Voting system is the way to exercise option in choosing our representative or policy referendum. It enforces rules for voting and how they are counted and final results are declared following such rules set in the process. There are basically three families of Voting System: Proportional Representation, Majoritarian and Mixed system. All the voting systems within a particular family tend to produce the same kind of political results and tend to resemble each other in terms of their general political advantages and disadvantages. The main political differences are therefore between the families, not within them.
Voting systems by type
Voting systems by type
| Majoritarian systems | Proportional Representation | Mixed systems/Semipropotional system |
| Systems, like FPTP, that tend to be simple but are highly disproportional. | More representative as seats are distributed according to vote share. | Combines the features of majoritarian-style systems and Proportional Representation. |
| FPTP | Party List PR | Additional Member system |
| Block Vote | Single Transferable Vote | |
| Borda Vote | ||
| Alternate Vote | ||
| Limited Vote | ||
| Supplimentary Vote | ||
| Two round system |
Majoritarian systems: This system is undoubtedly most simple and most popular than other two families. These systems all require the winning candidate to garner either a plurality or a majority of the votes.
A. First past the post (FPTP): Also known as ‘Winner-Takes-All’, this system is easy to understand and results of election can be determined quickly. In this voting takes place in single-member constituencies. Voters put a cross in a box next to their favoured candidate and the candidate with the most votes in the constituency wins. All other votes count for nothing.
First Past The Post used to be more widespread, but many countries that used to use it have adopted other systems.
Pros and cons of First Past The Post
A. First past the post (FPTP): Also known as ‘Winner-Takes-All’, this system is easy to understand and results of election can be determined quickly. In this voting takes place in single-member constituencies. Voters put a cross in a box next to their favoured candidate and the candidate with the most votes in the constituency wins. All other votes count for nothing.
First Past The Post used to be more widespread, but many countries that used to use it have adopted other systems.
Pros and cons of First Past The Post
| The case for | The arguments against |
| Simple and Easy to understand ,doesn't cost much to administer and doesn't alienate people who can't count. | Representatives can get elected on tiny amounts of public support as it does not matter by how much they win, only that they get more votes than other candidates. This tend to have appeasement policy toward one/other group to pacify them. |
| Don’t take Much time in counting | It encourages tactical voting, as voters vote not for the candidate they most prefer, but against the candidate they most dislike. Psychology of this can be understood by the fact that most people want to be on winning side and voting to their favoured candidate will waste their vote. |
| Voter can clearly express view on which party’s policy to be they associated with. | FPTP wastes huge number of votes as votes of losing candidates counts for nothing. |
| Tends to produce two party system in longer run which in turn tends to produce single party Government which don’t need support of other parties and this may give result to dictatorship of majority party. | FPTP severely restricts voter choice. Parties are coalitions of many different viewpoints. If the preferred-party candidate in a constituency has views with which many don't agree, they don't have a means of saying so at the ballot box. |
| It encourages 'broad-church' centrist policies. | Rather than allocating seats in line with actual support, FPTP rewards parties with 'lumpy' support, i.e. with just enough votes to win in each particular area. |
| There is gerrymandering i.e Boundaries of constituency deliberately designed such that unfairly increase the number of seats won by one party at the expense of another. | |
| It tends to lead proliferation of safe seats in small constituency. | |
| If large area for a party is electoral deserts than that party tends to ignore that and focus mainly in their stronghold. Also if a leader from that party is from electoral desert he have to move away from homeland to have say in party. | |
| Because FPTP restricts a constituency's choice of candidates, representation of minorities and women suffers from 'most broadly acceptable candidate syndrome', where the 'safest' looking candidate is the most likely to be offered a chance to stand for election. | |
| Encouraging two-party politics can be an advantage, but in a multi-party culture, third parties with significant support can be greatly disadvantaged. |
Alternate Vote (AV)
AV is not proportional representation and in certain electoral conditions, such as landslides, can produce a more disproportional result than First Past the Post (FPTP) - See more at:
How does the Alternative Vote work?
The AV system asks voters to rank candidates in order of preference. People can nominate as many preferences as they like. Only first preference votes are counted initially. Anyone getting more than 50% of these is elected automatically. If that doesn't happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates in a second round of counting. If one candidate then has more than 50% of the votes in this round they are elected. If not, the remaining candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second preferences (or third preferences if they were the second choice of someone who voted for the first candidate to be eliminated) reallocated. This continues until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote in that round of counting, or there are no more votes to be distributed.
