The important feature of an STV election is which candidates are among the front runners in the first count. However many seats are up for grabs in the election, that same number of front runners in the first count - before any votes are transferred - are mostly going to be the ones who will be elected in the end.
But luckily already in the first count the front runners are mixed, representing different parties. They also reflect the views of the substantial groupings among the district's voters as regards gender, ethnic group, etc.
Always at least half of the candidates who are at front of list in first count go on to win seats.
Sometimes all of them do with no change created by vote transfers. This happened on three occasions in Alberta provincial STV elections - Edmonton 1930; Calgary 1930 and 1944.
Usually one or two of the front runners are not elected. Vote transfers put a candidate of a new party into a seat, or a different more individually-respected candidate of an old party replacing a candidate of the same party. (This is one of the ways that STV acts as deterrent to extreme or bigoted candidates - a candidate must have wide acceptability to win through vote transfers.)
At the most, in only two elections, were as many as three of the front runners in the first count not elected. These were 1935 Edmonton and 1955 Edmonton. (It never happened in elections in Calgary that as many as three of the front runners in the first count would not be elected in the end.)
1935 Edmonton - six to be elected
Three of front runners in the first count were elected in the end; three were not.
Howson's massive surplus gave boost to fellow Liberal candidate, Van Allen, who moved up from lower spot.
UFA Lymburn was in top six spots in the first count but did not have wide acceptability. UFA and Labour had lost support - many people believed that the Social Credit Party promised quicker action to address Depression.
D.M. Duggan Conservative was just barely out of top six in first count. Vote transfers from the other four Conservative candidates - all eliminated in early and middle counts - helped him take a seat.
And it is fine that the front runners in the first count are elected. Mixed and roughly proportional representation is already created in the first count. This is done by use of single vote in multi-member district. The vote transfers, where they have any effect, merely polish the results.
That is why I think single-vote Limited Voting (AKA SNTV, AKA Japanese system) would work good enough to rid us of much of the unfair results produced by FPTP.
I believe municipal-level Limited Voting is not forbidden under the Alberta Municipal Act as a couple of my blogs explain.
Hope that gives you some idea of why I support district level preferential voting.
------------------------------
Other info on the subject:
from Wikipedia article "Single transferable voting":
Under STV, candidates who did well on first preference votes may not be elected, and those who did poorly on first preferences can be elected, because of differences in second and later preferences. This can also be analysed, again using the 1223 members elected in the Scottish local elections. Some of the leading candidates in the first count are not elected but, comparing the number that suffer that fate to the total number of members elected in these elections, the successful candidates are mostly set in the first count (through the simple mechanics of Single voting in multi-member districts), before any vote transfers are done.
About ten percent or less of the front runners in the first count are not elected in the end. (For this reason, Single non-transferable vote is thought to produce much the same results as STV, but with less work.)
------------------------------
What is STV?
From a 1902 reform magazine: "Thinking it well to have in every number something by way of a brief explanation of proportional voting, I repeat in this number the following. Proportional representation means the use of a reasonable and scientific system of voting instead of the present stupid, unfair and inefficient procedure. Methods: There are several systems by which the principle of proportional representation may be given effect to. Large electoral districts, each electing several members, are a necessary feature. The "quota" plan is usually employed. It means that a quota of the votes elects one representative. To arrive at the quota, the number of valid votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For instance in a seven-member district any one-seventh of the voters could elect one representative and the other six-sevenths could not interfere with their choice. The three principal systems of proportional representation are the Free List as used in Switzerland and Belgium [party-list pro-rep], the Hare system as used in Tasmania [STV], and the Gove System as advocated in Massachusetts. The Preferential Vote [Alternative Voting/Instant Run-off Voting] -- This is used in the election of single officers such as a mayor. It is not strictly a form of pro-rep but is akin thereto, and uses part of the same voting methods. The object of preferential voting is to encourage the free nomination of candidates and to obtain always a clear majority at one balloting, no matter how many candidates are nominated." (From the Proportional Representation Review Dec. 1902, p. 77) (Hathi Trust online resource, page 81/180) Thanks for reading. Check out my blog "list of Montopedia blogs concerning electoral reform" to find other blogs on this important subject. ----------------------------------- This year: *Alberta is celebrating 150 years in Confederation 1870-2020 *100th Anniversary of STV first being used to elect legislators in Canada Winnipeg MLAs first elected through STV in 1920 ==============================================================
Comments