STV requires multi-member districts. Some say this presents an insurmountable problem but seldom is that the case.
It is of course impossible to use MMDs in the Scottish Highlands to elect the member of the UK Parliament because only one MP is elected in the Scottish Highlands.
To create a MMD, a electoral district has to cover a large area just to capture the required population to be represented by multiple members.
Some express concerns that there can be a greater disconnect between the voter, or community, and their representatives in a large district.
But the finer representation provided by STV means that this is not likely true forthese two reasons:
voters in each part of the district will have local representation if the voters there make up a quota and they vote only for local candidates
In FPTP, a majority of voters are ignored so what kind of connection is that?
If areas with low population density were using multi-member districts to elect the relatively few high-level members (MPs),constituencies would become so large as to seem be impractical.
However, Scotland successfully uses multiple-member regions in its Scottish Parliament elections and STV in its local authority elections. The large number of LA or Scottish Parliament members allows the creation of MMDs without having each district cover too large an area.
Meanwhile, MMDs even of immense size can be used successfully. In New South Wales (Australia), the whole state elects 21 members of the upper house in one single STV contest, and has done so since 1991.
The number of members involved and the overall geography together may create large single-member districts or small single-member districts or large MMDs or relatively-small MMDs. Together the two factors may put an outside limit on the size of MMDs.
Many members representing a small country such as Malta means MMDs (with five members) are relatively small;
Many members representing a huge country such as Canada even with single-member districts means some districts are huge and others are small. (Central Toronto is just the size of three average-sized farms.)
Many members representing a small country means single-member districts would be quite small.
In Canada, eleven individual Members of Parliament each represent an area larger than all of UK. The member for Nunavut represents an area larger than 2M sq. kms., the equivalent of eight United Kingdoms.
Meanwhile, the City of Toronto (Canada) covers a scant 1800 sq. kms. but has 52 MPs.
MMDs seem perfectly sane in such urban settings; not so much where few members cover vast areas.
But MMDs can be applied where it makes sense and not where it does not.
For most of Canada's history (since Confederation or province-hood), every province except Ontario and Quebec used MMDs to elect all or some of its members.
PEI elected all its members in MMDs in every election prior to 1990.
Most used a mixture of MMDs and single-member districts.
Ontario used such a mixture in 1886 and 1890 but not since.
BC elected used a mixture of MMDS and SMDs for the whole time,
from its first provincial election in 1871 right up to 1990.
Unfortunately, only Alberta and Manitoba used STV in the MMDs it used. (Ontario used Limited Voting, an unscientific method of fair voting, during the two elections when it had MMDs.)
It seems perfectly practical to again have a mixture of MMDs and single-member districts, and to once again use the city-based PR-STV that cities in Alberta and Manitoba used successfully for 30 years.
======================
Footnote:
Additional text on the why's and why-not's of MMDs in the Scottish Highlands (or any other sparsely-settled region)
STV requires Multi-Member Districts.
It is thus impossible to use MMDs in the Scottish Highlands to elect members of the UK Parliament where only one member is elected.
To create a MMD, a electoral district has to cover a large area just to capture the required population to be represented by multiple members.
Some say there can be a greater disconnect between the voter, or community, and their representatives. But I would choose a MMD that uses a fair voting system over a single-member district that does not use a fair voting system.
STV produces more of a connection between voters and elected members than single-winner FPTP. Under STV, about 80 percent of votes are actually used to elect someone - that is pretty good connection.
in single-winner FPTP, less than half the voters in a district often elect the one representative. Often a majority often did not vote for the representative - not a good connection at all.
Some say if areas with low population density were using multi-member districts to elect the relatively few high-level members (MPs), constituencies would become so large as to seem to be impractical.
But that is only what it seems.
The Scottish Highlands are singled out as being too large for a MMD. but actually in the UK Parliament election only one person represents the whole Highlands so obviously it is not too large for one person to represent it. So why do people think several members could not represent it successfully?
===============================
Comments