Misplaced Pages

#846153

55-407: Its 51 members are elected every four years in 17 districts by single non-transferable vote (SNTV). 15 electoral districts are multi-member districts, two are single-member district where SNTV becomes equivalent to First-past-the-post voting . The assembly is responsible for enacting and amending prefectural ordinances, approving the budget and voting on important administrative appointments made by

110-447: A candidate who does not need them. If seats remain open after the first count, any surplus votes are transferred. This may generate the necessary winners. As well, least popular candidates may be eliminated as way to generate winners. The specific method of transferring votes varies in different systems (see § Vote transfers and quota ). Transfer of any existing surplus votes is done before eliminations of candidates. This prevents

165-503: A city's seats, a thing common in First past the post elections. The number of wasted votes in an SNTV election is generally lower than in First past the post elections as well. Under SNTV, parties often do not receive representation exactly proportional to their strength, because it is difficult to accurately judge their strength when deciding how many candidates to field ( strategic nomination ) and difficult to direct party supporters as

220-434: A district. The key to STV's approximation of proportionality is that each voter effectively only casts a single vote in a district contest electing multiple winners, while the ranked ballots (and sufficiently large districts) allow the results to achieve a high degree of proportionality with respect to partisan affiliation within the district, as well as representation by gender and other descriptive characteristics. The use of

275-517: A hundred years later than Saint-Just's proposal. In 1880s Japan adopted SNTV for provincial politicians and in 1900 for national politicians. SNTV is used for elections in Puerto Rico , Kuwait , Indonesia , Japan , Taiwan , Thailand , Libya , Iraq , Hong Kong and Vanuatu . In Puerto Rico , SNTV is known as at-large representation ("representación por acumulación" in Spanish), SNTV

330-522: A large number of effective votes – 19 votes were used to elect the successful candidates. (Only the votes for Oranges at the end were not used to select a food. The Orange voters have satisfaction of seeing their second choice – Pears – selected, even if their votes were not used to select any food.) As well, there was general satisfaction with the choices selected. Nineteen voters saw either their first or second choice elected, although four of them did not actually have their vote used to achieve

385-453: A party from losing a candidate in the early stage who might be elected later through transfers. When surplus votes are transferred under some systems, some or all of the votes held by the winner are apportioned fractionally to the next marked preference on the ballot. In others, the transfers to the next available marked preference is done using whole votes. When seats still remain to be filled and there are no surplus votes to transfer (none of

440-448: A quota means that, for the most part, each successful candidate is elected with the same number of votes. This equality produces fairness in the particular sense that a party taking twice as many votes as another party will generally take twice the number of seats compared to that other party. Under STV, winners are elected in a multi-member constituency (district) or at-large, also in a multiple-winner contest. Every sizeable group within

495-422: A single candidate. Party A has about 35% support among the electorate (with one particularly well-liked candidate), Party B around 25% (with two well-liked candidates) and the remaining voters primarily support independent candidates, but mostly lean towards party B if they have to choose between the two parties. All voters vote sincerely ; there is no tactical voting. Percent of votes under MNTV and Limited Voting

550-581: A system of vote allocation which had been adopted by all parties for the 2004 ROC legislative elections . Single Non-transferable Voting was first proposed in solid form by Saint-Just in 1793, in a proposal to the French National Convention . He proposed having the whole country as one multi-seat district; but the idea was not adopted in France at that time. Japan was the first country to adopt SNTV for election of government members

605-437: A transfer if the first-preference food is chosen with a surplus of votes. The 23 guests at the party mark their ballots: some mark first, second and third preferences; some mark only two preferences. When the ballots are counted, it is found that the ballots are marked in seven distinct combinations, as shown in the table below: The table is read as columns: the left-most column shows that there were three ballots with Orange as

SECTION 10

#1732776007847

660-421: A variant of dot voting where each voter has only one point to assign. Unlike block voting or limited voting , where voters can cast multiple votes, under SNTV each voter casts just one. This produces a kind of semi-proportional representation at the district level, meaning small parties, as well as large parties, have a chance to be represented. Under certain assumptions, such as perfect tactical voting SNTV

