to any surplus or discarded votes. The exact method of reapportioning votes can vary (see [[#Counting methods|Counting methods]]).
| | シューという、ストレート吸引息が、それにおびえ [http://www.dmwai.com/webalizer/kate-spade-4.html ケイトスペード バッグ 新作]。<br><br>「私は次のステップは、あなたがフーGuoshengを入れて、右、彼の側に連れて行ってくれました、彼と私が満たしていることを偶然を製造すべきだと思う？ [http://www.dmwai.com/webalizer/kate-spade-3.html 財布 kate spade] '私は、道路の罪徐Pingqiu大きな驚きを見て、彼は微笑んで誇らしげにガラガラと述べ：古い福が私に対処するために持っているが、状況にあなたがより寛大与えるよりも、美しさ、ああと車に割り当てられたユニットを、私は私が最も私たちことを彼に告げ、拒否した時に刑務所から釈放された [http://www.dmwai.com/webalizer/kate-spade-5.html ケイトスペード バッグ アウトレット] 'それは、簡単だったさて、私たちLaotouはあなたと私の前に立って、私は助けることができると思いながらも、率直に言って？右、あなたは非常に失望しなければならないことを、お約束します。に実行していない、あなたはいけない。 [http://www.dmwai.com/webalizer/kate-spade-2.html ケイトスペード トートバッグ] '<br>より多くのラウンドを成長<br>徐Pingqiu目、より多くの私は、口をむき出し笑って涙が速く流出し笑った大きな罪を怖がって、彼はル·フーGuoshengから、長い間、この瞬間を待っていた彼が待っているとき、これまで副は徐Pingqiu落ち込んで孤独表情を見た [http://www.dmwai.com/webalizer/kate-spade-0.html ケイトスペード バッグ 激安]。<br><br>一度選択し、学校でdumbfounding先生を見ているように、彼は選択する必要はありませんが、呪いを破るしたとして罪の上に誇らしげに、クロツラヘラサギの上司を見て、長い間笑った |
| | 相关的主题文章： |
| | <ul> |
| | |
| | <li>[http://www.cuiter.net/home.php?mod=space&uid=47073 http://www.cuiter.net/home.php?mod=space&uid=47073]</li> |
| | |
| | <li>[http://j-links.sakura.ne.jp/hitozuma-ch/bbs005/j-links.cgi http://j-links.sakura.ne.jp/hitozuma-ch/bbs005/j-links.cgi]</li> |
| | |
| | <li>[http://www.carmtcpj.com/sns/space.php?uid=2522&do=blog&id=7943 http://www.carmtcpj.com/sns/space.php?uid=2522&do=blog&id=7943]</li> |
| | |
| | </ul> |
|
| |
|
| The system provides approximately proportional representation, enables votes to be cast for individual candidates rather than for closed [[party list]]s, and minimizes [[wasted vote|"wasted" votes]] by transferring votes to other candidates that would otherwise be wasted on sure losers or sure winners.
| | == マウスと私はほぼ同時に犯罪警察は明るい許可は、文章叫んだ == |
|
| |
|
| '''Hare–Clark''' is the name given to STV in [[lower house]] elections in two [[Australian states and territories]], [[Tasmania]] and the [[Australian Capital Territory]]. The name is derived from [[Thomas Hare (political scientist)|Thomas Hare]], who initially developed the system, and the Tasmanian [[Attorney General]], [[Andrew Inglis Clark]], who modified the counting method on introducing it to Tasmania. Hare–Clark has been subsequently changed to use rotating ballot papers (the [[Robson Rotation]]). The upper houses of [[New South Wales]], [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], [[Western Australia]] and [[South Australia]], as well as the upper house of the [[Parliament of Australia]], use a variant of STV allowing "[[Group voting ticket|group voting]]".<ref>{{cite web|title=Proportional Representation Voting Systems of Australia's Parliaments|url=http://www.eca.gov.au/systems/proportional/proportion_rep.htm|publisher=Electoral Council of Australia}}</ref>
| | ロング無視、本当に傲慢暴君のように、丁重に彼の後ろの罪よりも多くして、誰かが出てくると尋ね、一度凝視:.したい「セキュリティ上の理由から、私たちの上司を閉じないでください。 [http://www.dmwai.com/webalizer/kate-spade-8.html ケイトスペード ハンドバッグ] '<br><br>pretentiouslyそれを置く、ワークショップアゼルバイジャンの恐怖は、誰かが指名波面、Huhou大声セキュリティチームの能力のうち、マウス来る、ペースをスピードアップするために、推定2ウインクの指導が不足していてください。 [http://www.dmwai.com/webalizer/kate-spade-15.html ケイトスペード マザーズバッグ] 'こんにちは、車を修理する。 [http://www.dmwai.com/webalizer/kate-spade-7.html ケイトスペードのバッグ] '<br><br>あいつはツールを持って、手に戻って、ボーッとしました。<br><br>マウスと私はほぼ同時に犯罪警察は明るい許可は、文章叫んだ： [http://www.dmwai.com/webalizer/kate-spade-8.html kate spade 財布 ゴールド] '。警察、お客様の犯人を'<br><br>これは、男は智陵を聞いたはったり、男の最初の反応であるツールを落として走った、マウス、ウインク罪興奮よりも、私は警察に聞いて、話し、走った、という問題があった。<br><br>2 [http://www.dmwai.com/webalizer/kate-spade-15.html ケイトスペード アウトレット バッグ] Batuiチェイス。このワークショップでは、時代の波数百人を待って、実行するのに十分な大き開くことができますが、すぐに追撃の後ろ、彼の片足ホメオパシー李小平、カチャカチャという音を回し、プラットフォームを持ち上げることは黒いアウディのジャックはちょうど、会社をしゃがむ洗い落としレジスタンス |
| | | 相关的主题文章： |
