You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:
This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 34.200.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪JJMC89‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 05:16, 2 September 2025.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Jon Kolbert‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected .
- Start of block: 05:38, 21 February 2024
- Expiry of block: 05:38, 21 February 2029
Your current IP address is 34.200.250.87. The blocked range is 34.200.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.
You can view and copy the source of this page:
((More citations needed|date=May 2018))
((Use dmy dates|date=May 2022))Historically, the [[single transferable vote]] (STV) [[electoral system]] has seen a series of relatively modest periods of usage and disusage throughout the world; however, today it is seeing increasing popularity and proposed implementation as a method of [[proportional representation]] and a goal of [[electoral reform]]. STV has been used in many different local, regional and national electoral systems, as well as in various other types of bodies, around the world. <!-- removed this: This page describes the most significant instances and notes any special history of features. -->

== Early history ==
<!--a picture of an old STV voting machine would go very well here--[there is no such thing actually -- most early STV elections were hand-counted]>The concept of transferable voting was proposed by [[Thomas Wright Hill]] in 1819.<ref>((cite book |last=Tideman |first=Nicolaus |author-link=Nicolaus Tideman |date=2006 |title=Collective Decisions and Voting: The Potential for Public Choice |location=Burlington, VT |publisher=Ashgate Publishing Company |isbn=978-0-75464-717-1))</ref>

In 1855 in Denmark, [[Carl Andræ]] proposed a multi-winner transferable vote system for elections in [[Denmark]].<ref name=humphreys>((cite book |last1=Humphreys |first1=John H. |title=Proportional Representation, A Study in Methods of Election |date=1911 |publisher=Methuen & Co.Ltd |location=London |url=https://archive.org/details/proportionalrepr00humpuoft))</ref> Andræ's system was used in 1856 to elect the Danish [[Rigsdag]], and by 1866 it was also adapted for indirect elections to the second chamber, the [[Landsting (Denmark)|Landsting]], until 1915.

The English [[barrister]] [[Thomas Hare (political scientist)|Thomas Hare]] is generally credited with the conception of Single Transferable Voting as we know it today, and he publicized the idea in his 1857 book Machinery of Representation.<ref name=humphreys/> Hare's view was that STV should be a means of "making the exercise of the suffrage a step in the elevation of the individual character, whether it be found in the majority or the minority." In [[Hare method (STV)|Hare's original STV system]], he proposed that electors should have the opportunity of discovering which candidate their vote had ultimately counted for, to improve their personal connection with voting.<ref name="Lambert">((cite book |first1=Enid |last1=Lakeman |first2=James D. |last2=Lambert |name-list-style=amp |date=1955 |title=Voting in Democracies |location=London, UK |publisher=Faber & Faber |page=245))</ref> (But secret voting in today's elections prevents this transparency.)

The noted political essayist, [[John Stuart Mill]], was a friend of Hare and an early proponent of STV. He praised Hare's STV in his 1861 essay ''[[Considerations on Representative Government]]''. His contemporary, [[Walter Bagehot]], also praised the Hare system for allowing everyone to elect an MP, even ideological minorities, but added that the Hare system would create more problems than it solved: "[the Hare system] is inconsistent with the extrinsic independence as well as the inherent moderation of a Parliament – two of the conditions we have seen, are essential to the bare possibility of parliamentary government."<ref name="Bagehot">((cite book |url=http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/bagehot/constitution.pdf |last=Bagehot |first=Walter |author-link=Walter Bagehot |date=1873 |title=The English Constitution |edition=2nd |location=London |publisher=H. S. King |page=134))</ref><!-- it's not exactly clear what Bagehot is arguing here... -->

STV spread through the [[British Empire]], leading it to be sometimes known as ''British Proportional Representation''. <!-- Think that was noted in Lambert & Lakeman-->In 1896, [[Andrew Inglis Clark]] was successful in persuading the [[Tasmanian House of Assembly]] to adopt what became known as the ''[[Hare-Clark electoral system|Hare-Clark system]]'', named after himself and Thomas Hare.

In the late 1800s and 20th century, refinements were made to Hare's original system, by Droop, Meek, Warren, Tideman and others. (see: [[Counting Single Transferable Votes]] for further details).

== Australia ==
((see also|Australian electoral system|Electoral systems of the Australian states and territories))

Australia uses several forms of ranked votes in different jurisdictions. The systems require voters to rank several, or all, of the candidates on the ballot, reducing or eliminating the possibility of exhausted votes.

Lower house elections for the Australian parliament and for all states except Tasmania use what they call STV (what others call [[Instant-runoff voting]] to elect a single member for an electorate.

At the Commonwealth level (national level) and in most states, upper houses use STV to elect multiple members to represent a state or district.

The Hare-Clark STV system is used in [[Tasmania]]'s [[Tasmanian House of Assembly|House of Assembly]] and the [[Australian Capital Territory|Australian Capital Territory (ACT)]] [[Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly|Legislative Assembly]]. Hare Clark uses the Droop quota and the Gregory Method for transfer of surplus votes. During the count fractional votes are recorded under a separate heading for simplicity sake. On the ballot, candidates' names are placed within the column for each party and are randomised by [[Robson Rotation]] rather than alphabetical. Casual vacancies are filled by the countback method, which involves recounting the original ballots to elect one of the candidates who stood but failed to be elected in the last election.<ref>Newman, Hare-Clark in Tasmania</ref>

[[File:Victorian-senate-paper-folded-01.png|440x440px|thumb|left|Australian Senate ballot paper used in Victoria for 2016]]

The [[Australian Senate]] and the upper houses of [[New South Wales Legislative Council|New South Wales]], [[South Australian Legislative Council|South Australia]], [[Victorian Legislative Council|Victoria]] and [[Western Australian Legislative Council|Western Australia]] use STV to elect multiple members with the option of voting "above the line". [[Queensland]] has a [[Unicameralism|unicameral]] legislature — that is, it does not have an upper house.

The [[Group voting ticket|Group Voting Ticket]] or ''Ticket-Voting'' system is in use in Victoria, and was used in the Senate from 1984 to 2013, in New South Wales from 1987 to 2003 and in South Australia from 1985 to 2018. Western Australia used it from 1987 until the 2021 election, but legislation has been introduced to abolish it.<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2021/09/Electoral-Equality-Bill-introduced-into-State-Parliament.aspx |title=Electoral Equality Bill introduced into State Parliament |date=15 September 2021 |website=Government of Western Australia |access-date=3 October 2021 |archive-date=3 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211003223938/https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2021/09/Electoral-Equality-Bill-introduced-into-State-Parliament.aspx  ))</ref> The votes are counted in the basically same way as under Hare-Clark, but when casting votes, voters have the option of selecting one single group "above the line", instead of numbering individual candidates ''below the line''. Groups of candidates (usually, but not inevitably, corresponding to political parties) may each pre-register one ranked list of all the candidates (or, in some systems, two lists) and the votes ''above the line'' for each ticket are deemed to have numbered the candidates in the order pre-specified on the team's list (if the team lodged two lists, 50% of the votes go to each version). Casual vacancies are usually filled by the house of parliament with the vacancy, though there may be a requirement by law or convention to select a nominee of the out-going member's party.

Where Group Voting Tickets are now abolished, an "above the line" vote is equivalent to a vote for all candidates in one group in order, but the elector may choose to number additional boxes to express preferences for other groups.

The Senate, News South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia (pending legislation) allow [[optional preferential voting]], so a voter does not have to complete every square.

