# Single Transferable Vote vs First Past the Post **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2009, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-transferable-vote-vs-first-past-the-post/495893 "2009-05-10T00:40:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-transferable-vote-vs-first-past-the-post/495893/41 "2009-05-16T15:09:59Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > Erm, for all intents and purposes STV vs FPTP _is_ Proportional Representation versus the lack thereof. That’s sort of the main argument for STV. Well, no, it is not. There’s no particular reason why the mathematics of STV would work out to the same as “proportional representation,” or as I prefer to call it, party percentage, voting. Interesting that BC stuck with FPTP. Here in Ontario we did the same. There are arguments either way but proponents of electoral reform have done an awful job selling it. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-transferable-vote-vs-first-past-the-post/495893/42 "2009-05-16T18:55:16Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > There’s no particular reason why the mathematics of STV would work out to the same as “proportional representation,” No one said it does work out to the _same_. That’s why I said for all intents and purposes. The key selling point of the STV system is that it produces results that are usually significantly closer to proportional than FPTP does. If you’re suggesting that that isn’t the case, maybe you could point us in the direction of some data to that effect? **Martin Enfield** are you obliged to give preferences to every party or candidate running? In Ireland we can give preferences to as many or as few as we like. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-transferable-vote-vs-first-past-the-post/495893/43 "2009-05-16T22:39:14Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I’m glad you guys in BC decided to stay with First-Past-The-Post. I’m very much against Preferential Voting (the system we have here). > > The way I see it, if I vote for The Silly Party, then they’re the _only_ people I want to give my vote to. If I wanted to vote for The Serious Party or The Ambivalent Party I’d have voted for them. I don’t appreciate The Silly Party taking my vote, not winning a seat, and then using their “Preferences” to give votes to The Cat Hating Party because of some complicated backroom deal. > > MMP (The NZ system) does have the advantage of breaking some of the Labour/National stronghold on the Government, but it also leaves the balance of power with Tree Huggers, Extreme Religious Fundies, Special/Minority Interest Groups, and other people who shouldn’t be represented in Parliament. Well, those groups get represented in our FPTP system down here: Extreme Religious Fundies–power through the GOP Special/Minority Interest Groups–power through either party, depending on which group As a Tree Patter-on-the-Shoulder, at least, I think it’s entirely reasonable to let votes pick more than one party that they’d find acceptable. For me, that’s Greens, Democrats, & maybe Reform. For someone else, that may be GOP & Libertarians. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-transferable-vote-vs-first-past-the-post/495893/44 "2009-05-16T23:06:16Z")
We are obliged in Australia to number every single box - if you don’t, your ballot is spoiled. There was some well-known [drama](http://voteneither.net/langer-jailing) about this a few years ago (“put the bastards equal last” was the slogan - the campaign was to encourage people to prevent their preferences going to either party. The law has since been revised to ensure this is not a legal voting method) On the other hand, if you vote for the Silly Party, you are in no way obliged to put the Cat Haters Party second, even if the Silly Party did “direct preferences” to them - you are perfectly free to give the number 2 slot to the Ambivalent Party or whoever. Personally, I love STV for single member electorates, since it enables you to vote for a minor party without people griing at you that you’ve “wasted your vote” (which is bollocks anyway IMNSHO unless you’re thinking really short term). Multi member electorates are different - in this country the preferential voting for the senate has effectively turned into a single vote system anyway, because a multi-member ballot is so long-winded that 95% of voters don’t bother directing their own preferences and let the candidates do it for them. But in a single member electorate you’ve usually only got about 6 or 7 numbers to fill in - that’s not so hard! ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-transferable-vote-vs-first-past-the-post/495893/45 "2009-05-18T05:02:45Z")
> [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](#): > > Incidentally, this electionsBC site ([http://www3.elections.bc.ca/index.php/can/polparties/regpolparties/](http://www3.elections.bc.ca/index.php/can/polparties/regpolparties/)) shows all the many many parties in BC, to include _the Sex Party_, t_he Work Less Party_ and\* the Party Of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Themselves And Be Their Own Politicians\*. > > I never thought the Marijuana party would look so staid and middle of the road. When the Australian Capital Territory (roughly equivalent to the District of Columbia in the US) were forced to adopt self-determination (yes, you read that correctly) the first ballot papers included: The No Self Government Party The Sun-Ripened Warm Tomato Party The Party! Party! Party The Surprise Party and others of that ilk. The best bit is that the No Self Government Party (whose charter was that if elected they would abolish self government) did get a member elected, who proceeded to participate in that government oblivious to his own party’s name and platform. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-transferable-vote-vs-first-past-the-post/495893.md?page=2)