| STV is the system of choice of groups such as the [[Proportional Representation Society of Australia]] (which calls it '''quota-preferential proportional representation'''<ref>{{cite web|title=Proportional Representation and its Importance|url=http://www.prsa.org.au/pr.html|publisher=Proportional Representation Society of Australia}}</ref>), the [[Electoral Reform Society]] in the United Kingdom,<ref>{{cite web|title=Our mission|url=http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/our-mission/|publisher=Electoral Reform Society}}</ref> and [[FairVote]] in the USA (which calls it '''choice voting'''<ref>{{cite web|title=Choice Voting|url=http://www.fairvote.org/choice-voting|publisher=FairVote}}</ref>). Its critics contend that some voters find the mechanisms behind STV difficult to understand,<ref>Justin Fisher, D. T. Denver and John Benyon, ''Central debates in British politics'' (2003), Pearson Education, ISBN 978-0-582-43727-2, p. 68.</ref> but this does not make it more difficult for voters to "rank the list of candidates in order of preference" on an STV ballot paper (see [[Single_transferable_vote#Voting|Voting]]).
| | <ul> |
| | | |
| ==Adoption==
| | <li>[http://www.allnewspapers.com/cgi-bin/scripts/page.cgi http://www.allnewspapers.com/cgi-bin/scripts/page.cgi]</li> |
| STV has had its widest adoption in the [[English-speaking world]]. {{As of|2010}}, in government elections, STV is used for:
| | |
| {| class="wikitable"
| | <li>[http://www.voile.org/cgi-bin/classifieds/classifieds.cgi http://www.voile.org/cgi-bin/classifieds/classifieds.cgi]</li> |
| |-
| | |
| |colspan=2|[[Republic of Ireland]]
| | <li>[http://rokinawa.co.jp/chatstation_new/msg_board/epad.cgi http://rokinawa.co.jp/chatstation_new/msg_board/epad.cgi]</li> |
| |Parliamentary elections (since 1921)<br />European elections<br />Local government elections
| | |
| |-
| | </ul> |
| |colspan=2|[[Malta]]
| |
| |Parliamentary elections<br />European elections<br />Local government elections
| |
| |-
| |
| |rowspan=2|[[United Kingdom]]
| |
| |[[Northern Ireland]]
| |
| |[[Northern Irish Assembly|Regional assembly]] elections<br />European elections<br />Local government elections
| |
| |-
| |
| |[[Scotland]]
| |
| |Local government elections (since [[Scottish local elections, 2007|May 2007]])
| |
| |-
| |
| |colspan=2|[[India]]
| |
| |[[Rajya Sabha|Upper house of Parliament]] elections (indirect election by state MLAs)
| |
| |-
| |
| |colspan=2|[[Pakistan]]
| |
| |[[Senate of Pakistan|Senate]] elections (indirect election by members of provincial assemblies, and direct vote by the population of [[Federally Administered Tribal Areas|territories]])
| |
| |-
| |
| |rowspan=7|[[Australia]]
| |
| |Country-wide
| |
| |[[Australian Senate|Senate elections]] (in the form of a [[group voting ticket]])
| |
| |-
| |
| |[[Australian Capital Territory]]
| |
| |[[Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly|Legislative Assembly]] elections
| |
| |-
| |
| |[[New South Wales]]
| |
| |[[New South Wales Legislative Council|Legislative Council]] elections<br />Local government elections
| |
| |-
| |
| |[[South Australia]]
| |
| |[[South Australian Legislative Council|Legislative Council]] elections<br />Local government elections
| |
| |-
| |
| |[[Tasmania]]
| |
| |[[Tasmanian House of Assembly|House of Assembly]] elections<br />Local government elections
| |
| |-
| |
| |[[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]]
| |
| |[[Victorian Legislative Council|Legislative Council]] elections<br />Local government elections
| |
| |-
| |
| |[[Western Australia]]
| |
| |[[Western Australia Legislative Council|Legislative Council]] elections
| |
| |-
| |
| |colspan=2|[[New Zealand]]
| |
| |Some local government elections, such as [[Dunedin]] and the capital, [[Wellington]]<br />District Health Board elections
| |
| |-
| |
| |colspan=2|[[United States]]
| |
| |City elections in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]<br />Certain city elections in [[Minneapolis|Minneapolis, Minnesota]] (starting in 2009)
| |
| |-
| |
| |colspan=2|[[Iceland]]
| |
| |First used in Constitutional Assembly elections in 2010