Each form has its pros and cons. The Hare-Clark system with Robson Rotation is advocated on the grounds that the effect of '[[donkey voting]]' is reduced because of the randomised ordering, and the absence of the [[group voting ticket]]s creates more personal accountability. The alternative system is advocated on the grounds that informal voting (spoiled ballots) is reduced because only one number need be written; on the other hand, it greatly increases the potential for tactics by parties as they have direct control of a large percentage of the vote. Over 90% of voters vote "above the line" instead of ranking their own preferences in detail. As a result, the informal rate reduced from around 10 percent, to around three percent.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="background:#ccc;"
! Jurisdiction
! Body elected
! "Above the line"
! Group tickets
! Vacancies
! Surplus votes transfer method<ref name="Australiatransfers">((cite journal |url=http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/Farrell_McAllister_1983_Surplus_Change.pdf |title=The 1983 Change in Surplus Vote Transfer Procedures for the Australian Senate and its Consequences for the Single Transferable Vote |first1=David M. |last1=Farrell |author-link1=David Farrell (political scientist) |first2=Ian |last2=McAllister |author-link2=Ian McAllister (political scientist) |name-list-style=amp |date=November 2003 |journal=[[Australian Journal of Political Science]] |volume=38 |number=3 |pages=479–491 |doi=10.1080/1036114032000134001 |s2cid=55511271  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060514113227/http://citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/Farrell_McAllister_1983_Surplus_Change.pdf |archive-date=2006-05-14))</ref>
! Seats per constituency
! Year introduced
|-
| Federal Parliament
| [[Australian Senate|Senate]]
| Yes (1987–present)
| No (in use 1987–2016)
| Appointment
| All ballots at fractional value (Inclusive Gregory)<ref name="McAllister p. 61">Farrell and McAllister, The Australian Electoral System, p. 61</ref>
| 2 (ACT, NT) or 6 (states) (2 or 12 at a [[double dissolution]])
| 1948
|-
| [[Australian Capital Territory]]
| [[Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly|Legislative Assembly]]
| No
| No
| Countback
| Last parcel of ballots at fractional value Gregory (simple)<ref name="McAllister p. 61"/>
| 5
| 1993
|-
| [[New South Wales]]
| [[New South Wales Legislative Council|Legislative Council]]
| Yes (1987–present)
| No (in use 1987–2003)
| Appointment (formerly highest runner-up of same team)
| Surplus ballots only at full value<ref name="McAllister p. 61"/>
| 21
| 1978
|-
| [[South Australia]]
| [[South Australian Legislative Council|Legislative Council]]
| Yes (1985–present)
| No (in use 1985–2018)
| Appointment
| All ballots at fractional value (Inclusive Gregory)<ref name="McAllister p. 61"/>
| 11
| 1973
|-
| [[Tasmania]]
| [[Tasmanian House of Assembly|House of Assembly]]
| No
| No
| Countback
| Last parcel of ballots at fractional value, Gregory (simple)<ref name="McAllister p. 61"/>
| 5 (previously 7)
| 1907
|-
| [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]]
| [[Victorian Legislative Council|Legislative Council]]
| Yes (1988–present)
| Yes (1988–present)
| Election by joint sitting of Council and [[Victorian Legislative Assembly|Assembly]] (must be from the same party if vacated member was elected under a party; otherwise, must be non-partisan)
| All ballots at fractional value (Inclusive Gregory)<ref name="McAllister p. 61"/>
| 5
|
|-
| [[Western Australia]]
| [[Western Australian Legislative Council|Legislative Council]]
| Yes (1987–present)
| No (in use 1987–2021)
| Countback
| All ballots at fractional value (Inclusive Gregory)<ref name="McAllister p. 61"/>
| 6  (37 (pending))
| 1987
|}

== Canada ==
((See also|Elections in Canada))((more citations needed section|date=May 2018))

STV was used in provincial elections in two provinces and city elections in 20 cities and municipalities in the 1917 to 1971 period.
All these elections used the Droop quota. For transfers of surplus votes, most of them used the whole vote method. Only Calgary city elections used the Gregory fractional method.
STV was used in Winnipeg for provincial elections to elect ten MLAs from 1920 to 1949. This was the largest District Magnitude (number of members elected in single contest) anywhere in the world until New South Wales began to elect 21 in its elections starting in 1990.<ref>Bowler and Grofman, Elections in Australia, Ireland and Malta</ref><ref>Farrell and McAllister, The Australian Electoral System, p. 60</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="background:#ccc;"
! Jurisdiction
! Body elected
! "Above the line"
! Group tickets
! Vacancies
! Surplus Vote Transfer method<ref name="Australiatransfers"/>
! Seats/constituency
! Year introduced
|-
| [[Manitoba]] 
|  [[Manitoba Legislative Assembly|Legislative Assembly]]
| No, only votes for candidates allowed
| No
| Seat left empty until next general election
| Surplus ballots only, at full value
| 10 1920–1945  
2 or 4 per district 1949, 1953
| 1920 (cancelled in 1955)
|-
| [[Alberta]]
| [[Alberta Legislative Assembly|Legislative Assembly]]
| No, only votes for candidates allowed
| No
| by-election
| Surplus ballots only, at full value
| Edmonton 5-7 Calgary 5–6 
| 1924 (cancelled in 1956)
|-
| [[Winnipeg]]
| Winnipeg City Council (aldermen)
| No
| No 
| filled at next election (staggered terms) in by-election
| Surplus ballots only at full value
| 6 (3 per district elected in each election)
| 1920 (cancelled 1970)
|-
| [[Calgary]]
| Calgary City Council (aldermen)
| No
| No 
| next election (staggered terms)
| All ballots at fractional value (Inclusive Gregory)
| 1917-1960 6-9 (depending on resignations). 1960-1970 2 per district (1 per district elected in each election, unless extra empty seat due to resignation, etc.). 1971 2 per district
| 1917 (in use to 1961, then intermittently, replaced mostly by IRV, (depending on resignations) to 1971, 1971 STV used to elect all city councillors, in two-seat districts.<ref name="ReferenceA">Monto, When Canada Had "Effective Voting"</ref>
|-
| [[Edmonton]]
| Edmonton City Council (aldermen)
| No
| No
| next election (staggered terms)
| Surplus ballots only, at full value
| 5-7 (depending on resignations)
| 1923 (cancelled in 1928)<ref>Rek, Municipal Elections in Edmonton</ref>
|}

Other cities that used STV include Vancouver, Victoria, Nelson, Port Coquitlam, New Westminster, Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw, North Battleford, St. Boniface and Lethbridge (1928 only).<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

=== Federal elections in Canada ===

==== Senate ====
Under the proposed Bill C-43 before the [[Parliament of Canada]] during the 39th Parliament – 1st Session (April 3, 2006 – September 14, 2007), STV would have been used for [[Senate of Canada#Harper's plan|consultative elections]] of Senators.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Language=E&query=4899&Session=14&List=toc |title=LEGISinfo – House Government Bill C-43 (39–1) |website=Parliament of Canada |access-date=2011-05-17  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090219215009/http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=e |archive-date=2009-02-19))</ref>

=== Alberta ===
STV-PR was used in the [[Calgary (provincial electoral district)|Calgary]] and [[Edmonton (provincial electoral district)|Edmonton]] electoral districts for electing Members of the [[Alberta]] Legislative Assembly from 1926 to 1955, with five, six or seven MLAs being elected at-large in each city. [[Medicine Hat (provincial electoral district)|Medicine Hat]] used STV for the 1926 election only, electing two MLAs. Between 1924 and 1955, all other electoral districts used [[instant-runoff voting]] alternative voting / preferential voting. As well, by-elections held in Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg between 1924 and 1956 used IRV. In 1958 the cities were divided into many single-member constituencies, and all MLAs were elected in single-member [[first past the post]] elections.

As well, STV was used for city elections in Calgary from 1917 to 1961 and in 1971; Edmonton city elections from 1923 to 1927 and Lethbridge in 1928.((sfn|Bowler|Grofman|2000|p=206))<ref>((cite book |last=Monto |first=Tom |date=2021 |title=When Canada had "Effective Voting": STV in Western Canada 1917-1971 |location=Edmonton, Alberta |publisher=Tom Monto))</ref>

=== British Columbia ===
Many [[British Columbia]] (BC) cities used multi-member at-large districts for their municipal elections at one point, including Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster and Nelson.((sfn|Bowler|Grofman|2000|p=206)) Two types of voting were used at different times((snd)) - [[Plurality block voting]] during most periods, and between 1917 and 1926, many used the [[single transferable vote]].

Provincially, British Columbia used a mixture of voting methods to elect their members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs): single-member districts using first-past-the-post and multi-member districts using plurality block voting. Elections in BC from the province's creation until the 1990 election were held under a mix of multi-member and single-member districts, with district types often being changed back and forth from one election to the next. Through almost all of BC's history, seats were filled by plurality elections. The only exceptions were the 1952 and 1953 elections where [[Instant-runoff voting]] was used. In 1952 and 1953, seats in multi-seat districts were filled through separate contests for each seat.)

After 1953, the SoCred government abolished the [Instant-runoff voting] and returned the province to the province's traditional mixed system of plurality block voting in multiple-member constituencies and FPTP contests in single-member districts. The change-back benefited the government party by creating large numbers of wasted votes and a wide possibility for gerrymandering. Finally in the 1980s, this unfair system was discarded due to wide criticism, and the province adopted a consistent system of FPTP in single-seat districts.

Further electoral reform was discussed in the 1990s, particularly after the CCF, now the British Columbia New Democratic Party (BC NDP), was re-elected for a second time that decade in the [[1996 British Columbia general election|1996 election]]. While the NDP won a majority of seats in the election, the opposition Liberals had won a larger share of the popular vote. After the Liberals won the [[2001 British Columbia general election|2001 election]], they created the [[Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia)|Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform]].

