Voting System in India

majority rule
or
Plurality voting system

proportional representation

Semiproportional
systems
1. Party-list proportional
representation
2. Single transferable vote
3. Mixed-member proportional
representation


single-winner voting system

1. Single-member
district/single-member
constituency
2. First past the post


Plurality/majority systems.
usually used in the United States.
common plurality systems like the
1. single-member district plurality vote and
2. at large voting, and
3. less common majority systems like the two-round runoff and the instant run-off.
Proportional representation systems.
used by most other advanced Western democracies and are designed to ensure that parties are represented
proportionally in the legislature.
They include
1. party list systems,
2. mixed-member proportional, and
3. the single transferable vote.
Semiproportional systems. Though relative rare worldwide, these systems have garnered some interest in the United
State. They tend to produce more proportional results than plurality/majority systems, but less proportional results than
fully proportional systems. They include cumulative voting and limited voting.







What is an Electoral System?
An electoral or voting system is how votes are translated into seats. It determines how many votes and what kinds of
votes are necessary to award seats to candidates and parties in an election. Different electoral systems produce different
kinds of results, and give voters different kinds of choices.
The electoral system determines the exchange rate between votes and seats - that is, how votes are translated into
seats. How many and what kind of votes are needed to get a seat varies from system to system. As a result, different
electoral systems give politicians incentives to organize and campaign in different ways. Some electoral systems may
even create barriers for certain types of candidates. Different electoral systems give voters different kinds of choices,
which can then affect the decisions voters make.
Features and Characteristics of Electoral Systems
A democratic electoral system can be said to be one where:
elections are regular and fair
votes are of equal value
the will of the majority is achieved
the interests of minorities are taken into consideration
there is a high level of participation by the electorate
there is the maximum possible franchise
voting is accessible
There are three main characteristics of any electoral system that determine how it works:
District Magnitude this refers to the number of representatives elected from the district or riding. These could be
single member ridings or multi-member ridings.
Ballot Structure this refers to the number of voting preferences given a voter on a ballot for them to mark. The
range of choices includes a single choice for a party or candidate; a multiple preference between parties and
candidates; and weighting preferences between candidates by rank-ordering them.
Electoral Formula this refers to the method by which votes are turned into seats, given the district magnitude
and ballot structure being used. It could include thresholds stipulating the percentage of votes necessary to get
elected.
Types of Electoral System
There are several categorizations of electoral systems available. For simplicity we will recognize four categories here.
Plurality Systems
Majority Systems
Proportional Reprsentation Systems
Mixed Systems
We should however point out that even though the specific examples within each category may vary in a number of
interesting ways all of them have common characteristics and appear to behave in similar ways with somewhat
predictable consequences.
Plurality Systems
Also called first-past-the-post or winner-take-all systems, plurality systems simply award a seat to the individual
candidate who receives the most votes in an election. The candidate need not get a majority (50%+) of the vote to win; so
long as he has a larger number of votes than all other candidates, he is declared the winner.
The main features of plurality systems are as follows:
Based on the principle that the contestant with the most support ought to be elected.
Generally require simple and transparent voting and counting processes.
Candidates are elected with a plurality (i.e. not a majority) of votes cast.
Main models include: Single Member Plurality; Multi-Member Plurality (also called Block Vote).
First past the post voting (FPP)
This system of vote counting is the simplest - the voter only votes for one candidate and whoever gets the highest number
of votes is elected. It is the easiest vote counting system to calculate results. The winning candidate is the one who gains
more votes than any other candidate, but not necessarily an absolute majority (50% + 1).
FPP is used in the United Kingdom, Canada, India, the United States and many other countries.
Block vote (BV)
When the FPP system is used in multi-member electorates where electors have as many votes as there are seats to be
filled it is known as the BV. Once a candidate is elected, all ballot papers are returned to the count to elect the next
member. The highest-polling candidates fill the positions regardless of the percentage of the votes they actually receive.
The BV is used in Bermuda, Laos, Thailand, Kuwait, the Philippines and other countries.
Majority Systems
Also called second ballot systems, majority electoral systems attempt to provide for a greater degree of
representativeness by requiring that candidates achieve a majority of votes in order to win. Majority is normally defined
as 50%-plus-one-vote. If no candidate gets a majority of votes, then a second round of voting is held (often a week or so
after the initial ballot). In the second round of voting, only a select number of candidates from the first round are allowed to
participate. In