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| In [[British Columbia]], Canada, STV was [[BC-STV|recommended]] for provincial elections by the BC [[Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia)]]. In a [[British Columbia electoral reform referendum, 2005|2005 provincial referendum]], it received 57.69% support and passed in 77 of 79 electoral districts. It was not adopted, however, because it fell short of the 60% threshold requirement the Liberal government had set. In a [[British Columbia electoral reform referendum, 2009|second referendum, on 12 May 2009]], STV was defeated 60.91% to 39.09%
| |
| | |
| STV has also been used historically in several other jurisdictions. For a more complete list, see ''[[History and use of the Single Transferable Vote]]''.
| |
| | |
| ==Terminology==
| |
| When STV is used for single-winner elections, it is equivalent to the [[instant-runoff voting]] (alternative vote) method.<ref>{{cite news|title=Q&A: Electoral reform and proportional representation |publisher=BBC |date= 2010-05-11|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm |accessdate=13 May 2010}}</ref> {{citation needed|date=June 2013}} To differentiate them, STV used for multi-winner elections is sometimes called '''proportional representation through the single transferable vote''', or PR-STV. ''STV'' usually refers to the multi-winner version, as it does in this article. In Australia STV is known as the '''Hare–Clark Proportional''' method, while in the United States it is sometimes called '''choice voting''', '''preferential voting''' or '''preference voting''' (''preferential voting'' can also refer to a broader category, [[ranked voting systems]]).
| |
| | |
| ==Voting==
| |
| [[Image:Preferential ballot.svg|right|thumb|200px|]]
| |
| In STV, each voter ranks the list of candidates in order of preference. In the most common ballot design, they place a '1' beside their most preferred candidate, a '2' beside their second most preferred, and so on. The completed ballot paper therefore contains an ordinal list of candidates. In the ballot paper in the image on the right, the preferences of the voter are as follows:
| |
| | |
| # John Citizen
| |
| # Mary Hill
| |
| # Jane Doe
| |
| | |
| ==Counting the votes==
| |
| | |
| ===Setting the quota===
| |
| In an STV election, a candidate requires a minimum number of votes – the quota (or threshold) – to be elected. A number of different quotas can be used; the most common is the [[Droop quota]], given by the formula:
| |
| | |
| <small>
| |
| :<math>\mbox{votes needed to win} = \left({{\rm \mbox{valid votes cast}} \over {\rm \mbox{seats to fill}}+1}\right) + 1</math> | |
| </small> when the quota is an integer. When the quota is not an integer it is rounded up; that is, its fractional part is increased to the next whole number.
| |
| The Droop quota is an extension of requiring a 50% + 1 majority in single winner elections. For example, at most 3 people can have 25% + 1 in 3 winner elections, 9 can have 10% + 1 in 9 winner elections, and so on.
| |
| | |
| ===Finding the winners===
| |
| <!-- Please keep this initial explanation simple and put the more complicated nuances in later sections and sub articles -->
| |
| An STV election proceeds according to the following steps:
| |
| | |
| # A candidate who has reached or exceeded the quota is declared elected.
| |
| # If a candidate has more votes than the quota, surplus votes are transferred to other candidates. Votes that would have gone to the winner go to the next preference.
| |
| # If no-one new meets the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and those votes are transferred.
| |
| # This process repeats until either a winner is found for every seat or there are as many seats as remaining candidates.
| |
| | |
| There are variations, such as in how to transfer surplus votes from winning candidates and whether to transfer votes to already elected candidates. When the number of votes to transfer from a losing candidate is too small to change the ordering of remaining candidates, more than one candidate can be eliminated simultaneously.
