FPTP and STV both operate at the district level. That is pretty much their only similarity.
One uses single-member districts; the other multi-member districts.
One uses "X" voting; the other uses transferable ranked ballots.
One elects representation that may or may not represent a majority of the votes, with usually 40 to 66 percent of the votes totally ignored; the other ensures that a large majority of the votes will be represented in the elected representation, that only 10 to 20 percent of the votes will be ignored.
One elects representation that is winner take all; the other produces proportional representation with all substantial groups in a district electing some representation, where a party with a majority of the votes elects a majority of the seats in a district (usually); where parties with more votes receive more seats than parties with fewer votes.
The governments elected under these two different systems are likely to be very different. Under both systems, the representation elected in the districts come together in the legislature. But usually with different degrees of democratic representation.
Under First Past the Post (FPTP), we generally have minority rule. Under FPTP, a party with a minority of the votes took a majority of the seats in the House of Commons in almost half the elections since Confederation. This happened in 20 elections since 1867. In 16 elections no one party took a majority of the seats (minority governments). There have only been six majority federal governments elected with majority of the votes since Confederation.
Under FPTP, a party with a plurality - but only a minority of the votes - in a majority of the districts can take majority government.
In the example of a legislature with 90 seats, a party with a plurality in 46 districts, say with 40 percent of the votes in each of those districts, could take majority government. That means 21 percent of the overall vote (40 percent of 51 percent) could take majority government.
The difference under STV is that for a party to have a majority of the seats it must have a majority of the votes in a majority of the districts. Because there are fewer districts under STV than FPTP, the degree of minority rule is different.
Under STV, it would be all but impossible for a party to win majority rule without having a good level of support in almost every district in the land, and very good support in more than half the districts.
If that same legislature as in the example above was elected under STV, say with 5-member districts, there would be 18 districts. To take a majority (46) of the seats in the legislature a party might take a majority of the seats (3 seats) in 15 districts with say 60 percent of the votes in each district, that means 50 percent of the overall vote (60 percent of 83 percent). This would give the party 45 seats so the party needs another seat to have majority in the legislature. This one more seat would be produced by the party getting quota (16 percent of the vote) in an additional district, which is about one percent of the overall vote (the overall vote divided by (18 times 6)).
Thus under STV for a party to get a majority government, where it takes a majority of seats in some districts and no seat at all elsewhere, it would need to get at least a majority of the vote, about 51 percent.
But it is more likely that a party will take just one seat in a few, two in others, three in some and none in one or two districts. (It is not likely that a party will win four or five seats in a five-seat district - that would require the local candidate getting at least 64 percent of the vote in the district. Rachel Notley does get that kind of support in her home district - Old Strathcona. But elsewhere and historically, that level of support was only produced by strategic voting and low turn-out, both of which would be scuttled by the natural liberty accorded voters under STV.)
With the small number of districts we are using in the example - only 18, a party would seem to have to have some representation in almost every district to achieve a majority government.
A party might take one seat in 1 district, two seats in 3 districts, three seats in 13 districts. And no seats in one district. That would give it a majority of the 90 seats in the hypothetical legislature, 46 seats. With this spread of popularity, the party would have to have 1 p.c. plus 6 p.c. plus 39 p.c. of the overall vote so a total of 46 percent of the overall vote.
-----------------------------------------------
Note: every district has 6 percent of the vote. Each quota (Droop quota) is 1/6th of that or about one percent of the overall vote. That is assuming each district has pretty much the same number of voters.
-----------------------------------------------
The minimum portion of votes needed to win majority government under STV - 46 to 51 percent - is much larger than the minimum required to win majority government under FPTP - 21 percent.
Under STV, it takes a majority of voters (or just about) to elect a majority of the legislators. Under FPTP, it takes - and usually is - a party with a minority of the vote that forms majority government. At least that was the case in almost half of Canada's federal governments since Confederation.
STV may produce more minority governments than FPTP, but that does not mean lack of democratic representation. Instead, alliances between parties will ensure that a majority of the voters or close to it are represented by the political parties that will hold a majority of the seats in the legislature.
Put another way, under STV a majority of the voters will elect a majority of the seats. In some elections, no single party takes a majority of the seats, so sometimes this majority of legislators encompasses politicians of more than one party.
Where no one party takes a majority of seats, to make a working majority in the legislature, parties representing a majority of the votes will have to combine their forces, informally or formally in a coalition - that makes it majority rule.
But where a party has a majority of the votes, it should be given a majority of seats and all the power. Although strong minority representation under PR would soften government's desire or ability to do bad things to minority groups.
As John D. Hunt, Alberta's most important pro-rep campaigner of the 1920s used to say, "to the majority should go power but to minorities should go representation." And right now with FPTP, "minorities" in each district - all the voters who do not vote for the winner - do not get any representation.
When actually in many cases - perhaps up to a third of the districts in elections in Canada today - that "minority" is actually a majority of the voters in the district. And their votes are disregarded and their sentiments un-represented in the elected representation.
Thanks for reading.
========================================
Comments