The main features of majority systems are as follows:
Based on the principle that an elected representative should be elected only if she or he has the support of more
than half of the voters.
May require preferential voting or more than one round of voting if there are more than two candidates, or a natural
majority does not exist.
Candidates are elected with a majority (i.e. more than 50%) of votes cast.
Main models include: Alternative Vote; Two-Round Vote.
Preferential voting (PV)
PV is usually used in single-member districts and gives electors more options than FPP when marking their ballot paper.
Electors must rank all candidates by placing the number 1 for their preferred candidate and consecutive numbers from 2
for their 2nd choice, 3 for their 3rd choice and so on until all candidates are numbered. A candidate who has an absolute
majority of votes (50% + 1) is immediately elected.
If no candidate has an absolute majority, the candidate with the lowest number of 1st preferences is eliminated, and their
ballot papers are examined for 2nd preferences to be assigned to remaining candidates in the order as marked. The totals
are then checked and this process is repeated until one candidate has an absolute majority.
PV is used in the Australian federal House of Representatives and in some state Legislative Assemblies. PV is also used
in Nauru.
Optional preferential voting (OPV)
In OPV electors place the number 1 for their preferred candidate and this is enough for a valid vote. They may continue
numbering candidates in order of their preference to the extent they choose. All candidates do not have to be ranked.
NSW uses OPV for the election of representatives in the Legislative Assembly (Lower House) and in local government
areas/wards for mayoral elections and when one or two vacancies are to be filled.
Two round system (TRS)
The TRS is conducted in the same way as an FPP election and if a candidate receives an absolute majority of votes, they
are elected. If no candidate receives an absolute majority a second round of voting is conducted, often a week or two later
and the winner of this round is declared elected. The 2nd round may be a contest between the two biggest vote winners
(the Ukraine) or those who receive over a certain percentage of the votes of the registered electorate (France).
The TRS is used in countries such as France, Mali, Togo, Egypt, Iran, Belarus and Ukraine.
Proportional Representation Systems
Proportional representation is the general name for a class of voting systems that attempt to make the percentage of
offices awarded to candidates reflect as closely as possible the percentage of votes that they received in the election. It is
the most widely used set of electoral systems in the world, and its variants can be found at some level of government in
almost every country (including the United States, where some city councils are elected using forms of PR).
The main features of Proportional Representation (PR) systems are as follows:
Based on the assumption that parties are the real contestants and the principle that their seat shares should
accurately reflect their vote shares
Requires multi-member districts (the bigger the more proportional the final result can be)
Counting and seat determination processes are generally complex and not immediately transparent
Candidates are elected based on the total percentage of votes cast for their party.
Main models include: List; Mixed Member Proportional; Single Transferable Vote; Single Non-Transferable Vote;
Parallel.
List proportional representation (List PR)
Most PR systems use some form of List PR. List PR is used in multi-member electorates where votes are cast in order of
preference for the parties which have registered a list of candidates. Parties receive seats in proportion to their overall
share of the total vote and winning candidates are taken from the lists in order of their position.
Mixed member proportional (MMP)
MMP systems try to combine the elements of majority and PR systems. A proportion of the parliament is elected by
majority methods, usually from single-member electorates, while the remainder come from PR Lists.
Under MMP systems, the List PR seats compensate for any disproportions produced by the district seat results. For
example, if one party wins 10% of the national votes but no district seats, they would be awarded enough seats from the
PR lists to bring their representation up to around 10% of the parliament.
MMP is used in countries such as Germany, New Zealand, Italy and Venezuela.
The single transferable vote (STV)
The STV system is used in multi-member districts with electors ranking candidates in order of preference on the ballot
paper as in PV. Preference marking is usually optional where electors can mark as many candidates as they choose.
After the total number of 1st preference votes is added up, the count begins by establishing the quota ofvotes needed for
the election of a single candidate.
One of the most widely used methods is known as the Droop quota, named for the nineteenth-century thinker and
mathematician H. R. Droop. The Droop quota is used to determine the minimal number of votes that an individual
candidate must get in order to be awarded a seat. It is calculated using the formula:
[V/(S+1)] +1
where V is the total number of valid votes cast in the constituency, and S is the total number seats up for election in the
constituency. Hence, if we have 1,000 votes cast for 3 seats, the Droop quota is [ 1,000 / (3 + 1) ] + 1 = 251. That means
that any candidate who is able to get at least 251 votes will be assured of winning a seat. Once the Droop quota has been
calculated and all the votes collected, we still have to allocate the seats.
All Australian PR systems use the STV, although the South Australian, Victorian, Western Australian and NSW Upper