| |
| | |
| Because votes cast for losing candidates and excess votes cast for winning candidates are transferred to voters' next choice candidates, STV is said to minimize [[wasted vote]]s.
| |
| | |
| ===Example===
| |
| Suppose a food election is conducted to determine what to serve at a party. There are 5 candidates, 3 of which will be chosen. The candidates are: ''Oranges'', ''Pears'', ''Chocolate'', ''Strawberries'', and ''Sweets''. The 20 guests at the party have their ballots marked according to the table below. In this example, a second choice is needed by only some of the voters; however, with a different vote distribution additional preferences may be needed.
| |
| | |
| {| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin-left: 1em"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''# of Guests'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| <span style="color:#ff5933;">'''x x x x'''</span>
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| <span style="color:#0c3;">'''x x'''</span>
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| <span style="color:#cc5600;">'''x x x x<br>x x x x'''</span>
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| <span style="color:#ff24ff;">'''x x x x'''</span>
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| <span style="color:#ff1000;">'''x'''</span>
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| <span style="color:#0053ff;">'''x'''</span>
| |
| |-
| |
| | '''1st Preference'''
| |
| | [[Image:Orange-fruit-2.jpg|50px|Orange]]
| |
| | [[Image:PearPhoto.jpg|50px|Pear]]
| |
| | [[Image:Chocolat.png|50px|Chocolate]]
| |
| | [[Image:Chocolat.png|50px|Chocolate]]
| |
| | [[Image:FraiseFruitPhoto.jpg|50px|Strawberry]]
| |
| | [[Image:Pantteri Mix.jpg|50px|Candy]]
| |
| |-
| |
| | '''2nd Preference'''
| |
| |
| |
| | [[Image:Orange-fruit-2.jpg|50px|Orange]]
| |
| | [[Image:FraiseFruitPhoto.jpg|50px|Strawberry]]
| |
| | [[Image:Pantteri Mix.jpg|50px|Candy]]
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| First, the quota is calculated. Using the Droop quota, with 20 voters and 3 winners to be found, the number of votes required to be elected is:
| |
| | |
| :<math>\left({\mbox{20 votes cast} \over {\mbox{3 seats to fill}+1}}\right) +1 = \mbox{6 votes required}</math>
| |
| | |
| When ballots are counted the election proceeds as follows:
| |
| | |
| {| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin-left: 1em"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''Candidate:'''
| |
| | [[Image:Orange-fruit-2.jpg|50px|Orange]]
| |
| | [[Image:PearPhoto.jpg|50px|Pear]]
| |
| | [[Image:Chocolat.png|50px|Chocolate]]
| |
| | [[Image:FraiseFruitPhoto.jpg|50px|Strawberry]]
| |
| | [[Image:Pantteri Mix.jpg|50px|Candy]]
| |
| | '''Result'''
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''Round 1'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''<span style="color:#f93;">x x x x</span>'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''<span style="color:#0c3;">x x</span>'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#ffdead;"| '''<span style="color:#c60;">x x x x<br>x x x x</span><br><span style="color:#f4f;">x x x x</span>'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''<span style="color:#f00;">x</span>'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''<span style="color:#03f;">x</span>'''
| |
| |'''Round 1:''' Chocolate is declared elected, since Chocolate has more votes than the quota (six surplus votes to be precise).
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''Round 2'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| <span style="color:#f93;">'''x x x x'''</span>
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#efefef;"| <span style="color:#0c3;">'''x x'''</span>
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#ffdead;"| <span style="color:#c60;">'''x x x x'''</span><br><span style="color:#f4f;">'''x x'''</span>
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''<span style="color:#c60;">x x x x</span><br><span style="color:#f00;">x</span>'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| <span style="color:#03f;">'''x</span> <span style="color:#f4f;">x x'''</span>
| |
| |'''Round 2:''' Chocolate's surplus votes transfer to Strawberry and Sweets in proportion to the Chocolate voters' second choice preferences, using a formula: ''number of surplus votes/total number of transferable votes (that have the second preference)*number of second preferences of the given candidate''. However, even with the transfer of this surplus no candidate has reached the quota. Therefore Pear, who has the fewest votes, is eliminated.