715-564: A voter's subsequent preferences if necessary. Under STV, no one party or voting bloc can take all the seats in a district unless the number of seats in the district is very small or almost all the votes cast are cast for one party's candidates (which is seldom the case). This makes it different from other commonly used candidate-based systems. In winner-take-all or plurality systems – such as first-past-the-post (FPTP), instant-runoff voting (IRV), and block voting  – one party or voting bloc can take all seats in

770-409: A whole to spread their votes efficiently. If they field too many, supporters' votes might be split across too many candidates. The party votes might spread their vote numbers to the point where all of a party's candidates lose to a less thinly spread opposing party. If a party fields too few candidates, they might elect all their candidates but not win seats proportional to their level of support, and

825-425: Is Hamburgers, so the three votes are transferred to Hamburgers. Hamburgers is elected with 7 votes in total. Hamburgers now has a surplus vote, but this does not matter since the election is over. There are no more foods needing to be chosen – three have been chosen. Result: The winners are Pears, Cake, and Hamburgers. Orange ends up being neither elected nor eliminated. STV in this case produced

880-452: Is a multi-winner electoral system in which each voter casts a single vote in the form of a ranked ballot . Voters have the option to rank candidates, and their vote may be transferred according to alternative preferences if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with surplus votes, so that their vote is used to elect someone they prefer over others in the running. STV aims to approach proportional representation based on votes cast in

935-429: Is an electoral system used to elect multiple winners. It is a semi-proportional variant of first-past-the-post voting , applied to multi-member districts where each voter casts just one vote. It can also be seen as a variant of STV but with no vote transfers. SNTV generally makes it unlikely that a single party will take all seats in a city, as generally happens with winner-take-all systems . SNTV can be considered

990-493: Is calculated by a specified method (STV generally uses the Hare or Droop quota ), and candidates who accumulate that many votes are declared elected. In many STV systems, the quota is also used to determine surplus votes, the number of votes received by successful candidates over and above the quota. Surplus votes are transferred to candidates ranked lower in the voters' preferences, if possible, so they are not wasted by remaining with

1045-755: Is common even after STV vote transfers to elect the same as would be elected under SNTV. But not having transfers, SNTV sees more votes wasted than under STV due to votes being placed on un-electable candidate or due to surpluses received by successful candidate over and above the quota used in STV elections that are not able to be transferred under SNTV. SNTV produces representation that is most proportional ( proportional representation ) when political parties have accurate information about their relative levels of electoral support, and nominate candidates in accordance with their respective levels of electoral support or when all parties suffer from poor information of that sort. Knowing

1100-510: Is elected does not mean that another specific candidate will not be. They both can be elected. Because running on issues may lead to a situation in which a candidate becomes too popular and therefore draws votes away from other allied candidates, SNTV may encourage legislators to join factions that consist of patron-client relationships in which a powerful legislator can apportion votes to his or her supporters. In addition, parties will do best if their supporters evenly distribute their votes among

1155-484: Is eliminated. In accordance with the next preference marked on the vote cast by the voter who voted Strawberry as first preference, that vote is transferred to Oranges. In accordance with the next preference marked on the two votes cast by the Pear–Strawberry–Cake voters (which had been transferred to Strawberry in step 2), the two votes are transferred to Cake. (The Cake preference had been "piggy-backed" along with

SECTION 20

#1732776007847

1210-433: Is equivalent to proportional representation by the D'Hondt method . SNTV retains many of the problems of first-past-the-post voting (first-preference plurality voting), and as a result is sometimes viewed skeptically by social choice theorists . However, its extreme simplicity and easy vote-counting makes the system particularly popular for small elections to offices such as city councils , particularly when compared to

1265-497: Is more chance in SNTV than a more orderly system of PR, such as list PR or STV.) If either party had risked trying to win all three seats, causing more vote splitting among supporters of Parties Y and Z, then A of Party X might have won a seat and either party Y or Z would then have taken one fewer seat. For example, 10,000 voters vote to elect three members. Cumulative voting is not used so each voter may not cast more than one vote for

