4,193
edits
Proportional representation: Difference between revisions
Copying "DMstvPdf" citation from wikipedia:Proportional representation
(Explicitly adding a <references/> tag, and other cleanup at the end of the article) |
(Copying "DMstvPdf" citation from wikipedia:Proportional representation) |
||
Line 118:
The single transferable vote (STV), also called ''choice voting'',<ref name=fairVoteFairRep>{{cite web |title=Fair Voting/Proportional Representation |url=http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-representation-voting/ |publisher=[[FairVote]] |access-date=9 April 2014}}</ref><ref name=amyHist>{{cite web|last=Amy|first=Douglas J|title=A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States |url=http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=647 |publisher=[[FairVote]]|access-date=16 October 2015}}</ref> is a [[ranked voting|ranked system]]: voters rank candidates in order of preference. Voting districts usually elect three to seven representatives. The count is cyclic, electing or eliminating candidates and transferring votes until all seats are filled. A candidate is elected whose tally reaches a [[Droop quota|quota]], the minimum vote that guarantees election. The candidate's surplus votes (those in excess of the quota) are transferred to other candidates at a fraction of their value proportionate to the surplus, according to the voters' preferences. If no candidates reach the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, those votes being transferred to their next preference at full value, and the count continues. There are many methods for transferring votes. Some early, manual, methods transferred surplus votes according to a randomly selected sample, or transferred only a "batch" of the surplus, other more recent methods transfer all votes at a fraction of their value (the surplus divided by the candidate's tally) but may need the use of a computer. Some methods may not produce exactly the same result when the count is repeated. There are also different ways of treating transfers to already elected or eliminated candidates, and these, too, can require a computer.<ref name=tidemanSTV>{{cite journal |last1=Tideman|first1=Nicolaus|author-link=Nicolaus Tideman|date=1995 |title=The Single Transferable Vote |journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives |volume=9 |issue=1 |doi=10.1257/jep.9.1.27 |pages=27–38|url=http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.9.1.27}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=O’Neill|first1=Jeffrey C.|date=July 2006 |title=Comments on the STV Rules Proposed by British Columbia |journal=Voting Matters |issue=22 |url = http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE22/INDEX.HTM |access-date=10 August 2013}}</ref>
In effect, the method produces groups of voters of equal size that reflect the diversity of the electorate, each group having a representative the group voted for. Some 90% of voters have a representative to whom they gave their first preference. Voters can choose candidates using any criteria they wish, the proportionality is implicit.<ref name=DMstvPdf>{{cite web|last1=Mollison|first1=Denis|title=Fair votes in practice STV for Westminster|url=http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~denis/signif.pdf|publisher=[[Heriot Watt University]]|access-date=3 June 2014}}</ref> Political parties are not necessary; all other prominent PR electoral systems presume that parties reflect voters wishes, which many believe gives power to parties.<ref name=tidemanSTV/> STV satisfies the [[Comparison of electoral systems|electoral system criterion]] ''[[Proportionality for Solid Coalitions|proportionality for solid coalitions]]'' – a solid coalition for a set of candidates is the group of voters that rank all those candidates above all others – and is therefore considered a system of proportional representation.<ref name=tidemanSTV/> However, the small district magnitude used in STV elections has been criticized as impairing proportionality, especially when more parties compete than there are seats available,<ref name=forder/>{{rp|50}} and STV has, for this reason, sometimes been labelled "quasi proportional".<ref name=AusOVC/>{{rp|83}} While this may be true when considering districts in isolation, results {{em|overall}} are proportional. In Ireland, with particularly small magnitudes, results are "highly proportional".<ref name=ideaEsd/>{{rp|73}}<ref name=ideaGallagher/> In the [[Wikipedia:1997 Irish general election|1997 Irish general election]], the average magnitude was 4.0 but eight parties gained representation, four of them with less than 3% of first preference votes nationally. Six independent candidates also won election.<ref name=laver/> STV has also been described as the {{em|most}} proportional system.<ref name=AusOVC/>{{rp|83}} The system tends to handicap extreme candidates because, to gain preferences and so improve their chance of election, candidates need to canvass voters beyond their own circle of supporters, and so need to moderate their views.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Referendum 2011: A look at the STV system |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10762976 |publisher=The New Zealand Herald |date=1 Nov 2011 |access-date=21 Nov 2014 |location=Auckland|work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |title=Change the Way We Elect? Round Two of the Debate |url=https://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/04/30/STV2/ |magazine=The Tyee |date=30 Apr 2009 |access-date=21 Nov 2014 |location=Vancouver}}</ref> Conversely, widely respected candidates can win election with relatively few first preferences by benefitting from strong subordinate preference support.<ref name=DMstvPdf/>
====Australian Senate STV====
| |||