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''Round 3'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#ffdead;"| '''<span style="color:#f93;">x x x x</span><br><span style="color:#0c3;">x x</span>'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#efefef;"|
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#ffdead;"| <span style="color:#c60;">'''x x x x'''</span><br><span style="color:#f4f;">'''x x'''</span>
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''<span style="color:#c60;">x x x x</span><br><span style="color:#f00;">x</span>'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| <span style="color:#03f;">'''x</span> <span style="color:#f4f;">x x'''</span>
| |
| |'''Round 3:''' Pear's votes transfer to their second preference, Oranges, causing Orange to reach the quota and be elected. Orange meets the quota exactly, and therefore has no surplus to transfer.
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align:center;"| '''Round 4'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#ffdead;"| '''<span style="color:#f93;">x x x x</span><br><span style="color:#0c3;">x x</span>'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#efefef;"|
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#ffdead;"| <span style="color:#c60;">'''x x x x'''</span><br><span style="color:#f4f;">'''x x'''</span>
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#ffdead;"| '''<span style="color:#c60;">x x x x</span> <br /> <span style="color:#f00;">x</span>'''
| |
| ! style="text-align:center; background:#efefef;"| <span style="color:#03f;">'''x</span> <span style="color:#f4f;">x x'''</span>
| |
| |'''Round 4:''' Neither of the remaining candidates meets the quota, but Strawberry has more votes, so Sweets are eliminated, and Strawberry wins the final seat.
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| '''Result:''' The winners are '''Chocolate''', '''Oranges''' and '''Strawberries'''.
| |
| | |
| ==Counting methods==
| |
| <!-- Deleted image removed: [[Image:STV GVT.gif|right|thumb|340px|This STV ballot for the [[Australian Senate]] illustrates [[group voting ticket]]s. Voters can either rank every candidate individually or use their preferred party's preferences by voting ''above the line''.|{{deletable image-caption|1=Monday, 22 December 2008|date=October 2010}}]] -->
| |
| {{Main|Counting Single Transferable Votes}}
| |
| | |
| STV systems primarily differ in how they transfer votes and the size of the quota used for determining winners. For this reason some have suggested that STV can be considered a family of voting systems rather than a single system. The [[Droop quota]] is the most commonly used quota. This ensures majority rule (except in rare cases) while maintaining the condition that no more candidates can reach a quota than there are seats to be filled. As originally conceived STV used the [[Hare quota]], but this is now generally considered to be technically inferior{{Citation needed|date=October 2010}}. New Zealand uses a quota similar to the Droop quota – see: [[Electoral system of New Zealand]].
| |
| | |
| The simplest methods of transferring surpluses involve an element of randomness; partially random systems are used in the Republic of Ireland (except Senate elections) and Malta, among other places. The [[Gregory method]] (also known as Newland-Britain or Senatorial rules) eliminates randomness by allowing for the transfer of fractions of votes. Gregory is in use in Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland (Senate elections) and Australia. Both Gregory and earlier methods have the problem that in some circumstances they do not treat all votes equally. For this reason [[Meek's method]], [[Warren's method]] and the [[Wright system]] have been invented.<ref name="hill">Hill, I.D. (1987). "[http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.NSF/Files/meekm/$file/meekm.pdf Algorithm 123 – Single Transferable Vote by Meek’s method]".</ref> While simpler methods can usually be counted by hand, except in a very small election Meek and Warren require counting to be conducted by computer. The Wright system is a refinement of the Australian Senate system replacing the process of distribution and segmentation of preferences by a reiterative counting process where the count is reset and restarted on every exclusion. Meek is used in local body elections in New Zealand.
| |
| | |
| ==History and current use==
| |
| {{Main|History and use of the Single Transferable Vote}}
| |
| | |
| [[Image:Andræ.jpg|left|thumb|Carl Andræ]]
| |
| | |
| <!--a picture of an old STV voting machine would go very well here--> | |
| | |
| The concept of transferable voting was first proposed by [[Thomas Wright Hill]] in 1821. The system remained unused in real elections until 1855, when [[Carl Andræ]] proposed a transferable vote system for elections in Denmark, and his system was used in 1856 to elect the [[Rigsraad]],<ref>[http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Samfund,_jura_og_politik/Samfund/Valgteorier_og_valgmetoder/Andræs_metode AndrĂŚs metode | Gyldendal – Den Store Danske<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and from 1866 it was also adapted for indirect elections to the second chamber, the [[Landsting (Denmark)|Landsting]], until 1915.
| |
| | |
| [[Image:Thare.png|right|thumb|Thomas Hare]]
| |
| | |
| Although he was not the first to propose transferable votes, the English [[barrister]] [[Thomas Hare (political scientist)|Thomas Hare]] is generally credited with the conception of STV, and he may have independently developed the idea in 1857. Hare's view was that STV 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 Hare's original system, he further proposed that electors should have the opportunity of discovering which candidate their vote had ultimately counted for, to improve their personal connection with voting.<ref name="lambert">Lambert & Lakeman (1955). "Voting in democracies". London : Faber, p. 245.</ref> This is unnecessary in modern elections, as a voter can discover how their vote was distributed by viewing detailed election results. This is particularly easy to do using [[Meek's method]], where only the final weightings of each candidate need to be published.