1320-424: Is the percent of voters who voted for the candidate, not the percent of votes cast. SNTV facilitates minority representation, that is, it produces mixed representation of large and small parties where no party takes all the seats. In fact, SNTV would elect the same people as are elected in STV contests where the vote transfers do not move an initially-lower-placing candidate over an initially-higher-placing one. It

1375-517: Is used to elect the 11 at-large members in each of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Under at-large representation , political parties vary the ballot order of their candidates across electoral divisions, in order to ensure each candidate has a roughly equal chance of success. Since most voters choose the candidates placed at the top of their party lists on their ballots, at-large candidates from

1430-441: The 23 guests. STV is chosen to make the decision, with the whole-vote method used to transfer surplus votes. The hope is that each guest will be served at least one food that they are happy with. To select the three foods, each guest is given one vote – they each mark their first preference and are also allowed to cast two back-up preferences to be used only if their first-preference food cannot be selected or to direct

1485-786: The assembly was composed as follows: As in all prefectures, most electoral districts correspond to current cities and former counties (while the counties were abolished as administrative unit in 1921, cities and counties had initially by definition served as electoral districts for prefectural assemblies in the Empire). Single non-transferable vote Condorcet methods Positional voting Cardinal voting Quota-remainder methods Approval-based committees Fractional social choice Semi-proportional representation By ballot type Pathological response Strategic voting Paradoxes of majority rule Positive results Single non-transferable vote or SNTV

1540-451: The district where it is used, so that each vote is worth about the same as another. STV is a family of proportional multi-winner electoral systems . They can be thought of as a variation on the largest remainders method that uses solid coalitions rather than party lists . Surplus votes belonging to winning candidates (those in excess of an electoral quota ) may be thought of as remainder votes – they are transferred to

1595-400: The district wins at least one seat: the more seats the district has, the smaller the size of the group needed to elect a member. In this way, STV provides approximately proportional representation overall, ensuring that substantial minority factions have some representation. There are several STV variants. Two common distinguishing characteristics are whether or not ticket voting is allowed and

1650-416: The fewest votes and is eliminated. According to their only voter's next preference, this vote is transferred to Cake. No option has reached the quota, and there are still two to elect with five in the race, so elimination of options will continue next round. Step 4: Of the remaining options, Oranges, Strawberry and Chicken now are tied for the fewest votes. Strawberry had the fewest first preference votes so

1705-598: The first choice and Pear as second, while the right-most column shows there were three ballots with Chicken as first choice, Chocolate as second, and Hamburger as third. The election step-by-step: ELECTED (2 surplus vote) ELECTED (0 surplus votes) ELECTED (1 surplus vote) Setting the quota: The Droop quota formula is used to produce the quota (the number of votes required to be automatically declared elected) = floor(valid votes / (seats to fill + 1)) + 1 = floor(23 / (3 + 1)) + 1 = floor(5.75) + 1 = 5 + 1 = 6 Step 1: First-preference votes are counted. Pears reaches

Mie Prefectural Assembly - Misplaced Pages Continue

1760-805: The governor including the vice-governors. The last elections were held in the unified local elections in April 2011 , at the same time when centre-right (LDP, Kōmeitō, YP) supported Eikei Suzuki narrowly beat DPJ-supported Naohisa Matsuda in the Mie gubernatorial election. In the assembly election, the Liberal Democratic Party remained strongest party, but the Democratic-Social Democratic group Shinsei Mie ("Renewal Mie") emerged as strongest force. The Japanese Communist Party lost all its seats in 2011. As of April 30, 2011,

1815-445: The information offered in campaigns (polls, reporting, fundraising totals, endorsements, etc.), to rationally decide who the most viable candidates are and then vote for them. SNTV can result in complicated intra-party dynamics because in a SNTV system, a candidate runs against candidates from their own party as well as against candidates from the other party. SNTV elections are not zero-sum contests. Just because one particular candidate

1870-399: The largest numbers of votes would win office. SNTV, like single transferable vote , can be used with non-partisan ballots, in election contests where there are no parties. Three seats are to be filled among five candidates: A, B, C, D and E fielded by 3 parties X, Y and Z. E, D and C are the winning candidates. Thus, Party Z gets two seats and Party Y gets one seat. No one party took all

