Single transferable vote: Difference between revisions
→Potential for Tactical Voting
Line 113:
There are also tactical considerations for parties standing more than one candidate in the election. Standing too few may result in all the candidates being elected in the early stages, and votes being transferred to candidates of other parties. Standing too many candidates might result in first-preference votes being spread amongst them, and several being eliminated before any are elected and their second-preference votes distributed, if voters do not stick tightly to their preferred party's candidates; however, if voters vote for all candidates from a particular party before any other candidates and before stopping expressing preferences, then too many candidates is not an issue - in Malta where voters tend to strictly express party preference, parties frequently stand more candidates than there are seats to be elected.
[[Vote management]] is a potential strategy in STV that involves [[Bullet voting|bullet voting]] in a way that approximates [[D'Hondt]] to maximize a party's seat share. 5-winner example:
51 (Party A candidates)
49 (Party B candidates)
10 (Party C candidates)
10 (Party D candidates)
Using an [[HB quota]] (120/6= 20 votes), 2 Party A candidates and 2 Party B candidates are elected, leaving Party A with 11 votes and B with 9. This allows Party C or D to win the final seat. However, if the Party A votes had instead been:
17 A1
17 A2
17 A3
2 Party B candidates win as before, but now every party except the A candidates has fewer than 17 votes, so all other candidates are eliminated one by one such that A1-3 win the final 3 seats. [[Schulze STV]] is designed to give Party A 3 seats in this example even without vote management.
==In practice==
| |||