| |
| | |
| The noted political essayist [[John Stuart Mill]] was a friend of Hare and an early proponent of STV, 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. At present... the only persons who can get elected are those who possess local influence, or make their way by lavish expenditure...."<ref name="mill">Mill, J.S. "Considerations on Representative Government." Online at http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/conrg10h.htm. Retrieved 25 May 2007.</ref> His contemporary, [[Walter Bagehot]], also praised the Hare system for allowing everyone to elect an MP, even ideological minorities, but also argued that the Hare system would create more problems than it solved: "[the Hare system] is inconsistent with the extrinsic independence as well as the inherent moderation of a Parliament – two of the conditions we have seen, are essential to the bare possibility of parliamentary government."<ref name="bagehot">Bagehot, Walter. "English Constitution".</ref> <!-- it's not exactly clear what Bagehot is arguing here... -->
| |
| | |
| Advocacy of STV spread through the [[British Empire]], leading it to be sometimes known as ''British Proportional Representation''. <!-- Think that was noted in Lambert & Lakeman-->In 1896, [[Andrew Inglis Clark]] was successful in persuading the [[Tasmanian House of Assembly]] to be the first parliament in the world elected by what became known as the ''Hare–Clark system'', named after himself and Thomas Hare. [[H.G. Wells]] was a strong advocate, calling it "Proportional Representation."<ref>H.G. Wells, ''In the Fourth Year'' (London: Chatto & Windus, 1918), pp. 121-29.</ref>
| |
| | |
| <!--Add some history of when Meek came along, please. note he was attempting to eliminate the problem of tactical voting while still maintaining proportionality and such--> | |
| Meek also considered a variant on his system which would have allowed for equal preferences to be expressed. <!-- (Meek also considered an alternative formulation in which voters would be allowed to indicate equal preference for some candidates instead of a strict ordering; we have not implemented this alternative.) See reference 1 Hill 1987. This type of electoral system is currently used in Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland -->
| |
| | |
| STV was also adopted in the first half of the 20th century to elect several city councils in the United States. More than twenty cities used STV, including [[Cleveland]], [[Cincinnati]] and New York City. As of January 2010, it is used to elect the city council and school committee in [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]] and the park board in [[Minneapolis]], Minnesota.
| |
| | |
| ==Issues==
| |
| {{Main|Issues affecting the Single Transferable Vote}}
| |
| | |
| The degree of proportionality of STV election results depends directly on the district magnitude. While Ireland originally had a median district magnitude of five (ranging from three to nine) in 1923, successive governments lowered this. Systemically lowering the number of representatives from a given district directly benefits larger parties at the expense of smaller ones.
| |
| | |
| In a nine-seat district the quota or threshold is 10% (plus one vote), 25% (plus one vote) in a three seater.
| |
| | |
| A parliamentary committee in 2010 discussed the "increasing trend towards the creation of three-seat constituencies in Ireland" and recommended not less than four-seaters, except where the geographic size of such a constituency would be disproportionately large.<ref name="joint">Joint Committee on the Constitution, Fourth Report, p. 177. "[http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0722/election.pdf]".</ref>
| |
| | |
| A frequent concern is its complexity compared with [[plurality voting system|plurality voting]] methods. Before the advent of computers, this complexity would have made ballot-counting more difficult than some other voting methods.
| |
| | |
| Some opponents argue that larger, multi-seat districts would require more campaign funds to reach the voters. Proponents argue that STV can lower campaign costs because like-minded candidates can share some expenses. In addition, unlike in at-large plurality elections, candidates do not have to secure the support of at least 50% of voters, allowing candidates to focus campaign spending primarily on supportive voters.