In a UK-wide referendum in 2011 the British public were asked if they wanted to replace First Past the Post (FPTP) with the Alternative Voting system for electing members of parliament. The referendum produced a definitive no vote against AV.
Pros and cons of the Alternative Vote
AV is not proportional representation and in certain electoral conditions, such as landslides, can produce a more disproportional result than First Past the Post (FPTP) - See more at:
How does the Alternative Vote work?
The AV system asks voters to rank candidates in order of preference. People can nominate as many preferences as they like. Only first preference votes are counted initially. Anyone getting more than 50% of these is elected automatically. If that doesn't happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates in a second round of counting. If one candidate then has more than 50% of the votes in this round they are elected. If not, the remaining candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second preferences (or third preferences if they were the second choice of someone who voted for the first candidate to be eliminated) reallocated. This continues until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote in that round of counting, or there are no more votes to be distributed.
In a UK-wide referendum in 2011 the British public were asked if they wanted to replace First Past the Post (FPTP) with the Alternative Voting system for electing members of parliament. The referendum produced a definitive no vote against AV.
Pros and cons of the Alternative Vote
| The case for AV | The arguments against |
| All MPs would have the support of a majority of their voters. Following the 2010 General Election, two thirds of the MPs elected lacked majority support, the highest figure in British political history. | AV is not proportional representation and in certain electoral conditions, such as landslides, can produce a more disproportional result than First Past the Post (FPTP) |
| It retains the same constituencies, meaning no need to redraw boundaries, and no overt erosion of the constituency-MP link. | In close three-way races the “compromise” candidate could be defeated in the first round even though they may be more broadly acceptable to the electorate than the top two candidates. |
| It penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes. | Lower preferences can potentially throw up a “lowest common denominator” winner without much positive support of their own. |
| It encourages candidates to chase second- and third-preferences, which lessens the need for negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad-church policies. | A voting system that allows voters to rank candidates is prone to so-called 'Donkey voting', where voters vote for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot. |
| It reduces the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote. | |
| It reduces the number of “safe seats” where the election result is a forgone conclusion. |
Block Vote
Block Vote, also known as Multiple Non-Transferable Vote
Where is Block Vote used?
Block Vote, also known as Multiple Non-Transferable Vote
Where is Block Vote used?
- London borough elections.
- Some county, Welsh unitary, English unitary and most English shire district authority elections.
- Local elections in Hungary and Slovenia.
- Polish local and senatorial elections
- Slovakian local and regional elections.
- National assembly elections in Lebanon and Mauritius,
- Senatorial elections in the Philippines.
How does Block Vote work?
The Block Vote is a voting system used in multi-member constituencies where voters can elect more than one representative in each constituency.
Voters can cast as many votes as there are available seats and the candidates with the most votes win, even if they have not managed to secure a majority of the votes.
Pros and Cons of the Block Vote
The Block Vote is a voting system used in multi-member constituencies where voters can elect more than one representative in each constituency.
Voters can cast as many votes as there are available seats and the candidates with the most votes win, even if they have not managed to secure a majority of the votes.
Pros and Cons of the Block Vote
| The case for | The arguments against |
| It is relatively simple for voters to understand. | It is very disproportional and enables the strongest party with a comfortable or narrow majority to take all the seats in the constituency |
| It encourages strong party organisation. | It encourages tactical voting. In order to avoid wasting votes on candidates who are certain to either win or lose, electors have an incentive to vote for candidates who have a realistic but not definite chance of winning. |
Borda Count
Where is Borda Count used?
Where is Borda Count used?
- Used for the election of two ethnic-minority members of the National Assembly of Slovenia.
- The Parliament of Nauru.
- Presidential elections in Kiribati.
- Various private organisations and awards, such as the NBA's Most Valuable Player award and the Eurovision Song Contest.
How does Borda Count work?
The Borda Count is a form of preferential voting in single member constituencies where voters rank candidates in order of preference and the rankings are converted into points.
Candidates score one point for being ranked last, two for being next-to-last and so on. The candidate who receives the most points is declared the winner.
The Pros and cons of Borda Count
The Borda Count is a form of preferential voting in single member constituencies where voters rank candidates in order of preference and the rankings are converted into points.