Houses and the federal Senate may be thought of as semi-list systems as the ballot paper also provides for group voting
above the line or in the case of Western Australia left and right of the line.
STV is used for national parliamentary elections in Ireland, Malta and Estonia.
Single non-transferable vote (SNTV)
In SNTV systems, each elector has one vote but there are several seats in the district to be filled. The candidates with the
highest number of votes fill these positions. For example, In a 4-member district a candidate needs just over 20% of the
vote to be elected.
The main difference between SNTV and majority systems is that the SNTV makes it easier for minority parties to be
represented. The larger the number of seats in the constituency, the more proportional the system becomes.
The SNTV system is used for parliamentary elections in countries such as Jordan, Taiwan and Vanuatu.
Parallel systems
Parallel systems use both PR lists and majority (winner takes all) methods but, unlike MMP systems, the PR lists do not
compensate for any disproportions within the majority districts.
Parallel systems are used in around 20 countries including Croatia, Japan and Russia.
Mixed Systems
The main features of mixed systems are as follows:
Involve combinations of the other four basic families within a single system
Generally designed to introduce an element of proportionality
May mix different types of electoral families across the entire country, or mix different types in different parts of the
country
Can produce legislators with different mandates, different constituencies, different roles
Summary of Electoral Systems
The table below summarizes the range of different electoral systems.
Electoral system Districts Type Description
first-past-the-post
(FPTP)
single-
member
plurality The candidate that obtains more votes than any other is elected, even
if that person only won a minority of votes cast.
two-round system
(TRS)
single-
member
majority A runoff election is held between the two top vote-getters, in order to
ensure that the winner obtains a majority of votes cast.
alternative vote (AV), or
instant runoff
single-
member
majority Voters indicate an order of preference among candidates. If no
candidate obtains a majority outright, the last-place candidate is
removed, and the associated second-choice votes are added to the
totals of the remaining candidates. The process is repeated until a
candidate secures a majority.
block vote (BV) multiple-
member
plurality Voters may cast as many votes as there are open seats. If there are n
seats to be filled, the top n vote-getters are elected.
single non-transferable
vote (SNTV)
multiple-
member
semi-
proportional
Voters can only cast a single vote among candidates for n seats. The
top n vote-getters are elected.
single transferable vote
(STV), also known as
preference or choice
multiple-
member
proportional Voters indicate an order of preference among candidates. Candidates
whose first-choice vote totals attain the Hare Quota(votes cast/n+1)
+ 1 are elected. The last-place candidate is removed, and the
voting associated second-choice votes are added to the totals of the
remaining candidates. The process is repeated until all n seats are
filled.
mixed member
proportional (MMP)
mixed proportional The legislature consists of a block of seats that are elected by plurality
or majority from single-member districts, and another block of seats
that are elected in multi-member districts under a proportional system.
The proportional seats are awarded in such a way as to compensate
for disproportional effects in the single-member district outcomes.
parallel mixed semi-
proportional
The legislature consists of a block of seats that are elected by plurality
or majority from single-member districts, and another block of seats
that are elected in multi-member districts under a proportional system.
The proportional seats are awarded independently of the outcomes in
single-member districts.
party list multiple-
member
proportional Voters choose from among party lists, and seats are awarded in
proportion to the vote received by each party. Candidates are seated
in the order listed.
Trends in Use of Electoral Systems
Early electoral systems were mainly based on the Plurality principle
During the 19th century Majority systems became more popular and more widely adopted
Proportional Representation list systems were widely adopted in the opening decades of the 20th century, often at
the time the right to vote was being expanded. They were seen as a way of ensuring that no one group (for
instance, working class socialists) would be able to capture a majority
Curiously, Proportional Representation systems made little headway in the democracies that were descended from
the British parliament (with the exceptions of the adoption of the Single Transferable Vote by Ireland and
Tasmania).
o Australian upper houses began adopting Single Transferable Vote in 1949 and now over half have done so.
In the last decade of the 20th century there was a sudden revival of interest in electoral system change, reform and
experimentation:
o the creation of new democracies in once Communist parts of Eastern Europe
o the decision of established democracies to try and change their politics by altering their electoral system.
Some went from plurality to PR (New Zealand), others moved in the other direction (Italy) while others moved to
new complicated mixed systems (Japan)
o the adoption by Britain of different systems for different elections
The recent past has seen a sharp growth in the interest in proportional electoral arrangements and the adoption of
Mixed electoral systems in an attempt to reap the perceived benefits of more than one type of electoral family.
http://www.caribbeanelections.com/education/electoral_systems.asp