| |
| | |
| STV differs from all other proportional representation systems in that candidates of one party can be elected on transfers from voters for other parties. Hence, STV may reduce the role of political parties in the electoral process and corresponding [[partisan (political)|partisanship]] in the resulting government. A district only needs to have four members to be proportional for the major parties, but may under-represent smaller parties, even though they may well be more likely to be elected under STV than under [[First Past The Post]]. Also, while small parties seen as reasonable second preferences by others (such as the Green Party in Ireland) more easily get elected, parties seen as more extreme by others (such as Sinn Féin in Ireland) find it harder to attract second preferences and therefore find it harder to win seats.{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}}
| |
| | |
| As STV is a multi-member system, filling vacancies between elections can be problematic, and a variety of responses has been devised. The countback method is used in the [[Australian Capital Territory]], [[Tasmania]], [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], Malta, and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]. Casual vacancies are filled re-examining the ballot papers data from the previous election. Another option is to have a head official or remaining members of the elected body appoint a new member to fulfil the vacancy. A third alternative to fulfil a vacancy is to hold a single-winner by-election (effectively instant-runoff); this allows each party to choose a new candidate and all voters to participate. Another alternative is to have the candidates themselves create an ordered list of successors before leaving their seat. In the [[European Parliament]], a departing Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland member is replaced with the top eligible name from a replacement list submitted by the candidate at the time of the original election. This method was also used in the [[Northern Ireland Assembly]], changed in 2009 to allow political parties to nominate new MLAs in the event of a vacancy. Independent MLAs may still draw up a list of potential replacements.<ref>{{cite web|last=Goggins|first=Paul|title=Change to the system for filling vacancies in the NI Assembly|url=http://www.nio.gov.uk/change-to-the-system-for-filling-vacancies-in-the-ni-assembly/media-detail.htm?newsID=15871|work=Northern Ireland Office Website|publisher=Northern Ireland Office|accessdate=5 October 2011}}</ref> For its [[European Parliament election, 2009 (Malta)|2009 European elections]], Malta set a one-off policy to elect the candidate eliminated last for filling the prospective vacancy for the extra seat to arise from the [[Lisbon Treaty]].
| |
| | |
| If there are not enough candidates to represent one of the priorities the electorate vote for (such as a party), all of them may be elected in the early stages, with votes being transferred to candidates with other views. Putting up too many candidates might result in first-preference votes being spread too thinly among them, and consequently several potential winners with broad second-preference appeal may be eliminated before others are elected and their second-preference votes distributed. In practice, the majority of voters express preference for candidates from the same party in order,{{Citation needed|date=October 2010}} which minimises the impact of this potential effect of STV.
| |
| | |
| The outcome of voting under STV is proportional within a single election to the collective preference of voters, assuming voters have ranked their real preferences and vote along strict party lines (assuming parties and no individual independents participate in the election). However, due to other voting mechanisms usually used in conjunction with STV, such as a district or constituency system, an election using STV may not guarantee proportionality across all districts put together.
| |
| | |
| STV systems vary, both in ballot design and in whether or not voters are obliged to provide a full list of preferences. In jurisdictions such as the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, voters may rank as many or as few candidates as they wish. Consequently voters sometimes, for example, rank only the candidates of a single party, or of their most preferred parties. A minority of voters, especially if they do not fully understand the system, may even "bullet vote", only expressing a first preference. Allowing voters to rank only as many candidates as they wish grants them greater freedom but can also lead to some voters ranking so few candidates that their vote eventually becomes "exhausted"–that is, at a certain point during the count it can no longer be transferred and therefore loses an opportunity to influence the result.
| |
| | |
| STV provides proportionality by transferring votes to minimise waste, and therefore also minimises the number of unrepresented or [[Disfranchisement|disenfranchised]] voters.
| |
| | |
| According to the [[Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem]] tactical voting is possible in all non-dictatorial [[deterministic]] voting systems. A number of methods of tactical or strategic voting exist that can be used in STV elections. In general these methods are effective only in marginal districts and affect only the allocation of a single seat per district.
| |
| | |
| Academic analysis of voting systems such as STV generally centers on the [[voting system criterion|voting system criteria]] that they pass. No preference voting system satisfies all the criteria in [[Arrow's impossibility theorem]]: in particular, STV fails to achieve [[independence of irrelevant alternatives]] (like most other vote-based ordering systems) and [[monotonicity criterion|monotonicity]].
