libterm.com The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a proportional representation voting system designed to minimize wasted votes and reflect voter preferences more accurately. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and candidates are elected through a quota system where surplus votes and eliminated candidates' votes are transferred to next preferences. Discover how STV can enhance your understanding of fairer elections by reading the rest of the article.
Table of Comparison
| Feature | Single Transferable Vote (STV) | Closed List |
|---|---|---|
| Voting Method | Voters rank candidates by preference. | Voters select a party; candidate order fixed by party. |
| Representation | Proportional representation with voter choice. | Proportional representation based on party votes. |
| Candidate Selection | Voters influence which candidates get elected. | Party controls candidate ranking and selection. |
| Vote Transfer | Votes transferred based on preferences to achieve quota. | No vote transfer; seats allocated by party list order. |
| Voter Control | High voter control over individual candidates. | Voter control limited to choosing parties only. |
| Complexity | More complex counting process. | Simpler counting and seat allocation. |
| Example Countries | Ireland, Malta, Australia (Senate) | Spain, Portugal, Israel |
Understanding Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a proportional representation electoral system designed to minimize wasted votes and enhance voter choice by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Unlike Closed List systems where parties control candidate ranking, STV empowers voters to affect individual candidate selection within multi-member constituencies. This method promotes diverse representation by redistributing surplus and eliminated candidates' votes until all seats are filled, reflecting a more accurate voter intention.
What Is a Closed List Electoral System?
A Closed List electoral system requires voters to select a party rather than individual candidates, with seats allocated based on the party's total vote share and candidates elected in the order predetermined by the party. This system contrasts with the Single Transferable Vote (STV), where voters rank candidates individually, promoting voter choice and proportional representation. Closed Lists streamline voting but reduce voter influence over candidate selection, concentrating power within party leadership.
Comparative Overview: STV vs Closed List
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system enables voters to rank candidates in order of preference, promoting proportional representation and minimizing wasted votes, while the Closed List system requires voters to select a party list, often resulting in less voter influence over individual candidate selection. STV's emphasis on candidate-level choice enhances electoral accountability and diversity, whereas Closed List systems prioritize party control and simplify ballot structure but may reduce voter empowerment. Comparative studies indicate STV achieves higher proportionality and voter satisfaction in multi-member districts, whereas Closed Lists perform efficiently in larger, centralized party systems.
Representation and Voter Choice
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) enhances representation by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, ensuring proportional outcomes and minimizing wasted votes. Closed list systems restrict voter choice to party-selected candidate lists, limiting individual candidate selection and often leading to less personalized representation. STV empowers voters with greater influence over which specific candidates are elected, improving voter satisfaction and accountability.
Party Control and Candidate Selection
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system allows voters to rank individual candidates, reducing party control by empowering voters to choose preferred representatives directly, which enhances candidate accountability and diversity. In contrast, the Closed List system grants political parties full control over candidate selection and ranking, limiting voter influence to choosing parties rather than individual candidates. This centralization in Closed List systems often consolidates party power but can reduce the representativeness and responsiveness of elected officials to their constituents.
Proportionality of Election Outcomes
Single transferable vote (STV) systems provide high proportionality by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, which minimizes wasted votes and accurately reflects voter intent across diverse electorates. Closed list systems, while straightforward, often reduce proportionality because party-controlled candidate lists can limit voter influence on individual candidates and may result in party dominance without granular voter input. STV enhances proportional representation by ensuring that seats are allocated in closer alignment with actual voter preferences compared to the rigid, party-determined outcomes common in closed list elections.
Voter Engagement and Ballot Complexity
Single transferable vote (STV) enhances voter engagement by allowing individuals to rank candidates in order of preference, giving voters more influence over which candidates get elected. This ranking system increases ballot complexity, as voters must understand how to rank multiple candidates rather than selecting a single party or individual. In contrast, closed list systems simplify ballots by having voters choose a party list, which can reduce voter engagement due to limited choice and less direct input on candidate selection.
Impact on Minority and Independent Candidates
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system enhances representation by allowing minority and independent candidates to gain seats through voter preferences in multimember districts, thereby increasing electoral fairness. In contrast, the Closed List system often limits minority and independent success since party leadership controls candidate rankings, reducing voter influence on individual candidates. As a result, STV typically leads to more diverse legislative bodies that better reflect varied community interests.
Real-World Examples: Countries Using STV and Closed List
Ireland and Malta are prominent examples of countries using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, which allows voters to rank candidates in multi-member constituencies, promoting proportional representation and individual candidate choice. In contrast, countries like Spain and South Africa employ closed list systems where political parties present a fixed order of candidates, and seats are allocated based on party vote share, emphasizing party control over candidate selection. The STV system supports voter influence on individual candidates, while the closed list system centralizes candidate ranking authority within political parties.
Choosing the Right System: Key Considerations
Single transferable vote (STV) offers proportional representation by allowing voters to rank candidates, which increases voter choice and reduces wasted votes. Closed list systems prioritize party control, presenting voters with pre-ordered candidate lists that limit individual candidate selection and emphasize party platforms. Key considerations when choosing between STV and closed list include the desired level of voter influence, party control, and the balance between proportionality and simplicity in the electoral process.
Single transferable vote Infographic