Electoral Systems
Copyright 2000, Charles King
A countrys electoral system is the method used to calculate the number of elected positions in
government that individuals and parties are awarded after elections. In other words, it is the
way that votes are translated into seats in parliament or in other areas of government (such as
the presidency). There are many different types of electoral systems in use around the world,
and even within individual countries, different electoral systems may be found in different
regions and at different levels of government (e.g., for elections to school boards, city councils,
state legislatures, governorships, etc.).
Electoral systems can be divided into three general types:
1. Plurality electoral systems
Also called first-past-the-post or winner-take-all systems, plurality systems simply award a
seat to the individual candidate who receives the most votes in an election. The candidate need
not get a majority (50%+) of the vote to win; so long as he has a larger number of votes than all
other candidates, he is declared the winner. Plurality systems normally depend on single-
member constituencies, and allow voters to indicate only one vote on their ballot (by pulling a
single lever, punching a hole in the ballot, making an X, etc.) Plurality electoral systems also tend
to encourage the growth of relatively stable political systems dominated by two major parties (a
phenomenon known as Duvergers Law).
Such an electoral system, though, clearly does not represent the interests of all (or even
most) voters. In fact, since a candidate need have only a plurality of votes to be elected,
most voters may actually have voted against the winner (although their votes are split
among several candidates).
Elections for the House and Senate in the United States and for the House of Commons in
the United Kingdom use the plurality system. The US presidential election is also
generally considered a plurality system, but the existence of the Electoral College actually
makes it a strange hybrid of plurality and majority systems.
2. Majority electoral systems
Also called second ballot systems, majority electoral systems attempt to provide for a greater
degree of representativeness by requiring that candidates achieve a majority of votes in order to
win. Majority is normally defined as 50%-plus-one-vote. If no candidate gets a majority of
votes, then a second round of voting is held (often a week or so after the initial ballot). In the
second round of voting, only a select number of candidates from the first round are allowed to
participate. In some countries, such as Russia, the top two vote-getters in the first round move
on to the second round. In other countries, such as France, all candidates with a minimum
threshold percentage of votes (in the French case, 12.5% of all registered voters) move on to the
second round. Like plurality systems, majority systems usually rely on single-member
constituencies, and allow voters to indicate only one preference on their ballot.
Presidential elections in Austria, Finland, Portugal, Russia and other east European states,
as well as presidential and National Assembly elections in France, make use of various
forms of majority electoral systems. The US Electoral College also has components of a
majority system, because a presidential candidate must get 50%-plus-one electoral votes
(270 out of 538) in order to win. If no candidate reaches the 270 mark, the election is
decided by the House of Representatives. In determining who votes for whom in the
Electoral College, though, the US presidential race is a strict plurality system: The
candidate who gets a plurality of the popular vote in a state gets all that states electoral
votes.
3. Proportional representation
Also known as PR, proportional representation is the general name for a class of voting
systems that attempt to make the percentage of offices awarded to candidates reflect as closely
as possible the percentage of votes that they received in the election. It is the most widely used
set of electoral systems in the world, and its variants can be found at some level of government
in almost every country (including the United States, where some city councils are elected using
forms of PR).
The most straightforward version of PR is simply to award a party the same percentage of
seats in parliament as it gets votes at the polls. Thus, if a party won 40% of the vote it
would receive 40% of the seats. However, there are clear problems with such a system:
Should parties that receive only 0.001% of the vote also be represented? What happens if
the voting percentages do not translate evenly into seats? How do you award a party 19.5
seats if it got 19.5% of the vote? More sophisticated PR systems attempt to get around
these problems. Two of the most widely used are discussed below.
Party list sytems
Under party list forms of PR, voters normally vote for parties rather than for individual
candidates. Under a closed party list system the parties themselves determine who will fill the
seats that they have been allocated; voters vote only for a particular party, and then it is up to
the party to decide which party members will actually serve as representatives. Legislative
elections in Israel and Germany are conducted according to such a system. Under an open party
list system, voters are given some degree of choice among individual candidates, in addition to
voting for entire parties. Denmark, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg and Switzerland all have versions
of open party list systems.
Under all party list systems, though, one still needs some method for allocating seats to
individual parties. One commonly used method is named for the nineteenth-century
Belgian mathematician Victor dHondt, and is normally referred to as a highest average
method using the dHondt formula.
For example, assume that we have an election with 1,000 total voters in which five parties
(A, B, C, D, and E) have gained 100 (10%), 150 (15%), 300 (30%), 400 (40%), and 50
(5%) votes, respectively. Assume also that, in our electoral constituency, there are 3 seats
up for election; that all votes cast are valid; and that the electoral system has a 7% vote
threshold. (That is, parties must get at least 7% of the total valid votes cast in order to
participate in the distribution of seats.) Party E would thus be elimiated from competition
at the outset. The dHondt method of seat allocation then proceeds in the following steps.
1. Place the total number of votes garnered by the competing parties (A, B, C, and D. E
has been eliminated) in a row.
100 150 300 400
2. Divide each figure in the row by 1, 2, 3, . . ., n. (How far you take the division varies.
The more seats you have to allocate, the further you have to divide. For our purposes, 3 or
4 divisions should do the trick.)