The Assembly surprised many when it proposed an STV electoral model called [[BC-STV]] and recommended it to the electorate.<ref name="Assembly">((cite web |url=http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/news/2004/10/dmaclachlan-3_0410241345-701 |title=News release: Assembly's recommendation to British Columbia |date=24 October 2004 |website=Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051203094330/http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/news/2004/10/dmaclachlan-3_0410241345-701 |archive-date=2005-12-03))</ref> In the [[2005 British Columbia electoral reform referendum|ensuing electoral reform referendum]] held on May 17, 2005, BC-STV achieved a majority 57.7% Yes support. However, this did not give it the 60% province-wide support set as a requirement by the Liberal government for the referendum outcome to be automatically binding. Nevertheless, the "Yes" simple majority support in 77 provincial districts (out of 79) far exceeded the 48-riding level that had also been specified as a requirement.

Due to the evident support for electoral reform, the re-elected BC Liberal government announced in the [[Throne Speech]] on September 12, 2005, that the public of British Columbia would get a second referendum on STV in November 2008. This was later rescheduled: the second referendum on electoral reform was then planned to be held in conjunction with the May 12, 2009 provincial general election. In the interim, the Electoral Boundaries Commission designed new boundaries for both FPTP and STV. Both supporting and opposing sides of the referendum campaign received government funding to help educate the public in time for the referendum.<ref name="Bains">((cite web |url=http://www.canada.com/vancouver/bcvotes/story.html?id=f97e855b-598b-4d98-9aa9-c89d60adf242 |title=STV supporters press for electoral reform despite referendum defeat |first=Camille |last=Bains |date=May 18, 2005 |website=[[Canada.com]]  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061030093402/http://www.canada.com/vancouver/bcvotes/story.html?id=f97e855b-598b-4d98-9aa9-c89d60adf242 |archive-date=2006-10-30))</ref> In contrast to the 2005 vote, which saw 57.7% of voters in favour of STV, the STV initiative was then defeated on May 12, 2009, with only 39% of voters in support.<ref>((cite news |url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/bcvotes2009/story/2009/05/12/bc-election-stv.html |title=B.C. voters turn thumbs down on STV |work=[[CBC News]] |date=May 12, 2009 |access-date=May 13, 2009))</ref>

=== Manitoba ===
Provincial elections in [[Manitoba]] were conducted partly by STV from 1920 until 1958:

:* [[Winnipeg (provincial electoral district)|Winnipeg]] was constituted as a ten-member constituency in 1920 for [[1920 Manitoba general election|that year's election]],((sfn|Jansen|1998|p=31)) while the other single-member constituencies had to wait until 1924 for the adoption of [[instant run-off voting]] which was first used in the [[1927 Manitoba general election|1927 election]].((sfn|Jansen|1998|p=49))
:* In 1949, after considerable debate, Winnipeg was divided into three four-member constituencies, MLAs elected through STV, and [[St. Boniface (provincial electoral district)|St. Boniface]] was made into a two-member constituency, whose MLAs were elected through STV.((sfn|Jansen|1998|pp=217-221))

In 1955, Manitoba changed to single-member districts and began to use [[first past the post]] voting,((sfn|Jansen|1998|p=1)) which was implemented in the [[1958 Manitoba general election|1958 election]].

Municipal elections in [[Winnipeg]], [[Transcona]], [[St. James-Assiniboia, Winnipeg|St. James]] and [[St. Vital, Winnipeg|St. Vital]] were also conducted by STV from 1920 to 1971.<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.fairvote.ca/2016/08/19/fvc-erre-submissions_appx_10_-made-in-canada_stv/ |title=Appendix 11: Made-in-Canada STV |last=Nickerson |first=Anita |date=2016 |website=Fair Vote Canada))</ref><ref>((cite report |url=https://www.publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/bdp-lop/bp/YM32-2-2016-6-eng.pdf |title=Electoral Systems and Electoral Reform in Canada and Elsewhere: An Overview |last1=Barnes |first1=André |last2=Lithwick |first2=Dara |last3=Virgint |first3=Erin |date=11 January 2016 |publisher=Legal and Social Affairs Division, [[Library of Parliament]] |page=15))</ref>

=== Ontario ===
The municipal election act used for elections to all of [[Ontario]]'s municipal councils was amended in 2016, and since then municipalities have had the option to institute a ranked ballot. Ontario's municipalities have a variety of electoral configurations: some with all single-member districts, some with all multi-member districts, some electing members at-large, and some using a mixture of these approaches; the relevant regulations outline the use of [[instant-runoff voting]] where a single representative is to be elected and STV where multiple representatives are to be elected.<ref>((Cite web |url=http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page11120.aspx |title=Municipal Elections Act Review |date=December 7, 2015 |website=[[Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Ontario)]] |access-date=2017-07-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427093411/http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page11120.aspx |archive-date=2017-04-27 ))</ref>

As of the [[2018 Ontario municipal elections]], only one council, that of the City of [[London, Ontario|London]], will be elected using a ranked-choice ballot. As London exclusively uses single-member districts, its election will be instant-runoff voting and not STV. The next opportunity for a municipality to potentially adopt STV will be the 2022 Ontario municipal elections.

=== Saskatchewan ===
The city of Saskatoon used STV for its municipal elections 1920-1930 and 1938–1942.

As well, Regina, Moose Jaw and North Battleford also used the system in the early 1920s.((sfn|Bowler|Grofman|2000|p=206))

== Estonia ==
The system was used once: for the 18 March [[1990 Estonian Supreme Soviet election]], which was one of the four elections between 1989 and 1992 in the process that led to the independence of [[Estonia]] from the Soviet Union.<ref name="estonia89-93">((cite journal |last1=Grofman |first1=Bernard |last2=Mikkel |first2=Evald |last3=Taagepera |first3=Rein |title=Electoral systems change in Estonia, 1989–1993 |journal=[[Journal of Baltic Studies]] |date=1999 |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=227–249 |doi=10.1080/01629779900000081 |s2cid=143812929 |url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9510610w))</ref> The local elections in December 1989 were also held with this system, which served as a dress rehearsal<ref name="estonia89-93"/> with the law finally enacted on 4 December 1989.<ref name="estoniansystems">((cite report |last1=Núñez |first1=Lidia |last2=Jaakson |first2=Lauri |title=Electoral System Change in Europe since 1945: Estonia |publisher=ESCE Project |url=https://www.electoralsystemchanges.eu/Files/media/MEDIA_133/FILE/Estonia_summary.pdf))</ref>

The choice of STV was the result of a debate on voting systems led by the influential [[Estonians|Estonian]] political scientist and émigré [[Rein Taagepera]], who penned articles in ''[[Edasi]]'' in 1988, published ''Seats and Votes'' in 1989, and gave conferences on the topic. STV was not, however, Taagepera's own preference, but was rather the result of a consensus driven by [[Peet Kask]] between the outgoing Communist local officials, who sought a system that favored their popular names over their unpopular party brand, and the principle of proportional representation favored by the new parties.<ref name="estonia89-93"/>

The electoral system has been praised as a factor of political moderation that helped accommodate [[Russians in Estonia]] into the new political structure.<ref>((cite journal |last1=Khrychikov |first1=Sergey |last2=Miall |first2=Hugh |title=Conflict Prevention in Estonia: The Role of the Electoral System |journal=[[Security Dialogue]] |date=June 2002 |volume=33 |issue=2 |pages=193–208 |doi=10.1177/0967010602033002007 |jstor=26298067 |s2cid=59127998 |url=https://kar.kent.ac.uk/287/1/193.pdf ))</ref>

However, just before the [[Constitution of Estonia]] was enacted in 1992, a new electoral law was passed on 20 April 1992<ref name="estoniansystems"/> for the recreated ''[[Riigikogu]]'', choosing instead an open [[party list proportional representation]] system with a 5% threshold, similar to many other countries of continental Europe. The [[ACE Electoral Knowledge Network]] cites the "complex intricacies of an STV count" as one of the reasons for the change.<ref>((cite web |title=Electoral Systems -- The Systems and Their Consequences. Proportional representation: The Single Transferable Vote, avantages and disadvantages |url=https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/esd02/esd02d/esd02d01 |website=[[ACE Electoral Knowledge Network]]))</ref>

== Hong Kong ==
For the [[1995 Hong Kong legislative election|1995 election]] of Hong Kong's 60-member [[Legislative Council (Hong Kong)|Legislative Council]], STV was used to elect the 10-member [[Election Committee (constituency)|Election Committee constituency]]. Following the [[Handover of Hong Kong|1997 transfer]] to Chinese sovereignty, the method changed to [[plurality-at-large voting]].

