Single Transferable Voting (STV) is a voter-driven, candidate-based system of proportional representation at the district level. Each voter casts a single vote, and candidates run in multi-member districts. The combination of Single Voting and multi-member district alone ensures mixed roughly proportional representation in the district. But STV has another refinement as well - each voter marks his or her first preference and also marks back-up preferences. A back-up is considered only if the first-preference candidate cannot be elected or if the candidate is elected. If the first-preference candidate is elected, un-needed "surplus" votes that would otherwise be wasted are transferred out. STV is district-based, not overall proportional. But if enough districts use STV, the elected legislature can be quite proportional. Because STV uses transferable votes, votes can move from candidate to candidate and thus may cross party lines, so the final result sometimes does not exactly mirror the initial party tallies. Sometimes the vote transfers change the parties' standings in the First Count, and sometimes they do not change them at all.
The final results, whether changed or unchanged compared to the First Count, do mirror the sentiment of the voters. Under STV, most of those elected in each district are elected because they are the second choice of more voters than their competitors. Many are happy enough, if their first choice cannot be elected, to see their second choice elected to represent the constituency versus a different candidate. The fact that STV is district-based means it can be adopted in just the cities, or even just in one city where voters are in favour of it. After it proves itself there, it can be extended to other districts. Unlike an overall electoral system, you can bring it in without needing to impose STV in places where there is strong opposition or in places where the sparse amount of population would make a multi-member district too large geographically to be practicable. STV is produced simply by three things: 1. forming multi-member districts, usually be grouping several single-member districts. Say 7 seats in a large city would be combined to make one "grouped district." 2. each voter can cast only one vote. 3. voters are instructed in how to mark the ranked ballots. (And of course election officials would have to learn about how to deal with any vote transfers that might be necessary). A U.S. city was the first to use STV in North America. Ashtabula, Ohio had that honour in 1915. A scant couple years later Calgary adopted it for its city elections. And five years later 19 Canadian cities (and many U.S. cities) were using it in city elections. And by 1926 the provincial legislators in four cities, in two separate provinces, were elected through STV. STV was first brought in at the city level in cities in all four western provinces before it was used in provincial elections in two of those provinces. Those were Alberta and Manitoba, to elect MLAs to represent the cities of Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat. Twenty Western Canadian cities and other municipalities used STV in more than 150 elections, stretching from 1917 to 1971. Calgary was the first city in Canada to adopt STV, in 1917. And the last city-level STV election was held in that city in 1971. Actually this was the last STV election held to elect government representatives anywhere in Canada. By 1931, STV had been voted out in almost every city where it was brought to a vote. After 1931 only two cities - Winnipeg and Calgary - and four smaller places - St. James and three other Manitoba municipalities - continued to use STV. They all continued to use it until 1971. In Calgary's case it moved to Alternative Voting (RCV) in 1962, then returned to STV for one final STV election in 1971. No city (or province) has used STV since 1971. Ranked ballots were not seen since that time until London, Ontario used Alternative Voting to elect the mayor and city councillors (electing single members in each ward using ranked ballots) in its 2018 civic election. There were no serious problems technically with using STV in the old days. And that was in a time before calculators or computers.
But STV does not give you immediate complete results in one night as under FPTP. But to wait for correct results is better than having sloppy results immediately on election night, many say.
Then why was it rejected? STV was rejected by some because it was a little more work (or a different kind of work) than FPTP. In some cases, local politics had not been so bad before the adoption of STV that the change it made was not noticeably worth the extra work. (There is little fear of not noticing the change in today's polarized climate!) Another cause was the deposed "powers that be" objected to the fairer way of things. Party machines were stripped of much of their power under STV. Another reason was simply not wanting to stand out as different. Ashtabula dropped STV after just a few years because it felt uncomfortable under the microscope of political analysts and social scientists. Alberta dropped its provincial-level STV after it became the last province in Canada to still use it. Some rejected it because it did its job. STV produces fairer results. In U.S. cities where it was used, workers, blacks, Communists, Democrats, Republicans, business men and women got their fair due of seats. This fairness toward the smaller groups went against the sentiment of enough of the most powerful that the system was thrown out eventually in most of the cities that used it. Cambridge, Mass. still uses it after many decades. The difference from STV to FPTP can be stark. This was seen when Alberta dropped its provincial-level STV in 1956.
In the previous election, in 1955, Edmonton and Calgary elected a mixed roughly-proportional representation in each city. Each city elected MLAs of three different parties reflecting the mixed sentiment among the city's voters.