Candidates score one point for being ranked last, two for being next-to-last and so on. The candidate who receives the most points is declared the winner.
The Pros and cons of Borda Count
| The case for | The arguments against |
| The Borda Count shares the advantages of other preferential voting systems such as the Alternative Vote and the Single Transferable Vote, in that all MPs would have the support of a majority of their voters. | It encourages a strategic approach by parties to nominations. An extra candidate increases the cardinal number of points in the system and alters the relativities between other candidates. A minority faction, by standing more candidates, can increase its chances of prevailing over a majority. |
| It tends to elect broadly acceptable candidates, rather than those supported by the majority. | It encourages tactical voting to an even greater extent than First Past the Post as in Borda Counts your expression of lower preferences can harm your first choice. |
The Limited Vote
Where is the Limted Vote used?
Where is the Limted Vote used?
- The Spanish Senate.
- Gibraltar's House of Assembly, where electors have eight votes for the 15 seats.
- Various local-level elections, such as those for municipal offices in some US States.
The Limited Vote is a voting system used in multi-member constituencies.
Voters have more than one vote, but less votes than the number of seats to be filled. The candidates with the most votes get elected.
Under a variant of Limited Vote called the Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV), voters cast just one vote in multi-member constituencies and seats go to the candidates with the most votes.
Pros and cons of the Limted Vote
Voters have more than one vote, but less votes than the number of seats to be filled. The candidates with the most votes get elected.
Under a variant of Limited Vote called the Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV), voters cast just one vote in multi-member constituencies and seats go to the candidates with the most votes.
Pros and cons of the Limted Vote
| The case for | The arguments against |
| It is relatively simple for voters to understand. | The Limited Vote leads to disproportional outcomes. The more votes an elector has, the more disproportional the result will be and the harder it is for smaller parties or minority candidates to gain representation. |
| It encourages strong party organisation. |
Supplementary Vote
How does the Supplementary Vote work?
The Supplementary Vote (SV) is a shortened version of the Alternative Vote (AV). Under SV, there are two columns on the ballot paper – one for voters to mark their first choice and one in which to mark a second choice. Voters mark one 'X' in each column, although voters are not required to make a second choice if they do not wish to.
All the first choices are then counted, and if a candidate has a majority, they are elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the top two candidates continue to a second round and all other candidates are eliminated. The second-choice votes of everyone whose first choice has been eliminated are then counted.
Any votes for the remaining candidates are then added to their first-round totals. Whichever candidate has the most votes after these second-preferences have been allocated is declared the winner.
Where is SV used?
The Supplementary Vote (SV) is a shortened version of the Alternative Vote (AV). Under SV, there are two columns on the ballot paper – one for voters to mark their first choice and one in which to mark a second choice. Voters mark one 'X' in each column, although voters are not required to make a second choice if they do not wish to.
All the first choices are then counted, and if a candidate has a majority, they are elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the top two candidates continue to a second round and all other candidates are eliminated. The second-choice votes of everyone whose first choice has been eliminated are then counted.
Any votes for the remaining candidates are then added to their first-round totals. Whichever candidate has the most votes after these second-preferences have been allocated is declared the winner.
Where is SV used?
All directly elected English mayors, most notably the Mayor of London.
Police and Crime Commisioners in England and Wales
Pros and cons of the Supplementary Vote
| The case for | The arguments against |
| To some extent, SV encourages conciliatory campaigning, as gaining second-preference votes is important. | Unlike the Alternative Vote, SV does not ensure that the winning candidate has the support of at least 50% of the electorate. |
| It is a relatively simple system to understand. | SV strongly promotes voting for only candidates from the main three parties. |
| If there are more than two strong candidates, voters must guess which two will make the final round, and if they guess incorrectly, their second-preference vote will be wasted. In such circumstances it may even be possible for voters to defeat their preferred candidate | |
| The system can lead to a lot of wasted votes as many of the votes cast in the first round end up not transferring and being counted in the second round | |
| SV does not eliminate the likelihood of tactical voting. |
Two-Round System
Two-Round System (TRS), also known as Run-off Voting
Where is TRS used?
Two-Round System (TRS), also known as Run-off Voting
Where is TRS used?
- French legislative, presidential and cantonal elections.
- The Heads of State in a number of European countries.
The Two-Round System is similar to the Alternative Vote (AV). Voters mark their preferred candidate with an “X”, if the candidate wins a certain level of support (usually 50 percent of the vote) they are elected.