== Hungary ==
The Common Country Movement (KOM) proposed using STV for electing representatives of non-resident nationals to the National Assembly in 2017, but the bill brought to parliament by five opposition parties was dismissed by the governing coalition.<ref>((Cite web |url=http://index.hu/belfold/2017/10/16/kozos_orszag_mozgalom_valasztojogi_reform/ |title=Itt a Közös Ország új választójogi tervezete |trans-title=Here is the new Electoral Bill of the Common Country |language=hu |date=2017-10-16 |website=[[Index.hu]] |access-date=2022-05-15))</ref><ref>((cite web |url=https://4cdn.hu/kraken/raw/upload/74XL5b7V8nhA.pdf |title=2017. évi törvény az országgyűlési képviselők választásáról |trans-title=Act of 2017 on the election of members of parliament |website=4cdn.hu |language=hu))</ref>

== India ==
((See also|Elections in India))
STV was used in 1920 to elect members for Bengal and Madras.<ref>((Cite book |last=Clarence Gilbert Hoag and George Hervey Hallett |title=Proportional Representation |year=1926 |pages=258))</ref>

STV is not used for direct elections in India, but is used for the indirect election of most members of the [[Rajya Sabha]], the upper house of the federal parliament. The Rajya Sabha consists of 250 members: twelve are nominated by the [[President of India]] while the remainder are elected using STV by members of the legislatures of the states and the [[Union Territory|union territories]]. The number of members of the Rajya Sabha elected by each state and union territory is loosely proportionate to its population, such that, ((As of|2006|lc=on)), [[Bihar]], with a population of 82 million, is represented by 22 members, while [[Sikkim]], with a population of 540,000 is represented by just one member.

In addition, the federal president and vice-president are indirectly elected by MPs using [[Instant-runoff voting|alternative vote]], which is STV applied to one vacancy at a time.

== Malta ==
((See also|Elections in Malta))
STV has been used in all elections in [[Malta]] since 1921. Its 65 members of the House of Representatives are elected in 13 five-seat districts. As well, top-up seats (similar to the [[additional member system]]) may be added in the national parliament to ensure that a party with a majority of first-preference votes wins a majority of seats. This mechanism was brought in as a response to the controversial 1981 election when the [[Nationalist Party (Malta)|Nationalist Party]] won 51% of the first-preference vote but the [[Malta Labour Party|Labour Party]] won a majority of the seats.<ref name="MaltaData">((cite web |url=http://www.maltadata.com |title=Elections in Malta: The Single-Transferable-Vote System in Action, 1921–2004 |website=MaltaData.com |access-date=August 11, 2005  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051231154302/http://www.maltadata.com/ |archive-date=2005-12-31))</ref> Some subsequently accused Labour of having [[gerrymander]]ed the five-seat constituencies: eight had narrowly split 3:2 in its favour, while five had more widely split 3:2 in favour of the Nationalists. The top-up rule was also invoked in 1987 for the benefit of the Nationalists and in 1996 for the benefit of the Labour Party.

The Maltese electorate largely does not take advantage of the cross-party voting opportunities provided by STV. Almost all voters give preferences to all the candidates from one of the two major parties, but do not give preferences to candidates from the other party. Third parties, meanwhile, get minimal support. The effect of this voting pattern is similar to a tight two-party [[open list]] PR system simultaneously using STV within each party to decide its representatives whilst using the indicated first preference candidate's party as the voter's preferred party. Because of the transfer behaviour of the voters, each party can stand many more candidates than there are winners in total without being adversely affected. The large number of candidates is useful when casual vacancies occur as unsuccessful candidates fill the empty seats through countback between general elections. Strangely, some candidates stand and are elected in more than one constituency, leading to vacancies filled by countback.

== New Zealand ==
((See also|Elections in New Zealand))
In [[New Zealand]] STV is used in elections to some local authorities and in elections for all the District Health Boards. The count is conducted using [[Meek's method]]. District Health Boards consist of a mixture of appointed and elected members. The vast majority of local authorities use [[Plurality-at-large voting|plurality at large]] (bloc voting) instead of STV. Current use of STV was introduced by the [[Local Electoral Act 2001]] and began with elections to local councils and District Health Boards in October 2004<ref name="NewZealand">((cite web |url=http://www.stv.govt.nz |title=STV – It's simple to vote |date=2004 |website=New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs |access-date=August 11, 2005))</ref>

During the 20th century STV was used for elections to the [[Christchurch City Council]] in 1917, 1929, 1931 and 1933, and for [[Woolston, New Zealand|Woolston Borough Council]] in 1917 and 1919. In business, [[Fonterra]] used STV for their board of directors and Shareholders' Council elections in 2002.

The Local Electoral Act 2001 provided that STV was mandatory for District Health Board elections but offered local councils the choice of either staying with plurality at large or changing to STV. It also provided for a binding poll of voters in an area to be held to determine which system would be used, either at the initiative of the council or by a [[Popular initiative|citizen's initiative]] instigated by voters in an area.<ref name="NewZealand2">((cite web |url=http://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/LGIP.nsf/wpg_URL/About-Local-Government-Local-Government-Legislation-Local-Electoral-Act-2001?OpenDocument |title=Guide to Local Electoral Act 2001 |website=Local Government in New Zealand  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070325150858/http://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/LGIP.nsf/wpg_url/About-Local-Government-Local-Government-Legislation-Local-Electoral-Act-2001?OpenDocument |archive-date=2007-03-25))</ref>

In practice very few local authorities adopted STV under the Act's provisions, and in those that did the use of STV was plagued by poor explanations of the STV process, which often gave little more information than an algorithmic description of how to place a vote. This left the unfortunate impression among voters that STV was little more than a gratuitously complex equivalent to existing voting mechanisms. Nonetheless, New Zealand made history by becoming the first country in the world to use the advanced Meek's method of STV.

In the 2004 elections 81 STV elections occurred, but two were not contested. Confusion was caused by the fact that some local elections included ballots for multiple local government bodies, some of which were conducted by [[First Past the Post|single-winner plurality]] ("first past the post"), some by [[plurality at large]], and some by STV. An example of the confusion among voters was one result from the 2007 elections, in which the first place went to blank or incomplete voting forms and the fourth place went to incorrectly filled-out forms. The actual candidates came in at places two and three.<ref name="NewZealand3">((cite news |title=Voters too tired to vote for health board |first=Hayden |last=Donnell |date=30 October 2007 |newspaper=[[Rodney Times]]))</ref> Due to low voter turnout, the high number of spoilt votes and the long time taken for results to be declared, the Justice and Electoral Committee of the [[Parliament of New Zealand]] has undertaken an inquiry into the use of STV in New Zealand.

==Ireland ==
((see also|Elections in the Republic of Ireland))
"Proportional Representation by means of the Single Transferable Vote" (commonly called "Proportional Representation" rather than "Single Transferable Vote") is used for [[Elections in the Republic of Ireland|all public elections]] in the [[Republic of Ireland]], except that single-winner elections ([[Irish presidential election|presidential elections]] and single-vacancy by-elections) reduce to [[instant-runoff voting]]. The most important elections in the Republic are those to [[Dáil Éireann]], the [[lower house]] of the [[Oireachtas]] (parliament). The Dáil is directly elected from constituencies of between three and five seats. The [[Constitution of Ireland|Irish constitution]] specifies a minimum size of three seats and, although there is no maximum size, there have been no constituencies of more than five seats since 1947. (In 1944 there were three 7-seat districts and several five- and three-seat districts.)

