top of page
Tom Monto

SNTV ensures mixed rep -- no single party takes all of a district's seats

Updated: Oct 30, 2020

Single Non-Transferable Voting, also known as the Japanese system, is blunt but perfectly adequate tool at securing mixed roughly proportional representation at the district level. Its use of large multi-member districts provides basic benefits in itself.



SNTV a form of Limited Voting

SNTV can be thought of as a form of Limited Voting. Limited Voting is where votes casts fewer votes than the number of open seats in multi-member district.


Limited Voting, where voters could cast only two votes in a three-seat district, was first used in Canada back in the 1880s, with beneficial results.


Under SNTV, each voter casts only one vote.


Thus no one party takes all the seats in a district. (And, I believe, parties do not run full slates.)


Mixed representation must result. Not all mixed representation is proportional but all proportional representation is mixed. And as we see below, STV is generally proportional. Even SNTV is proportional, if only in a relative way.


The result of SNTV is the same as the first count in a STV election.


And in STV elections, almost all the front-runners in the first count are ultimately elected. So SNTV and STV elections in the same circumstance would produce very similar results.


STV was used to elect MLAs in Edmonton and Calgary from 1924 to 1955. The first count in these STV elections - before any transfers were made - always included a mixed crop of front-runners, of three or four parties.


One or two in each election already had quota on the first count and were declared elected. 


The rest of the front-runners were basically the same as the candidates who were elected after the end of the vote transfers caused by the elimination of the least popular candidates


A couple times no change was made through vote transfers. 


Usually one or two were ultimately not elected - others less-initially-popular rose up due to wider acceptability to pass the narrowly-popular front-runners. 


On two different occasions, three of the first count front-runners were not elected, but these were unusual cases. (These changes seldom resulted from the election of candidates of new parties not previously represented among the front runners. Most of the changes were the replacements of a candidate of a party by a different candidate of the same party.)


But the lack of change made by vote transfers did not impact the fairness of the election. The front-runners were a mixed crop. Already the casting of single votes in multi-member district meant that no one party could take all the seats in the district.


Each STV district used in Alberta covered a whole city - Edmonton or Calgary, and one time Medicine Hat.


A clean sweep of a city's seats was a common occurrence under Block Voting when used in a whole city.


When FPTP elections in single-member city districts is used to determine a city's representative, often one party takes all the seats.


But no one party takes all the city seats where one multi-member STV or SNTV district covers a city, a city that is no longer divided into single-member seats and where no longer are winners decided by FPTP.


STV and SNTV ensures:

Party with majority of the votes, if any, takes majority of the seats in the district. (An odd number of seats in the district makes this easier.)


The most popular party (even without a majority) takes more seats than the second-most-popular party - or at least no party takes more seats than the most popular party. (If a multi-member district has only a few members such as four members, sometimes two leading parties both take two seats each.)


Every substantial party in the district takes at least one seat. Substantial meaning having at least one quota (whatever that works out to be based on district vote and the seat count) or having the popularity to have a candidate hang on to the end when seats are filled by the last remaining candidates even if their vote counts are the equivalent of only partial quotas.


Benefits of multi-member districts

As well, there are basic benefits of having multi-member districts, no matter what kind of electoral system is used - although pro-rep system (STV or SNTV are of course best.


Benefits of multi-member districts: Multi-member districts (using whatever system) all naturally encourage each party to run a range of candidates to appeal to as many voters as possible.  Multi-member districts nurture the nomination of a variety of candidates. A range of candidates then encourages voters to get out and vote.  And of course leads to a multi-faceted legislature, if the electoral system is at all fair. Large multi-member districts discourage gerrymandering. There are less boundaries to draw and less ability to divide voting blocks. As well, with voters in each district somewhat proportionally represented, the benefit to be gained from gerrymandering is lessened. The weakening of gerrymandering just by simple multi-member districts is further extended by the fact that multi-member districts can use natural geographies to form districts, which is not easy with small FPTP districts. When STV was used to elect MLAs in Alberta, the MLAs in Edmonton and Calgary were elected in city-wide districts. There is no opportunity for gerrymandering when a natural thing like the city limits are used for the boundary of a provincial electoral district. Other possible natural lines for rural multi-member districts are county boundaries or watersheds (as I theorize on in one of my other blogs).


Or even federal ridings can be used as base of multi-member provincial district. - that is, until we have multi-member districts at the federal level !!! So district-level pro-rep does not provide exact proportional representation at the overall level but does provide mixed roughly proportional representation at the district level.


if every place in a province is covered by multi-member districts, and the size of the districts are very equal in size, the overall effect should be very proportional, at least as to the middle to large parties. There would not be much direct representation of the smallest parties, possibly not even in any district, but under STV the votes received by the candidates of the smallest parties would be transferred to assist the election of candidates of a different party favoured as second or lower preference by that party's supporters. SNTV does not allow the transfers. Many votes would be wasted under SNTV. But perhaps not more than the 40 to 60 percent figure wasted in each district under FPTP.

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

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

3 views

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page