But in 1959 after each city had been divided into many single-member districts and FPTP brought into use, all the cities' seats, except one in Calgary, were taken by a single party, the government party.
=====================================================
If that is not enough info, here's another of my blogs on the subject. ------------------------ STV - What it is and how to make it happen now! Single Transferable Voting explained in Alberta context Single Transferable Voting is put forward by many as a replacement for our present electoral system. STV uses multi-member districts where each voter casts only one vote. This produces mixed representation in each district where it is used, with each party receiving about as many seats as its vote tallies warrants and no one party taking all the seats in a district. As well, voters mark their ranked preferences for individual candidates so the most popular of a party's candidates take any seats a party is due. This was how it consistently operated in the 46 Calgary city elections it was used between 1917 and 1971. STV was also used by 19 other Western Canadian cities, including the capital cities of all the western provinces. It was used in eight provincial elections to elect Calgary and Edmonton MLAs between 1926 and 1955 and to elect Winnipeg MLAs in 9 elections. STV, a district-level electoral system, is voter-driven and candidate-based. It is credited with ensuring that every substantial group within a city/district has at least one seat, that no party receives much more than its vote tally; that in each substantial party the candidates most popular among voters are elected; that to win a majority of seats a party must have a majority of votes. These things are not produced consistently under FPTP. The multi-member districts required by STV can be easily created by grouping all the electoral districts of a city, for example. The number of seats in each city-district will vary depending on the size of the city. Under our present First Past The Post elections, only one representative is elected in each district and all the votes cast for other candidates are ignored. These wasted votes sometimes exceed two-thirds of the votes cast. To prevent waste of votes, votes under STV are transferable so when placed on less-popular candidate they are transferred when possible to help decide winners. As well, surplus votes received by those elected are transferred to other candidates based on back-up preferences marked by voters. In a five-member district, surplus votes would be those over and above about one-fifth or one-sixth of the votes. The Single Voting and the vote transfers ensure that 75 to 90 percent of voters participate in determining winners under STV. Under STV, more than one representative is elected in a district, and a variety of sentiments reflecting the variety of voters' sentiments are represented by those elected. All the balanced representatives elected in districts across a province or the country will combine to create a proportional legislature or House of Commons. But extreme candidates and small extreme parties do not get a windfall of seats under STV. No party gets much more seats than its vote tally indicates. A small party may get a seat or two that it would not have received under FPTP. But without a majority of the votes it will not take a majority of seats. And the other parties with a combined majority of votes and seats may join together to pass laws approved by a majority of voters. Under FPTP, the leading minority party usually receives a windfall of seats and a majority of seats, thus creating minority rule. To bring STV into use in any part of a province or the country is as simple as grouping some of our existing districts together to make one multi-member district. This can be done by simply saying that all the districts in a city will be grouped to make one district and then giving the new city-wide district the same number of seats that the old districts had. Or counties or other already-existing territories could be used as base for the new large districts. Elections in that district would use transferable votes, so a change of look to the ballots and instruction of the voters would be necessary. A voter would mark numbers, as many or as few as they want, instead of an X, but know that only one of his or her choices could be used to elect someone. The vote count at the polling places would be exactly the same as under the present system except that the number 1s, not the Xs, is the only thing counted. Election officials at the district office would be trained to deal with any vote transfers that may be needed. All of this was done before so it is not mysterious. And the result is mixed representation from each district, with each party receiving a number of seats relative to its popularity, as demonstrated by first choice or a combination of first choices and transferred votes. A variety of representatives being sent from each city to the legislature and to the House, and a mixture of representatives being sent from each province to the House would deflate regionalism and generally prevent a province or part of a province being left out of a government caucus. Voters would have a wider range of candidates to choose from, being able to choose among a variety of parties and a choice of candidates of individual parties. And voters would have liberty to do this, because if the vote is initially cast for an unpopular candidate, it could be transferred to another where it might be useful, if the voter has indicated his or her desire for that to happen. Voters would not be prevented as much by district boundaries from voting with their neighbours or for their neighbour. STV results in a large percentage of votes being used to help elect the candidates, with a minimum wastage of votes. This produces higher voter turn-out and generally more voter satisfaction. ======================================
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:
* 100th Anniversary of United Farmers of Alberta party being elected on promise to bring in electoral reform, a promise fulfilled three years later.
* 50th Anniversary of election of Lougheed's Progressive-Conservatives. With only 46 percent of the vote they took more than 60 percent of the seats. NDP received 11 percent of the vote but elected just one (Grant Notley), instead of the nine MLAs it was due.
Again thanks for reading.
====================================
Comentários