In the [[Seanad Éireann|Senate]], the weak upper house, six [[University constituency#Irish Free State, Republic of Ireland|University seats]] are filled from two three-seat constituencies, while 43 [[Vocational panel|vocational panel seats]] are filled on a restricted franchise from five panels of up to eleven seats. The panel election rules depart from true STV by requiring a minimum number of candidates to be elected from each of two sub-panels;<ref>((cite web |date=19 December 1947 |title=Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act, 1947 |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1947/en/act/pub/0042/sec0052.html#zza42y1947s52 |access-date=2007-09-26 |publisher=[[Government of Ireland]] |pages=§47))</ref> in the 2007 [[Cultural and Educational Panel]] election [[Ann Ormonde]] was elected despite having fewer votes than Terence Slowey when Slowey was eliminated.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.seanadcount.ie/sc/seanadcount.nsf/0bddb7722ed754f88025730d003dac51/4e73ac12e84ea3078025730e005baf47/$FILE/C&E%20Results%20Sheet15.xls |title=Seanad General election: July 2007. Count Results: Cultural and Educational Panel |date=July 24, 2007 |access-date=2007-09-26 |website=[[Government of Ireland]] |format=[[Microsoft Excel]]  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071119031834/http://www.seanadcount.ie/sc/seanadcount.nsf/0bddb7722ed754f88025730d003dac51/4e73ac12e84ea3078025730e005baf47/%24FILE/C%26E%20Results%20Sheet15.xls |archive-date=November 19, 2007))</ref><ref>((cite news |url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/0724/1184965278969.html |title=Labour-SF pact gives Seanad seat to White |last1=Collins |first1=Stephen |first2=Michael |last2=O'Riordan |date=July 24, 2007 |newspaper=[[The Irish Times]] |access-date=2007-09-26  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101117185726/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/0724/1184965278969.html |archive-date=17 November 2010 |quote=the [[Fine Gael]] loss ultimately came about because the party's two strongest candidates were on the inside panel nominated by Oireachtas members... Both [[Liam Twomey|Mr Twomey]] and Mr Slowey were ahead of Ms Ormonde on the last count but because of the special rules governing Seanad elections, under which a set number of seats are reserved for candidates of outside nominating bodies, the Fianna Fáil candidate was elected.))</ref>

STV is also used in local and European elections, and is common in private organisations, such as student unions. However, some representatives on the Senate of the [[National University of Ireland]] are elected by [[cumulative voting]].<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.nuigalway.ie/media/oifiganrunai/files/CCLXXV_275_Election_Senate_National_University_Ireland.pdf |title=Statute CCLXXV |date=27 May 2002 |work=Statutes NUI Galway |publisher=National University of Ireland, Galway |access-date=18 March 2016))</ref><ref>((cite web |url=https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/support/ocla/statutesregulations/PrincipalStatuteDecember2014.pdf#page=57 |title=H.3. The National University of Ireland |date=December 2014 |work=Principal Statute |publisher=University College Cork |page=57 |format=PDF |access-date=18 March 2016))</ref>

All votes are paper ballots completed and counted manually. [[Electronic voting in Ireland|Electronic voting was trialled]] in some constituencies in the [[2002 Irish general election|2002 election]], but discontinued due to concerns about the lack of an [[audit trail]]. Irish STV elections use the simple [[Counting single transferable votes#Hare|Hare method]] of surplus transfers, except for the Senate panels, which use the [[Counting single transferable votes#Gregory|Gregory method]]. A ballot need only rank a single candidate to be deemed valid; the quota is not recalculated to take account of exhausted ballots, which means candidates may be elected without reaching the quota.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="background:#ccc;"
! Body elected
! Vacancies
! Seats/constituency
|-
| [[Dáil Éireann]]
| [[List of Dáil by-elections|By-election]] using STV/[[instant-runoff voting|IRV]]((#tag:ref|True STV is only used if multiple casual vacancies are being filled in a single by-election; a single-vacancy by-election reduces to IRV. Two of the seven by-elections in the 1925 [[National Party (Ireland, 1924)|"mini general election"]] were two-seat STV;<ref>((cite web |url=https://electionsireland.org/results/general/byelectiondail.cfm |title=Dáil By Elections |last1=Took |first1=Christopher |last2=Donnelly |first2=Seán |website=Elections Ireland |access-date=30 March 2019 |no-pp=y |page=Nos 13 and 16))</ref> all others have been IRV.|group="n"))
| 3–5
|-
| [[Seanad Éireann]]
| By-election using IRV((#tag:ref|Multiple simultaneous vacancies result in multiple single-winner by-elections rather than one multiple-winner by-election.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1940/act/20/section/8/enacted/en/html |title=Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) (Bye-Elections) Act, 1940 s.8 |website=electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB) |access-date=30 March 2019 |language=en))</ref> An example was the two by-elections for the [[Industrial and Commercial Panel]] on 14 May 1956. |group="n"))
| 3–11
|-
| [[Local government in the Republic of Ireland|Local government]]
| [[Co-option]]((#tag:ref|

If the departee was nominated for election or co-option by [[List of political parties in the Republic of Ireland|a registered political party]], that party nominates the replacement. Formerly a convention, this became law in 2001 and applies even if the departee had left the party.<ref name="lga2001s19">((cite web |url=http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2001/act/37/section/19/revised/en/html |title=Local Government Act 2001 [as amended] s.19(3) |website=Revised Acts |publisher=Law Reform Commission |access-date=14 May 2019 |location=Dublin |date=16 April 2019))</ref><ref>((cite web |url=https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/local_and_regional_government/councillors.html |title=Membership of local authorities |date=23 April 2019 |publisher=Citizens Information Board |location=Dublin |access-date=14 May 2019 |quote=The political party who originally nominated the member who caused the vacancy nominates a new member and the council then passes a resolution to appoint the new member.))</ref><ref>((cite news |url=https://www.kildarenow.com/news/news/412006/former-athy-cllr-mark-dalton-s-resignation-leaves-vacant-seat-at-kildare-county-council-office.html |title=Former Athy Cllr Mark Dalton's resignation leaves vacant seat at Kildare County Council office |last1=McCarthy |first1=Louise |date=27 November 2018 |work=Kildare Now |access-date=14 May 2019))</ref> Councils set their own [[Parliamentary procedure|standing order]]s for replacing an [[Independent politician (Ireland)|independent]]:<ref name="lga2001s19"/> most choose a nominee or known ally of the departee (e.g. Galway,<ref>((cite news |url=https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/83372/three-new-councillors-to-be-co-opted |title=Three new councillors to be co-opted |first=Kernan |last=Andrews |date=10 March 2016 |newspaper=Galway Advertiser |access-date=14 May 2019))</ref> Donegal<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/7a9419d11b5063c180257ac5003b8846?OpenDocument |title=[2012] IEHC 417: Shiels -v- Donegal County Council & anor |last1=Dunne |first1=Elizabeth |author-link1=Elizabeth Dunne |date=7 November 2012 |website=Judgments & Determinations |publisher=Courts Service of Ireland |access-date=14 May 2019))</ref>). [[Cork City Council]] formerly chose the highest-polling unelected candidate from the departee's [[local electoral area]] (LEA) at the previous local election.<ref>((cite news |url=https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-city-council-to-change-rules-on-replacements-924005.html |title=Cork City Council to change rules on replacements |last1=English |first1=Eoin |date=14 May 2019 |work=[[Irish Examiner]] |access-date=14 May 2019 ))</ref> In 2019 a co-option vote on [[Waterford City and County Council]] was won 25–5 by a resigning independent's nominee against a [[Sinn Féin]] nominee.<ref>((cite news |url=https://www.wlrfm.com/2019/01/11/cardiac-care-campaigner-matt-shanahan-has-been-elected-to-fill-the-empty-seat-on-waterford-city-and-county-council/ |title=Cardiac care campaigner Matt Shanahan has been elected to fill the empty seat on Waterford City and County Council |last1=Reddy |first1=Liz |date=11 January 2019 |work=[[WLR FM]] |access-date=14 May 2019 |language=en))</ref>|group="n"))
| 3–7((#tag:ref|The 2018 LEA Boundary Committees' terms of reference specified a minimum of five seats except "in particular compelling circumstances ... where otherwise the geographic size of the area would be disproportionately large".<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.boundarycommittee.ie/termsofreferencehtm.htm |title=Terms of Reference |website=Local Electoral Area Boundary Committees |location=Dublin |date=3 May 2018 |access-date=30 September 2018))</ref> |group="n")) ([[2019 Irish local elections|2019]])<br />4–10((#tag:ref|The 2012–13 [[Local Electoral Area Boundary Committee|LEA Boundary Committee]]'s terms of reference specified a seat range of 6–10 and applied to all areas except [[Cork City Council]], which retained its older LEAs with 4–7 seats.<ref>((cite book |title=Report 2013 |chapter-url=http://www.boundarycommittee.ie/reports/2013-Report.pdf#page=9 |chapter=1. Terms of reference, policy context and summary of recommendations |author=Local Electoral Area Boundary Committee |date=30 May 2013 |publisher=Stationery Office |page=7 |isbn=978-1-4064-2767-7 |access-date=5 March 2016 |location=Dublin |chapter-format=PDF |archive-date=5 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305083921/http://www.boundarycommittee.ie/reports/2013-Report.pdf#page=9  ))</ref><ref>((cite web |url=http://www.environ.ie/local-government/voting/local-elections/local-elections |title=Local Elections |website=Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government |quote=Local electoral areas and the number of members to be elected in each are specified in a statutory instrument for each local authority area. These were most recently made in 2014 for all except Cork City, which was made in 2008. |access-date=5 March 2016 |location=Dublin))</ref><ref>((cite web |url=http://www.corkpastandpresent.ie/mapsimages/localelectoralareas2009/ |title=Local Electoral Areas: 2009 |work=Cork Past & Present |publisher=Cork City Libraries |access-date=5 March 2016))</ref>|group="n")) ([[2014 Irish local elections|2014]])
|-
| [[European Parliament constituencies in the Republic of Ireland|European Parliament]]
| [[Replacement list]]
| 3–4
|}

