does fair voting under PR make it easier or more difficult to be elected? Oddly, STV Quota is larger than vote count needed to win under FPTP

each member has same legislative power -- they each hold one seat.

but obviously some hold more legislative power than others - those in government have more power than those in opposition.

in common view, quota is a threshold that a candidate needs to achieve to be elected.

and you are right too that it also works as ceiling because any votes above are transferred away from elected candidate.

at risk of being thought unhelpful, I'll add both are only theoretical --

in STV elections (such as in Ireland and historical elections in Canada) many are elected with less than the Droop in the district. (at end when field of candidates is reduced to number of remaining open seats)

and sometimes some at the end of the vote count are fleft with  more than Droop (at end when the last seat is filled)

Droop quota in district is district votes/district seats plus 1. plus 1.

this number is not overall votes/overall seats but is not too far off it.

the basic aspiration of PR IMO is a high proportion of vote cast are used to elect someone,

and each member is elected with same number of votes

so best we can do, is each member is elected with same proportion of the effective votes, 

and thus each party has its proportional share of the seats (based on votes as they rest at end

you might hear that the focus of PR is building consensus of common cause -- through transfers if necessary -- and to meet pretty high numbers approaching unanimity for each successful candidate."

yes PR is intended to reduce polarization and the temperature of debate/political culture.

by giving each substantial group a voice.  -- a separate voice for each separate group.

but no pretty high numbers for each candidate are not what we want

(consensus is not what we want - we want diversity of opinion represented)

in SMD/FPTP, we don't like the member being elected with small number, (say a third of vote in district)*

 but in PR with MMD we actually want as small a group as possible being represented, 

and the more the members in the district, the smaller group needed to elect.

and that voting block for each member is unanimous  in support of that one member - the PR member does not need to pretend to represent any one else.

it is insult to his/her voters if the member drifts off to represent some other voters.

A vote tally of a candidate (or a party's slate) is considered a unanimous voting block. it is exclusive and does not overlap with any other voting block.

under PR, the voters self-sort into various unanimous voting blocks, and under STV some may shift to other groups, and any voting block with quota will elect a member.

==============

*math example

say 100,000 votes cast

in five ridings 20,000 in each 

FPTP winner can win with say 7,000 votes in a district, but maybe takes 14,000.

STV-PR in new 5-seat district with 100,000 votes cast

Quota is 16,667 votes

three or four are likely to be elected with this number; the last one or two might be higher or lower,

PR has pretty high numbers

so okay I have to admit you can say PR has pretty high numbers (at least as compared to the FPTP 7,000)

but that is not goal of PR - it is just result of large number of effective votes and each member being elected with same number of votes.

note that the 16,667 is just a small proportion of the 100,000 votes cast in the district.

But even if quota is small, all five members elected together represent a large majority of the voters -- 83,000 voters,  83 percent of the voters, more or less.

this is much higher mandate than the model's minimum 35,000 represented under FPTP (5 X 7,000), and is also higher than the model's maximum 70,000 under FPTP (5 x 14,000).

========

we see Quota higher in Edmonton and Calgary in 1955 under STV as compared to the vote counts that elected MLAs under FPTP just four years later.

1955

Edmonton quota 9569 (DM 7)

Calgary Quota 8928 (DM 6)

1959 under FPTP

Edmonton- districts (7) MLAs elected with range of 3912 to 5071 votes

Strathcona- districts (3) MLAs elected with range of 3639 to 7337 votes

Jasper West (1) MLA elected with 5047 votes

probably on average about half of the quota in 1956

Calgary (7 districts) MLAs elected with range of 4824 to 6655 votes

probably on average only a little more than about half of the quota in 1956

======================================