If no one wins 50 percent of the vote, all candidates except the top two are excluded and voters are asked to vote a second time, usually two or three weeks later. In the second round, the candidate who wins the most votes is elected.
Pros and Cons of the Two-Round System
If no one wins 50 percent of the vote, all candidates except the top two are excluded and voters are asked to vote a second time, usually two or three weeks later. In the second round, the candidate who wins the most votes is elected.
Pros and Cons of the Two-Round System
| The case for | The arguments against |
| It is slightly more representative than First Past the Post (FPTP) and can be of benefit to smaller parties. | It has similar disadvantages to First Past the Post (FPTP) and is less sophisticated than theAlternative Vote (AV). |
| It is often said that in the first-round you vote with your heart, and in the second you vote with your head. Hence there is less need to vote tactically in the first-round. | It is highly disproportional and favours large parties. |
| Second-round bartering encourages parties to remain friendly with each other (although this tends to be true only within broad party “blocs”). | The voting process is drawn out over a period of two or three weeks and possibly longer. |
| It is easy for voters to understand and is simple to count. | Unlike AV, the first-round encourages a certain amount of tactical voting because of risk of the compromise choice not reaching second-round. |
| If no compromise candidate reaches the second-round, it can lead to surprising outcomes: Jean-Marie Le Pen of the French National Front qualified for the second-round in the French Presidential election in 2002 to the horror of many observers. This ultimately gave Jacques Chirac one of the biggest electoral landslides in French history. |
Additional Member System
Additional Member System (AMS), also known as Mixed Member Proportional
Where is AMS used?
The Scottish Parliament
The Welsh Assembly
The Greater London Assembly
The German Bundestag
New Zealand's House of Representatives
Mexico's Cámara de Diputados (lower house)
Bolivia's Cámara de Diputados (lower house)
Lesotho's National Assembly (lower house)
How does the Additional Member System work?
AMS is a hybrid voting system. It combines elements of First Past the Post where voters mark an X next to the candidate they want to represent them in their constituency, and proportional representation, where voters select from a list of candidates for each party who represent a larger regional constituency. This helps to overcome the disproportionally often associated with First Past the Post elections.
Under AMS, each voter typically gets two votes – one for a candidate and one for a party.
Each constituency returns a single candidate, in the style of First Past the Post. The votes for the party list candidates are then allocated on top of these constituency seats to ‘top up’ the number of seats won by each party to represent their share of the votes proportionally. These are the “additional members”.
Pros and cons of the Additional Member System
Additional Member System (AMS), also known as Mixed Member Proportional
Where is AMS used?
The Scottish Parliament
The Welsh Assembly
The Greater London Assembly
The German Bundestag
New Zealand's House of Representatives
Mexico's Cámara de Diputados (lower house)
Bolivia's Cámara de Diputados (lower house)
Lesotho's National Assembly (lower house)
How does the Additional Member System work?
AMS is a hybrid voting system. It combines elements of First Past the Post where voters mark an X next to the candidate they want to represent them in their constituency, and proportional representation, where voters select from a list of candidates for each party who represent a larger regional constituency. This helps to overcome the disproportionally often associated with First Past the Post elections.
Under AMS, each voter typically gets two votes – one for a candidate and one for a party.
Each constituency returns a single candidate, in the style of First Past the Post. The votes for the party list candidates are then allocated on top of these constituency seats to ‘top up’ the number of seats won by each party to represent their share of the votes proportionally. These are the “additional members”.
Pros and cons of the Additional Member System
| The case for | The arguments against |
| It is broadly proportional. | Many representatives are accountable to the party leadership rather than the voters. |
| Each voter has a directly accountable single constituency representative. | Having two different types of representative creates animosity between them. In Wales and Scotland, for example, AMs and MSPs elected via the regional lists have been seen as having 'got in via the backdoor' or as 'assisted place' or 'second class' members. |
| Every voter has at least one effective vote. | AMS sometimes gives rise to 'overhang' seats, where a party wins more seats via the constituency vote than it is entitled to according to their proportional vote. In Germany and New Zealand, but not in the UK, extra seats are allocated to the other parties to redress the balance. This can get complicated and lead to further bickering and animosity. |
| It allows a voter to express personal support for a candidate, without having to worry about going against their party. | It can be complicated, with people getting confused over exactly what they're supposed to do with their two votes. |
Alternative Vote Plus
Where is AV+ used?