=== History ===
STV was first used in Ireland in the [[Dublin University (constituency)|University of Dublin constituency]] in the [[1918 Irish general election|1918 Westminster election]]. The 1917 [[Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)|Speaker]]'s Conference had recommended STV for all multi-seat Westminster constituencies, but it was only applied to [[university constituencies]]. With the [[Irish revolutionary period|growth of revolutionary Irish nationalism]] in Ireland, STV was introduced at local level by the UK government to ensure [[Unionism in Ireland|unionist]] minority representation in [[Irish nationalism|nationalist]]-majority areas and vice versa; however, minority representation did not always occur in practice. STV was first applied in the [[1919 Sligo Corporation election|1919 Sligo borough election]] under the Sligo Corporation Act, 1918, a [[private act]] of Parliament sponsored by the corporation after representations from a mainly-Protestant group of leading [[rates (tax)|ratepayers]].<ref name="DeignanHistoryIreland">((cite journal |last=Deignan |first=Patrick |date=May–June 2009 |title=PR & the Sligo borough election of 1919 |url=http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/pr-the-sligo-borough-election-of-1919/ |journal=History Ireland |volume=17 |issue=3 |access-date=18 March 2015))</ref> The [[Local Government (Ireland) Act 1919]] extended STV universally from the [[1920 Irish local elections|1920 local elections]], and the [[Government of Ireland Act 1920]] applied it to the [[1921 Irish elections|1921 Home Rule elections]]. The 1922 [[Constitution of the Irish Free State]] mandated proportional representation,<ref>((cite web |title=Constitution of the Irish Free State |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1922/act/1/schedule/1/enacted/en/html |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]] |pages=Articles 26, 33 |no-pp=y))</ref> and STV was specified in statute law.<ref>((cite web |title=Electoral Act, 1923, Section 17 |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1923/act/12/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17 |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]]))</ref>

Initially 46% of Dáil members were elected from constituencies of seven, eight or nine seats, until 1935 when seven seats became the largest size. Since 1947 Dáil constituencies have been no larger than five seats. The 60 members of the [[Seanad Éireann (Irish Free State)|Free State Seanad]] were intended to be directly elected, one of four cohorts every three years, with the state forming a single 15-seat STV constituency. The only such election was [[1925 Seanad election|in 1925]], for 19 seats (15 scheduled plus 4 casual vacancies). There were 78 candidates on the ballot paper, counting took two weeks, and many [[Independent politician (Ireland)|independent]]s were elected. The process was seen as too cumbersome, and so indirect election by Oireachtas members was introduced for subsequent Seanad elections.<ref>((Cite journal |last=Coakley |first=John |date=September 2005 |title=Ireland's Unique Electoral Experiment: The Senate Election of 1925 |journal=[[Irish Political Studies]] |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=231–269 |doi=10.1080/07907180500359327 |s2cid=145175747))</ref>

Two attempts have been made by [[Fianna Fáil]] governments to abolish STV and replace it with the [[first past the post]] plurality system. Both attempts were rejected by voters in referendums held [[Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1958|in 1959]] and [[Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1968|again in 1968]]. In the past, [[gerrymandering]] was also attempted by several governments, in particular by varying the sizes (that is, the number of seats) of particular constituencies. This attempt backfired, however, in the [[1977 Irish general election|1977 general election]] when a larger than expected vote-swing caused a tipping effect resulting in disproportionate losses for the government. This botched attempt at Gerrymandering became known as the "[[Tullymander]]" after minister [[James Tully (Irish politician)|James Tully]]. Since 1977, constituencies have been drawn up by an independent [[Constituency Commission]] under terms of reference given by the [[Minister for the Environment (Ireland)|Minister for the Environment]]. Elections from [[1932 Irish general election|1932]] to [[1987 Irish general election|1987]] resulted in either a single-party [[Fianna Fáil]] government or a coalition of two or more of the other parties. Since [[1989 Irish general election|1989]], every government has been a coalition.

From 1941 to 1965, the city councils of [[Cork City Council|Cork]], [[Limerick City Council|Limerick]] and [[Waterford City Council|Waterford]] were each elected in a single [[local electoral area]] (LEA), returning 21,<ref>((cite web |title=Cork City Management (Amendment) Act, 1941 |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1941/act/5/enacted/en/print#sec3 |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]] |pages=sections 2, 3|no-pp=y))</ref> 17,((#tag:ref|Increased from 15 in 1950.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1934/act/35/enacted/en/print#sec5 |title=Limerick City Management Act, 1934 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]] |pages=sections 5, 7 |no-pp=y |access-date=18 March 2016))</ref><ref>((cite web |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1950/act/24/section/2/enacted/en/html |title=Limerick City Management Act, 1950, Section 2 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]] |access-date=12 April 2016))</ref> |group="n")) and 15<ref>((cite web |title=Waterford City Management Act, 1939 |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/act/25/enacted/en/print#sec4 |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]] |pages=sections 4–6|no-pp=y))</ref> councillors respectively.<ref>((cite book |title=The Municipal Year Book and Public Services Directory |publisher=Municipal Publications Limited|year=1963 |page=1906))</ref> Electoral law empowered the minister for local government to split county boroughs into multiple LEAs only if the council requested; these councils did not do so, as a majority of councillors were independents or from small parties and feared that smaller LEAs would favour the large parties. The Electoral Act 1963 allowed the minister to act unilaterally and the boroughs were divided in time for the [[1967 Irish local elections|1967 local elections]].<ref>((cite web |title=Electoral Act, 1963, Section 87 |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/19/section/87/enacted/en/html#sec87 |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]])); ((cite web |title=S.I. No. 249/1965 – Cork County Borough Electoral Areas Order, 1965. |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1965/si/249/made/en/print |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]])); ((cite web |title=S.I. No. 11/1967 – Limerick County Borough Electoral Areas Order, 1967. |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1967/si/11/made/en/print |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]])); ((cite web |title=S.I. No. 12/1967 – Waterford County Borough Electoral Areas Order, 1967. |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1967/si/12/made/en/print |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]]))</ref> The change was justified on the basis that the ballots were long and unwieldy and many votes were wasted when ballots were exhausted.<ref>((cite web |date=27 March 1963 |title=Committee on Finance. – Electoral Bill, 1962: Committee Stage |url=http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail1963032700048#N674 |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=Dáil Éireann debates |pages=Vol.201 No.4 p.48 cc.602–8))</ref> The LEAs defined under the [[Local Government Reform Act 2014]] return between 6 and 10 councillors;<ref>((cite web |title=Local Government Reform Act 2014 |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2014/en/act/pub/0001/index.html |work=[[Irish Statute Book]])); ((cite web |title=2014 Statutory Instruments 40/2014 to 70/2014 (one S.I. for each city and county except Cork City |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2014/statutory.html |work=Irish Statute Book))</ref> the [[30th government of Ireland|Fine Gael–led government]] formed after the [[2016 Irish general election|2016 election]] was considering reducing these sizes.<ref>((cite report |date=May 2016 |title=A Programme for a Partnership Government |url=http://www.merrionstreet.ie/merrionstreet/en/imagelibrary/programme_for_partnership_government.pdf#page=155 |access-date=4 October 2016 |publisher=[[Merrion Street]] |page=154 |format=PDF |quote=We will also consider: [...] Reducing the size of local electoral areas.))</ref>((update inline|date=October 2022))

From 1979 to 2012, some members of [[Údarás na Gaeltachta]] were elected by STV from [[Gaeltacht]] constituencies: from 1979 to 1999, 7 of 13 members were elected from 2- or 3-seat constituencies;<ref>((cite web |title=Údarás na Gaeltachta Act, 1979 |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1979/act/5/enacted/en/print.html |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]] |pages=sections 6(2), 29|no-pp=y))</ref> from 1999 to 2012, 17 of 20 were elected from constituencies returning 1 to 6 members.<ref>((cite web |title=Údarás na Gaeltachta (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1999, Section 15 |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1999/act/27/section/15/enacted/en/html |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]]))</ref><ref>((cite web |title=Gaeltacht Act 2012, Schedule |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/act/34/schedule/enacted/en/html#sched-part1 |access-date=18 March 2016 |work=[[Irish Statute Book]]))</ref>

== United Kingdom ==
STV is not used for elections to the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|UK Parliament]] at [[Palace of Westminster|Westminster]] but is used for all [[Northern Ireland Assembly|Assembly]], local government and previously European elections in [[Northern Ireland]], and for local elections in [[Scotland]], and will also be used for local elections in [[Wales]] starting in 2022. In Northern Ireland, Assembly elections involve five-seat constituencies, while local elections currently use constituencies of between five and seven seats. For European elections between 1979 and 2019, Northern Ireland serves as a single three-seat constituency. Local elections in Scotland use constituencies of three or four seats. All official STV elections in the UK use the [[Gregory method]] of counting votes.