1925-470: The last parcel of votes received by winners in accordance with the Gregory method. Systems that use the Gregory method for surplus vote transfers are strictly non-random. In a single transferable vote (STV) system, the voter ranks candidates in order of preference on their ballot. A vote is initially allocated to the voter's first preference. A quota (the minimum number of votes that guarantees election)

1980-878: The legislatures of Japan , South Korea and the Republic of China ( Taiwan ), but its use has been discontinued for the most part. It is still used in Japan for some seats in the House of Councillors (Sangi-in), prefectural assemblies and municipal assemblies. Single transferable vote Condorcet methods Positional voting Cardinal voting Quota-remainder methods Approval-based committees Fractional social choice Semi-proportional representation By ballot type Pathological response Strategic voting Paradoxes of majority rule Positive results The single transferable vote ( STV ) or proportional-ranked choice voting ( P-RCV ),

2035-609: The manner in which surplus votes are transferred. In Australia, lower house elections do not allow ticket voting; some but not all state upper house systems do allow ticket voting. In Ireland and Malta, surplus votes are transferred as whole votes (there may be some random-ness) and neither allows ticket voting. In Hare–Clark , used in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory , there is no ticket voting and surplus votes are fractionally transferred based on

2090-401: The more-intricate single transferable vote (STV) system, and has resulted in the method becoming commonly used for ordering open party lists . In any election, each voter casts one vote for one candidate in a multi-candidate race for multiple offices. Posts are filled by the candidates with the most votes ( plurality voting ). Thus, in a three-seat constituency, the three candidates receiving

2145-403: The much smaller Puerto Rican Independence Party runs a single-candidate slate for the at-large members in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The SNTV-elected members are a small part of the chambers compared to the members elected in the sixteen Senate districts, elected by block voting, and the forty House districts, elected by first-past-the-post voting . SNTV was once used to elect

2200-409: The party was not as popular as they thought. If every party does that, all suffer the same inefficiency and the final result is proportional. If one party is more prudent, it may do better than the others. Because votes cannot be transferred, there is more chance of vote wastage than under STV. But in elections that use SNTV, representation is usually mixed. It is rare for one party to make a sweep of

2255-657: The party's candidates. Historically, in Taiwan , the Kuomintang did this by sending members a letter telling them which candidate to vote for. With the Democratic Progressive Party , vote sharing is done informally, as members of a family or small group will coordinate their votes. The New Party had a surprisingly effective system by asking party supporters to vote for the candidate whose identification number corresponded to their birthdate. This led to

Mie Prefectural Assembly - Misplaced Pages Continue

2310-715: The portion of the votes a party can take allows it to avoid vote waste due to lessening the chance of vote splitting and inefficient placement of party support. Under 'perfect' tactical voting and strategic nomination, SNTV would be equivalent to the D'Hondt (Jefferson) method of proportional representation. But under SNTV even inefficient distribution of votes allows more balanced representation than would be elected under either single-member plurality or block voting . Given n {\displaystyle n} candidates to be elected, Candidate A can guarantee success by receiving one more than 1 n + 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n+1}}} of

2365-408: The quota with 8 votes and is therefore elected on the first count, with 2 surplus votes. Step 2: All of the voters who gave first preference to Pears preferred Strawberry next, so the surplus votes are awarded to Strawberry. No other option has reached the quota, and there are still two to elect with six options in the race, so elimination of lower-scoring options starts. Step 3: Chocolate has

2420-411: The quota) or until there are only as many remaining candidates as there are unfilled seats, at which point the remaining candidates are declared elected. Suppose an election is conducted to determine what three foods to serve at a party. There are seven choices: Oranges, Pears, Strawberries, Cake (of the strawberry/chocolate variety), Chocolate, Hamburgers and Chicken. Only three of these may be served to

2475-498: The remaining candidates' votes have surplus votes needing to be transferred), the least popular candidate is eliminated. The eliminated candidate's votes are transferred to the next-preferred candidate rather than being discarded; if the next-preferred choice has already been eliminated or elected, the procedure is iterated to lower-ranked candidates. Counting, eliminations, and vote transfers continue until enough candidates are declared elected (all seats are filled by candidates reaching