AV+ has yet to be put into practice anywhere in the world.
How does the Alternative Vote Plus work?
The Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) uses the Alternative Vote (in which voters rank candidates in order of preference) to elect a candidate in each constituency, and then uses a small top-up list to make the overall result more proportional.
Voters can either select their favourite party or choose their favourite candidate from the top-up list and the votes are then allocated to represent each party’s share of the votes proportionally
Where is AV+ used?
AV+ has yet to be put into practice anywhere in the world.
How does the Alternative Vote Plus work?
The Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) uses the Alternative Vote (in which voters rank candidates in order of preference) to elect a candidate in each constituency, and then uses a small top-up list to make the overall result more proportional.
Voters can either select their favourite party or choose their favourite candidate from the top-up list and the votes are then allocated to represent each party’s share of the votes proportionally
Pros and cons of the Alternative Vote Plus
| The case for AV+ | The arguments against |
| Elected MPs would have the support of a majority of their local electorates. | All existing constituency boundaries would have to be redrawn. |
| Being able to rank candidates increases voter choice, as does having both a constituency vote and a regional vote. | Ballot papers would be more complicated thanFirst Past The Post ones. |
| Nearly every elector would have at least one vote that would have an effect on the overall election result. | It creates two classes of representative, which could create animosity between them and a confusion of roles. |
| Parties would have an incentive to campaign across the whole country, and not just in the marginals. | |
| The final result will be fairer, with parties having a share of MPs based on their support among the electorate, rather than on electoral arithmetic and geographical oddities. | |
| AV+ will produce majority governments when the voters express a desire for one, but will force them to work together when the electorate choose not to give any one party a clear majority. | |
| Tactical voting would no longer be necessary. |
Party LIST
How does Party List-PR work?
There are two different types of Party List-PR, Closed List and Open List.
In both cases parties present lists of candidates and seats are awarded according to their party’s share of the vote. This is usually done using an electoral formula or a quota which prevents too many small parties from winning seats.
Where is Party List PR used?
British elections to the European Parliament (excluding Northern Ireland)
How does Party List-PR work?
There are two different types of Party List-PR, Closed List and Open List.
In both cases parties present lists of candidates and seats are awarded according to their party’s share of the vote. This is usually done using an electoral formula or a quota which prevents too many small parties from winning seats.
Where is Party List PR used?
British elections to the European Parliament (excluding Northern Ireland)
- Israel's Parliament, the Knesset
- The Netherlands' Second Chamber.
Open List: Voters choose individual candidates from the list provided by each party and individual candidates are elected according to the popular vote.
Closed List: Voters vote for the party and therefore the list as a whole. Candidates are elected in the order they appear on the list (as decided by the party) until all the seats have been filled.
Semi-open lists: This gives voters some influence over who is elected, but most of the candidates will be elected in list order.
Pros and cons of Party List PR
Closed List: Voters vote for the party and therefore the list as a whole. Candidates are elected in the order they appear on the list (as decided by the party) until all the seats have been filled.
Semi-open lists: This gives voters some influence over who is elected, but most of the candidates will be elected in list order.
Pros and cons of Party List PR
| The case for | The arguments against |
| Party-list systems guarantee a high degree of party proportionality. | Closed party lists are completely impersonal, weakening any link between the representative and a regional area. |
| Every vote has equal value. | Closed party lists offer very little in the way of voter choice: all the power, save that of choosing a party for government, resides with the party leaders. |
| It couldn't be simpler: voters have to make one choice out of a small selection. | As candidates are selected by the party leaders, they are likely to put 'safe' candidates near the top of the list, at the expense of traditionally under-represented groups. |
| List systems tend to involve large multi-member constituencies, which give more opportunities for women and minority groups to gain representation. | Also with Closed party lists parties can stifle independent and minority opinion within their ranks. As all the power over who gets seats lies with the party machine, so too does the power to voice opinions. |
| Open lists offer voters more choice and control over who is elected | Part lists discriminate against those not willing to be part of the party structure, and it is impossible to stand as an independent candidate |
| Closed lists are more amenable to measures that can increase the representation of women, such as gender quotas. | Highly proportional systems with minimal thresholds can result in a fragmented parliament, and produce unstable, multi-party governments. |
Single Transferable Vote
Where is STV used?
Where is STV used?