STV is also used by many private organisations. For example, it is used in many British university [[students' union]]s (and promoted by the [[National Union of Students (United Kingdom)|National Union of Students]] as the fairest way of running elections), for all elections within the [[University of Cambridge]]<ref name="Cambridge">((cite web |url=http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2003-04/weekly/5972/24.html |title=Review of arrangements for voting in University elections and on policy and legislative proposals: Report of the Review Committee |date=26 July 2004 |website=Cambridge University))</ref> and for electing board members in [[The Co-operative Group]].

As noted above, because it was re-invented by the Englishman Thomas Hare and has been used in many parts of the former British Empire, STV has in the past been referred to as "British proportional representation". Nonetheless, it has never been used by more than a handful of constituencies in the British Parliament. In 1917, the Speaker's Conference in the [[United Kingdom]] advocated the adoption of STV for 211 of the 569 constituencies in the UK, and [[instant-runoff voting]] for the rest, and the Representation of the People Bill was introduced in Parliament that year. The [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] and the [[British House of Lords|House of Lords]] engaged in an extended series of amendments and counter-amendments, in which the House of Commons kept trying to replace the STV provisions of the bill with the [[Alternative Vote]] scheme, and the House of Lords tried to reinstate the STV provisions. In the end, the House of Commons agreed to strip all preferential voting provisions in return for agreeing to discuss introducing STV in 100 seats in the future (the House of Commons subsequently reneged on this commitment later in 1918).<ref name="ElectoralReform">((cite book |chapter-url=http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/volume-2/grps05.PDF |title=Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System: Volume 2. Submissions from representative / campaigning groups |chapter=Working Paper Number One: A Brief History of Electoral Reform in the United Kingdom |date=March 1998 |author=[[Electoral Reform Society]] |access-date=2007-09-27 |page=2 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060630170658/http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/volume-2/grps05.PDF |archive-date=2006-06-30 ))</ref><ref>((cite web |url=https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/archivesandmanuscripts/2011/05/06/the-av-what-if-story-of-1918/ |title=The AV 'what if…?' story of 1918 |date= 6 May 2011 |work=[[Bodleian Libraries]] |access-date=2021-02-15))</ref><ref>((cite web |url=http://www.virginia.edu/politics/grad_program/print/NBarzachka.pdf |first=Nina |last=Barzachka |title=Explaining Electoral System Change: The Adoption of Proportional Representation in Belgium and Its Rejection in Great Britain |year=2003 |access-date=2007-09-27 |publisher=[[University of Virginia]] |pages=28–31))((dead link |date=November 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes))</ref> Nonetheless, in 1918 STV was adopted for the university constituencies of [[Cambridge University (UK Parliament constituency)|Cambridge]], [[Oxford University (UK Parliament constituency)|Oxford]], [[Combined English Universities (UK Parliament constituency)|Combined English Universities]], [[Combined Scottish Universities (UK Parliament constituency)|Combined Scottish Universities]] and [[Dublin University (constituency)|Dublin University]]; these constituencies continued to use STV until their abolition in 1950 (or 1922 in the case of Dublin University). STV was also introduced for local elections in the Irish borough of [[Sligo]] in 1918, and extended to all Irish local government shortly afterwards.

=== Northern Ireland ===
In 1921 the UK government attempted to establish two [[home rule]] parliaments in [[Ireland]]–the [[Parliament of Southern Ireland]] and the [[Parliament of Northern Ireland]]–with the [[1921 Irish elections|Irish general elections of 1921]], both of which were conducted using STV. The intention of using STV in Ireland was partly to ensure adequate representation for the Catholic minority in the North and the Protestant minority in the South. Southern Ireland seceded from the UK in 1921 but today, as the [[Republic of Ireland]], continues to use STV for all of its elections. The Northern Ireland Parliament continued to use STV until 1929 when it [[House of Commons (Method of Voting and Redistribution of Seats) Act (Northern Ireland) 1929|switched to the first-past-the-post plurality system]]. However STV was reintroduced there after the imposition of direct rule in 1973 (after the Northern Irish government collapsed because of [[The Troubles|sectarian violence in the region]]), and is now in use for all elections except those to Westminster.<ref name="NIrlHist">((cite web |url=http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electoralsystem.htm |title=Introduction to the Electoral System in Northern Ireland |website=[[CAIN]] |access-date=September 15, 2005))</ref>

=== Scotland ===
In Scotland, following the passage of the [[Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004|Local Governance (Scotland) Act]] on 23 June 2004, all [[Local government in Scotland|local governments]] have used STV to elect their councillors since 2007.<ref name="Scotland">((cite web |url=http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/billsnotInProgress-s2/14LocalGovernance.htm |title=Local Governance (Scotland) Bill |date=2004 |website=Scottish Parliament  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060104050011/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/billsnotInProgress-s2/14LocalGovernance.htm |archive-date=2006-01-04))</ref>

=== Wales ===
In [[Wales]], the Richard Commission recommended in March 2004 changing the electoral system for the National Assembly for Wales (now Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament, simply [[Senedd]]) to STV. However, in the white paper ''Better Governance for Wales'' published on 15 June 2005, the UK Government, without giving reasons, rejected Richard's recommendation to change the electoral system. STV was later introduced for council elections starting from [[2022 Welsh local elections|2022]] after the Senedd passed the [[Local government in Wales#Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021|Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021]]. The Act gives an option for local councils to switch to STV if the individual council desires so.<ref>((Cite web |url=https://business.senedd.wales/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=26688 |title=Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 |website=[[Senedd]] |date=18 November 2019 |language=en-GB |access-date=12 May 2021))</ref>

== United States ==
((See also|Ranked-choice voting in the United States))

=== History in the United States ===
[[File:Proportional Representation US Adoption History.png|thumb|480x480px|Adoption and repeal of the Single Transferable Vote in United States municipal elections]]
((As of|2016)), the only official governing bodies that use STV to elect representatives are the City Council and School Committee of [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]], and the Board of Estimate and Taxation (2 members) and the [[Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board|Park and Recreation Board]] (3 members) of [[Minneapolis, Minnesota]].<ref>((cite web |url=http://vote.minneapolismn.gov/rcv/rcv-history |title=Ranked choice voting history |website=City of Minneapolis |access-date=July 3, 2016))</ref> However, STV was more widely used in the [[United States]] in the first half of the 20th century.

Twenty-two American cities have used STV for local elections. It was first used in North America in Ashtabula, Ohio, in 1915.((sfn|Bowler|Grofman|2000|p=202)) It was used for the election of the nine-member city council of [[Cincinnati, Ohio]], from 1924 to 1957, and was also used in [[Cleveland, Ohio]] and [[Sacramento, California]]. [[New York City]] adopted STV in 1936 as a method for breaking the corrupt [[political machine]] of [[Tammany Hall]] dominating the city and used it for five elections from 1937 to 1945.<ref>((cite web | url=https://fairvote.org/new_york_s_proportional_representation_experiment_demonstrates_potential_of_fair_representation/ | title=New York's proportional representation experiment demonstrates potential of fair representation | date=18 December 2017 ))</ref> Except in Ashtabula and New York City, STV was part of a [[Council–manager government|council–manager]] city charter adopted at the same time. STV was included in the [[National Municipal League|National Municipal League's]] model city charter from 1914 to 1964. Every adoption was by [[Popular initiative|initiative]], where a petition forced a referendum or simple adoption of STV. The typical adoption coalition included a city's minority party (either the Republican or Democratic party machine) and other groups seeking increased representation.<ref>((Cite journal |last=Santucci |first=Jack |date=2016-11-10 |title=Party Splits, Not Progressives |journal=American Politics Research |language=en |volume=45 |issue=3 |pages=494–526 |doi=10.1177/1532673x16674774 |s2cid=157400899 |issn=1532-673X))</ref>

African-Americans and political minorities such as supporters of the [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communists]] and urban [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] used STV to win seats. And opponents of political reform challenged STV after these successes. Only two of the first 24 repeal efforts in cities around the nation were successful, but after [[World War II]], harsh campaigns against STV were successfully carried out. After STV's removal and subsequent reversion to the current [[First past the post electoral system|FPTP]] in New York in 1947, the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] immediately regained near unanimous control of municipal elections with Tammany Hall quickly returning to political dominance until its ultimate downfall in the mid-1960s.<ref name="Prosterman">((cite web |url=http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/history/public_history/PR/ |title=Who's Got the Power? Proportional Representation in New York City, 1936-1947 |first=Dan |last=Prosterman |website=NYU Department of History |access-date=August 11, 2005  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000823142234/http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/history/public_history/PR/ |archive-date=2000-08-23))</ref> STV has also been used in the election of New York City community school board members.