Party A Party B Party C Party D

100 150 300 400
div. by 1 100 150 300 400
div. by 2 50 75 150 200
div. by 3 33 50 100 133
div. by 4 25 37.5 75 100
3. Pick the highest quotient in the list (including the quotients obtained by dividing the
votes by 1). The highest quotient is 400 in the Party D column. We therefore award one
seat to Party D.
4. Pick the next highest quotient in the list. The next highest quotient is 300 in the Party
C column. We therefore award one seat to Party C.
5. Pick the next highest quotient in the list. The next highest quotient is 200 in the Party
D column. We therefore award another seat to Party D. We have successfully filled all the
seats available in this constituency.
The final results of the election are therefore:
Party C 1 seat (or 33% of the total available seats)
Party D 2 seats (or 66% of the total available seats)
Notice why we call this system proportional representation: Under a plurality system,
Party D would have received 100% of the seats because that party received a plurality
(40%) of the vote--even though 60% of voters voted against Party D by choosing other
parties. Under PR, however, we are able to represent some of the interests of the other
voters. Party Ds representation in parliament is reduced to 66% of seats, while Party Cs
is increased to 33% of seats. The system yields a result that is clearly not perfectly
proportional. But the distribution more closely approximates the actual percentage of
votes that each party received than would a plurality or majority system.
The dHondt method is only one way of allocating seats in party list systems. Other
methods include the Saint-Lague method where the divisor is the set of odd numbers (1,
3, 5, 7, 9, . . ., n) and the modified Saint-Lague method used in Denmark, Norway and
Sweden, where the divisor is 1.4 plus the set of odd numbers (1.4, 3, 5, 7, 9, . . . , n).
Other methods divide the votes by a mathematically derived quota, such as the Droop
quota or the Hare quota (see below)
One other feature of party list systems is called the vote threshold. Party list systems
normally establish by law an arbitrary percentage of the vote that parties have to pass
before they can be considered in the allocation of seats. The figure ranges from 0.67% in
the Netherlands to 5% in Germany and Russia, or even more. Any party that does not
reach the threshold is excluded from the calculation of seats. The vote threshold simplifies
the process of seat allocation and discourages fringe parties (those that are likely to gain
very few votes) from competing in the elections. Obviously, the higher the vote threshold,
the fewer the parties that will be represented in parliament.
Single transferable vote (STV)
STV is another important form of proportional representation. In various forms, it is used widely
in many countries, although only Ireland, Australia, and Malta have used it in major national
elections. Other countries have used it in local elections, and even some communities in the
United States (such as Cambridge, MA) use it today. Many student organizations in Europe also
use this system for election to university student associations, because it yields an even more
proportional result than party list systems, and certainly more proportional than plurality or
majority voting.
STV was originally developed by Thomas Hare (1806-1891), a British politician whose
writings greatly influenced the views of the philosopher John Stuart Mill. Under STV,
voters vote for individuals, not for parties as in the party list system. The key feature of
STV is that individual voters rank candidates according to their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, . . ., nth
choices. Rather than simply voting for a single candidate, voters have the opportunity to
express a range of preferences for several candidates on the ballot. Like party list systems,
though, STV depends on having multi-member constituencies.
The complicated part of STV is tabulating the seats to be awarded after the votes have
been cast. As with party list systems, there are a number of mathematical formulas that
one can use to accomplish this task. One of the most widely used methods is known as
the Droop quota, named for the nineteenth-century thinker and mathematician H. R.
Droop. The Droop quota is used to determine the minimal number of votes that an
individual candidate must get in order to be awarded a seat. It is calculated using the
formula:
[V/(S+1)] +1
where V is the total number of valid votes cast in the constituency, and S is the total