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| {{columns-list|2|
| |
| | |
| * [[Table of voting systems by nation]]
| |
| * [[Alternative vote]]
| |
| * [[Single Non-Transferable Vote]]
| |
| * [[Counting Single Transferable Votes]]
| |
| * [[Electoral Reform Society]]
| |
| * [[Instant-runoff voting]]
| |
| * [[Tally (voting)]]
| |
| * [[Voting system]]
| |
| * [[Proportional representation]]
| |
| * [[None of the above]] (NOTA) or [[None of the above#Re-open Nominations (RON)|Re-Open Nominations]] (RON)
| |
| * ''[[Voting matters]]'', a journal concerned with the technical aspects of STV
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| ==References==
| |
| {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}
| |
| <!-- Dead note "Meek": Meek, Brian (1969). "[http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE1/P1.HTM A New Approach to the Single Transferable Vote]". ''Voting Matters'' Issue 1. Translated to English in 1994. -->
| |
| <!-- Dead note "Assembly": Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. [http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/news/2004/10/dmaclachlan-3_0410241345-701 "News release: Assembly's recommendation to B.C."] British Columbia, 24 October 2004. -->
| |
| <!-- Dead note "Bains": Bains, Camille. [http://www.canada.com/vancouver/bcvotes/story.html?id=f97e855b-598b-4d98-9aa9-c89d60adf242 "STV supporters press for electoral reform despite referendum defeat"]. ''Canadian Press'', 18 May 2005 --> | |
| <!-- Dead note "NewZealand": New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (2004). "[http://www.stv.govt.nz/ STV - It's simple to vote]". Retrieved 11 Aug 2005. -->
| |
| <!-- Dead note "ElectoralReform": Electoral Reform Society. [http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/diary/historylesson.htm "A Brief History of Electoral Reform"]. Retrieved 11 Aug 2005. --> | |
| <!-- Dead note "NIrlHist": CAIN [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electoralsystem.htm "Introduction to the Electoral System in Northern Ireland"] Retrieved 15 Sep 2005. -->
| |
| <!-- Dead note "Scotland": Scottish Parliament (2004). [http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/billsnotInProgress-s2/14LocalGovernance.htm "Local Governance (Scotland) Bill."] -->
| |
| <!-- Dead note "Prosterman": Prosterman, Dan. [http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/history/public_history/PR/ STV in New York]. Retrieved 11 Aug 2005. --> | |
| | |
| ==External links==
| |
| {{External links|date=May 2010}}
| |
| | |
| ===Information and summaries===
| |
| * [http://archive.fairvote.org/media/bc-stv-full.swf Flash animation produced for the British Columbia referendum]
| |
| * [http://www.aceproject.org/ ACE Project]
| |
| * [http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/d_stv.htm A concise STV analogy] – from [http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/ Accurate Democracy]
| |
| * [http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/02/visualising-the-hareclark-electoral-system.html Visualising the Hare–Clark Electoral System] by [[Antony Green]] ([[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]])
| |
| * [http://www.deep-trance.com/IM-STV.html Ideal Majority STV] – modification to ensure provide a majority result proportional to mandate
| |
| | |
| ===Simulations and software===
| |
| * [http://stv.humancube.com/ Single Transferable Vote Simulator] Interactive Flash program that lets the user assign votes and see the results as per STV.
| |
| * [http://www.politicalsim.com/ PoliticalSim] — uses Excel [[scatter plots]] of voter and candidate positions to explain transferring votes.
| |
| * [http://www.openstv.org/ OpenSTV] — proprietary software for computing the single transferable vote (source code available under a restrictive license)
| |
| * [https://code.grnet.gr/projects/stv/repository Python stv] — open source software for computing the single transferable vote written in [http://www.python.org Python]
| |
| * [http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/z_tools.htm#multi-winner Accurate Democracy] lists a dozen programs for computing the single transferable vote.
| |
| * [http://www.choiceranker.com/election.php?eid=6 Indaba.org – Ranked Choice Ballot Demo, including visualizations of an STV Runoff]
| |
| | |
| ===Articles and publications===
| |
| * [http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE18/I18P6.PDF Tie-Breaking with the Single Transferable Vote]. Paper by Jeffrey C. O'Neill, ''[[Voting matters]]''.
| |
| * [http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/wp2201.pdf Single Transferable Vote with Borda Elimination: A New Vote Counting System], also ''Electoral Studies'' 24:2 June 2005. Article by Chris Geller.
| |
| * [http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jjb/papers/stv.pdf "Single Transferable Vote Resists Strategic Voting"], by John J. Bartholdi, III and [[James B. Orlin]].
| |
| | |
| ===Proponent groups===
| |
| * [http://stv.ca/ Fair Voting BC] (Canada)
| |
| * [http://fairvote.org/ FairVote] (USA, formerly the Center for Voting and Democracy)
| |
| * [http://www.prsa.org.au/ Proportional Representation Society of Australia]
| |
| * [http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/ Electoral Reform Society (United Kingdom)] See also the [[Electoral Reform Society|Wikipedia article]]
| |
| * [http://www.stvaction.org.uk/ STV Action (United Kingdom)]
| |
| | |
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Single Transferable Vote}}
| |
| [[Category:Single transferable vote]]
| |
| [[Category:Proportional representation electoral systems]]
| |
| [[Category:Non-monotonic electoral systems]]
| |
| [[Category:Preferential electoral systems]]
| |