- All elections in the Republic of Ireland, except elections for the presidency and by-elections which are both conducted using the Alternative Vote.
- Assembly, European and local government elections in Northern Ireland.
- Local elections in Scotland, from 2007.
- The Australian Senate.
- The Tasmanian House of Assembly.
- The indirect elections to the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of India's federal Parliament.
- All elections in Malta.
- Various local authorities in New Zealand.
- Many UK student unions (it is promoted by the National Union of Students as the fairest electoral system), the Church of England and many other private organisations.
How does the Single Transferable Vote work?
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a form of proportional representation which uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies.
Candidates don't need a majority of votes to be elected, just a known 'quota', or share of the votes, determined by the size of the electorate and the number of positions to be filled.
Each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference, so if your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to another candidate in accordance with your instructions. STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike other systems, especially First Past the Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result.
Pros and cons of the Single Transferable Vote
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a form of proportional representation which uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies.
Candidates don't need a majority of votes to be elected, just a known 'quota', or share of the votes, determined by the size of the electorate and the number of positions to be filled.
Each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-preference to their second-preference, so if your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected or has enough votes already, your vote is transferred to another candidate in accordance with your instructions. STV thus ensures that very few votes are wasted, unlike other systems, especially First Past the Post, where only a small number of votes actually contribute to the result.
Pros and cons of the Single Transferable Vote
| The case for | The arguments against |
| STV gives voters more choice than any other system. This in turn puts most power in the hands of the voters, rather than the party heads, who under other systems can more easily determine who is elected. Under STV MPs' responsibilities lie more with the electorate than those above them in their party. | In sparsely populated areas, such as the Scottish Highlands, STV could lead to massive constituencies. This was one of the reasons cited by the Arbuthnott Commission for not recommending STV for non-local Scottish elections. |
| Fewer votes are 'wasted' (i.e. cast for losing candidates or unnecessarily cast for the winner) under STV. This means that most voters can identify a representative that they personally helped to elect. Such a link in turn increases a representative's accountability. | The process of counting the results takes longer under STV, meaning that results cannot usually be declared on the same night as the vote took place. |
| With STV and multi-member constituencies, parties have a powerful electoral incentive to present a balanced team of candidates in order to maximise the number of higher preferences that would go to their sponsored candidates. This helps the advancement of women and ethnic-minority candidates, who are often overlooked in favour of a 'safer' looking candidate. | A voting system that allows voters to rank candidates is prone to so-called 'Donkey voting', where voters vote for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot |
| STV offers voters a choice of representatives to approach with their concerns post-election, rather than just the one, who may not be at all sympathetic to a voter's views, or may even be the cause of the concern. | Voters only tend to come into contact with candidates at election time, whereas people in the party know them much better. It could be argued, therefore, that a system that allows a political party to parachute its preferred candidates into safe seats is better than one that leaves the choice more in the hands of the voters. |
| Competition is generally a good thing and competition to provide a good service to constituents is no different. | In large multi-member constituencies, ballot papers can get rather big and confusing. |
| Parliament is more likely to be both reflective of a nation's views and more responsive to them. Parties are broad coalitions, and can be markedly split on certain key issues, such as war. With only one party person per constituency, the representatives elected may well not reflect the views of their electorate. Many voters in the UK general election of 2005 were faced with a dilemma, as they wanted to support a certain party, but did not want to support the war in Iraq. STV would have helped them express these views much more clearly. | |
| Under STV, as opposed to hybrid systems such as AMS, all MPs are elected on the same basis, thus lessening the chances of there being animosity between them. | |
| There are no safe seats under STV, meaning candidates cannot be complacent and parties must campaign everywhere, and not just in marginal seats. | |
| When voters have the ability to rank candidates, the most disliked candidate cannot win, as they are unlikely to pick up second-, third- and lower-preference votes. | |
| By encouraging candidates to seek first-, as well as lower-preference votes, the efficacy of negative campaigning is greatly diminished. | |
| There is no need for tactical voting. | |
| There is a more sophisticated link between a constituency and its representative. Not only is there more incentive to campaign and work on a more personal and local level, but also, the constituencies are likely to be more sensible reflections of where community feeling lies. For example, there is more of an attachment to the City of Leeds or the City of Manchester, than there is to, say, Leeds North East or Manchester Withington, whose boundaries have a habit of changing fairly regularly anyway. |
Post a Comment