number seats up for election in the constituency. Hence, if we have 1,000 votes cast for 3
seats, the Droop quota is [ 1,000 / (3 + 1) ] + 1 = 251. That means that any candidate who
is able to get at least 251 votes will be assured of winning a seat. Once the Droop quota
has been calculated and all the votes collected, we still have to allocate the seats.
In this example, assume that we have 5 candidates (A, B, C, D, E) for 3 seats. In
accordance with STV, individual voters have ranked each of these candidates (1 to 5, with
one being the first-choice candidate) on their ballots. The allocation of seats then proceeds
according to the following steps--but remember that there are a variety of STV methods in
use. We will try to keep things very simple here:
1. Pull each ballot out of the ballot box one at a time and place them in piles according to
the first-choice candidate marked on the ballot (e.g., if a ballot indicates candidate C as
the first choice, place it in a pile marked C).
2. As soon as one pile of ballots reaches 251, that candidate is awarded a seat. Let us
assume that candidate C was the first to reach the Droop quota of 251 first-choice ballots.
3. Continue drawing ballots out of the ballot box and placing them in piles according to
the first-choice candidate marked on the ballot. But since C has already been elected,
place any ballots that indicate candidate C as first choice in the pile of the candidate
indicated on that ballot as the voters second choice. For example, if you pull out a ballot
that indicates candidate C as first choice and candidate A as second choice, place the
ballot in the pile for candidate A, since candidate C has already been awarded a seat. In
this way candidate Cs surplus votes (i.e., the votes beyond those needed to win a seat
under the Droop quota) are transferred to the next-choice candidate--hence the name
single transferable vote.
4. Continue with Step 3 until another candidate reaches the 251 mark. Then, continue
carrying out Step 3 until you fill all the available seats. For example, let us assume that we
have already elected candidate C on first-choice ballots alone, and that by combining
second-choice ballots from candidate C with further first-choice ballots from the box, we
have also been able to award a seat to candidate A. How do we fill the third seat? We
continue in a similar manner as before. Any ballots that list candidate C as the first-choice
will be transferred to the second-choice candidate; if the second-choice candidate turns
out to be candidate A (who has also already been elected), then we will transfer them to
the third-choice candidate. Similarly, all first-choice ballots for candidate A will be
transferred to the second-choice candidate indicated on the ballot; if the second-choice
candidate turns out to be candidate C (who has already been elected), the ballot is
transferred to the third-choice candidate. And so on.
5. But what happens if, after distributing all first-choice ballots, no further candidates
have reached the Droop quota and we still have empty seats to fill? In this case, simply
eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of first-choice ballots and transfer those
votes to the second-choice candidates. Repeat this step as many times as necessary
(always eliminating the lowest vote-getter) in order to reach the number of votes
mandated by the Droop quota.
As with party list systems, there are a variety of ways of conducting an STV election. For
example, instead of using the Droop quota, we might use the Hare quota (V / S) or
theImperial quota [V / (S + 2)]. A countrys choice of which system to use depends on
its history and the degree to which policymakers value genuinely proportional
representation.
STV can clearly be rather confusing. Some voters may feel that a plurality system is
somehow more natural, or that STV and other forms of PR are simply tinkering with
the numbers. But PR in general, and STV in particular, can yield results that are more
truly representative of the choices of individual voters. There is a strong movement for PR
in the United Kingdom, with some political leaders arguing that STV should replace the
current plurality system for electing parliamentarians to the House of Commons. There is
a similar movement in the United States, although since few Americans could even
explain how the Electoral College works, they are probably not going to learn STV any
time soon.

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/kingch/Electoral_Systems.htm