2530-486: The result. Four saw their third choice elected. Fifteen voters saw their first preference chosen; eight of these 15 saw their first and third choices selected. Four others saw their second preference chosen, with one of them having their second and third choice selected. Note that if Hamburger had received only one vote when Chicken was eliminated, it still would have won because the only other remaining candidate, Oranges, had fewer votes so would have been declared defeated in

2585-561: The same party usually obtain approximately equal vote totals. When the party's candidates are equally supported, the most-popular party is often able to take six seats of the 11. The two major Puerto Rican political parties, the Popular Democratic Party and the New Progressive Party , usually each run six candidates for the 11 at-large members in each of the House of Representatives and the Senate, while

2640-550: The seats as might have been the result under first past the post or plurality block voting . But counting the votes by party gives these vote tallies: Party Y has more votes than Party Z, but receives fewer seats because of an inefficient spread of votes across the candidates. If Party Y's two candidates had had more equal vote tallies, it would have won two seats and Party Z only one. Or if Party Z's candidates had received less equal vote tallies, Party Y would have won two seats even if its candidates were not equally popular. (There

2695-505: The side of too many candidates, hoping to gain as many seats as possible, perhaps even winning more than its proportion of the electorate if they can edge out candidates from larger parties with just a few votes. As well, a small party running just one candidate would not suffer from vote spitting, while a larger party running four or more may suffer from that. SNTV electoral systems, like STV and proportional electoral systems generally, typically produce more proportional electoral outcomes as

2750-589: The size of the electoral districts (number of seats in each constituency) increases. The potential for tactical voting in a single non-transferable vote system is large. Casting only one vote, a rational voter wanting to maximize the number of seats captured by his party should vote for a candidate of the party that has a chance of winning, but one that will not win by too great a margin and thus take votes away from party colleagues. This creates opportunities for tactical nominations, with parties nominating candidates similar to their opponents' candidates in order to split

2805-459: The transfer to Strawberry.) Cake reaches the quota and is elected. Cake has no surplus votes, no other option has reached the quota, and there is still one choice to select with three in the race, so the vote count proceeds, with the elimination of the least popular candidate. Step 5: Chicken has the fewest votes and is eliminated. The Chicken voters' next preference is Chocolate but Chocolate has already been eliminated. The next usable preference

SECTION 50

#1732776007847

2860-635: The vote tallies of others, not with a theoretical threshold or quota. In the 2020 Vanuatuan general election , using SNTV, as few as 5 percent of the vote was enough to be elected in a seven-seat district, where about 13 percent is Droop quota. Vote splitting due to poor information on voters' behaviour may deny a popular party its due share of representation. (Single Transferable Voting does not suffer from this handicap as votes are transferable and many are transferred and used that are wasted under SNTV.) Parties organizing slates of multiple candidates may nominate many candidates and then learn on election night that

2915-488: The vote. Like all multiple-winner selections, parties find it advantageous to run a range of candidates in SNTV elections. SNTV has been measured through the lens of such concepts as decision-theoretic analysis . Professor Gary W. Cox , an expert on SNTV, has studied this system's use in Japan. Cox has an explanation of real-world data finding the, "two systems [plurality and semi-proportional] are alike in their strategic voting equilibria." His research found that voters use

2970-511: The votes (the Droop quota ), because n {\displaystyle n} +1 other candidates cannot each receive more than Candidate A (too many would not pass Droop quota) But as SNTV is a plurality system and votes are wasted (not used to elect anyone), it is possible to win with less than Droop quota (but never possible to lose if you have at least Droop). To determine the successful candidates, candidates' vote tallies are compared with

3025-513: The winning candidates would have more support than necessary and thus wasting votes. The risks of poor strategic nomination are not equal for parties of various strengths. A large party would have much more to lose from the split vote effect than to gain from avoiding the wasted vote effect, and so would likely decide to err on the side of fielding fewer candidates (but probably not less than their existing number of seats). A small party with little representation would be more risk-tolerant and err on

#846153