More recently, there have been other campaigns in some cities to introduce STV. Davis, California passed an advisory referendum to use STV for future city council elections. The community [[school board]]s of the City of New York used STV until the school boards themselves were abolished in 2002.<!-- Need citation! --> The city of [[San Francisco, California|San Francisco]] in 1996 considered multimember STV in a [[referendum]]; this effort failed, with the city instead voting for district elections and, in 2002, adopting [[Instant-runoff voting|instant runoff voting]]. Cincinnati also narrowly failed to restore STV for city council elections in citizen initiatives in 1988 and 1991.

STV has become increasingly used at American [[university|universities]] for student government elections. ((As of|2017)), the schools of [[Carnegie Mellon University|Carnegie Mellon]],<ref>((Cite web |url=https://stugov.andrew.cmu.edu/elections/statics/aboutstv |title=About single transferable voting |website=Carnegie Mellon University |language=en |access-date=2017-03-21))</ref><ref>((Cite web |url=https://dgund.com/projects/fair-voting |title=CMU Fair Ranked Voting |last=Gund |first=Devin |language=en |website=dgund.com |access-date=2017-03-21))</ref> [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]], [[Oberlin College|Oberlin]], [[Princeton University|Princeton]], [[Reed College|Reed]], [[UC Berkeley]], [[UC Davis]], [[Vassar College|Vassar]], and [[Whitman College|Whitman]] all use STV, and several other universities are considering its adoption.

The proposed [[Fair Representation Act (United States)|Fair Representation Act]] would require multi-member districts for elections to the [[United States House of Representatives|US House of Representatives]] which would then be elected by STV. States with only one representative would instead have elections by [[Instant-runoff voting|instant runoff voting]].<ref>((Cite web |date=2019-08-28 |title=All Info - H.R.4000 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Fair Representation Act |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4000/all-info |access-date=2021-03-03 |website=U.S. Congress))</ref>

=== Usage in American cities ===
The following cities in the United States have used or currently do use [[single transferable vote]] methods to elect local government legislative bodies, typically for city council elections. Most of these cities stopped using STV prior to 1960. (Listed by State):
{| border="0" cellpadding="0"
|[[California]] :
|[[Albany, California]] currently uses STV to elect its four at-large councillors
|-
|[[Palm Desert, California|Palm Desert]]<ref>((cite web | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/01/14/opinion-new-ranked-choice-voting-system-worked-should-be-california-model/ | title=Opinion: New Bay Area ranked choice voting system worked, should be California model | date=14 January 2023 ))</ref>
|-
|[[Sacramento, California|Sacramento]]
|-
|[[Colorado]] :
|[[Boulder, Colorado|Boulder]]
|-
|[[Connecticut]] :
|[[West Hartford, Connecticut|West Hartford]]
|-
|[[Maine]] :
[[Portland, Maine]] voted for it by referendum on Nov. 8, 2022. 
|-
|[[Massachusetts]] :
|[[Amherst, Massachusetts]] (STV is currently being used, city council)
|-
|[[Massachusetts]] :
|[[Cambridge, Massachusetts|Cambridge]] (STV is currently being used, city council and school committee)
|-
|[[Massachusetts]] :
|[[Lowell, Massachusetts|Lowell]]
|-
|[[Massachusetts]] :
|[[Medford, Massachusetts|Medford]]
|-
|[[Massachusetts]] :
|[[Quincy, Massachusetts|Quincy]]
|-
|[[Massachusetts]] :
|[[Revere, Massachusetts|Revere]]
|-
|[[Massachusetts]] :
|[[Saugus, Massachusetts|Saugus]] (Used in 1948 and 1950<ref>((cite book |title=The Massachusetts Town Meeting: A Tenacious Institution |last=Zimmerman |first=Joseph Francis |publisher=Graduate School of Public Affairs, State University of New York |year=1967 |page=26))</ref> First Massachusetts town to use STV.<ref>((cite journal |first1=George H. Jr. |last1=Hallett |first2=W. M. Redin |last2=Woodward |name-list-style=amp |date=April 1948 |title=Proportional Representation |journal=National Municipal Review |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=224–227 |doi=10.1002/ncr.4110370410 |pmc=2438053 |pmid=20764193))</ref>)
|-
|[[Massachusetts]] :
|[[Worcester, Massachusetts|Worcester]]
|-
|[[Michigan]] :
|[[Kalamazoo, Michigan|Kalamazoo]]
|-
|[[Minnesota]] :
|[[Hopkins, Minnesota|Hopkins]]
|-
|[[Minnesota]] :
|[[Minneapolis, Minnesota|Minneapolis]] (STV is currently being used, [[Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board|Park Board]] and Board of Estimate and Taxation)
|-
|[[New York (state)|New York]] :
|[[Long Beach, New York|Long Beach]]
|-
|[[New York (state)|New York]] :
|[[New York City]] (city council)
|-
|[[New York (state)|New York]] :
|[[New York City]] (32 community school board elections)
|-
|[[New York (state)|New York]] :
|[[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]]
|-
|[[Ohio]] :
|[[Ashtabula, Ohio|Ashtabula]] 1913 to circa 1920
|-
|[[Ohio]] :
|[[Cincinnati, Ohio|Cincinnati]]
|-
|[[Ohio]] :
|[[Cleveland, Ohio|Cleveland]]
|-
|[[Ohio]]
|[[Hamilton, Ohio|Hamilton]]
|-
|[[Ohio]] :
|[[Toledo, Ohio|Toledo]]
|-
|[[Oregon]] :
|[[Coos Bay, Oregon|Coos Bay]]
|-
|[[Portland, Oregon]] voted for it by referendum on Nov. 8, 2022. Nov. 2024 election will see its first use.<ref>((Cite web|url=https://www.portland.gov/transition/news/2022/11/9/portland-voters-approve-charter-reform-city-launches-transition|title=Portland voters approve charter reform, city launches transition &#124; Portland.gov|date=9 November 2022|website=www.portland.gov|access-date=28 March 2023))</ref>
|-
|[[Virginia]] :
|[[Arlington, Virginia|Arlington]] (STV is currently being used for city council) <ref>((cite web | url=https://fairvote.org/analyzing-results-from-arlingtons-first-proportional-rcv-election/ | title=Analyzing results from Arlington's first proportional RCV election | date=23 June 2023 ))</ref>
|-
|[[West Virginia]] :
|[[Wheeling, West Virginia|Wheeling]]
|}

== NGOs ==
Many [[non-governmental organisations]] also use STV. Most Australian political parties, unions and peak business organisations use STV. All [[National Union of Students (United Kingdom)|National Union of Students of the United Kingdom]], [[Cambridge Union]], and [[Oxford Union]] elections and those of their constituent members are under the system. It is used as well by [[European Students' Union|ESIB]] – The National Unions of Students in Europe. It is used in several political parties for internal elections such as the British Liberal-Democrats, all the British Green Parties, the [[Green Party of the United States]] and the [[Green Party of California]]. It is also used to elect members of the [[General Synod|General Synod of the Church of England]]. The [[Royal Statistical Society|UK Royal Statistical Society]]<ref name="rss">((cite web |url=http://www.rss.org.uk/main.asp?page=1107 |title=Election Method for Council |first= I.D. |last=Hill |date=December 1995 |website=Royal Statistical Society  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041217021038/http://www.rss.org.uk/main.asp?page=1107 |archive-date=2004-12-17))</ref> uses STV with Meek's method to elect their council. Some [[Unitarianism|Unitarian]] Church groups have used Single Transferable Vote to select projects for funding. [[Twin Oaks Community]] uses a version of STV they call Fair-Share Spending<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/p_intro.htm |title=Fair-share spending |website=Accurate Democracy |access-date=2013-06-16))</ref> to elect projects and set their budgets.<ref>((cite magazine |url=https://www.twinoaks.org/leaves-of-twinoaks/leaves-pdf-archive/48-leaves-107-winter-2010/file |title=News of the Oaks |magazine=The Leaves of Twin Oaks |issue=107 |date=Winter 2010 |publisher=Twin Oaks Community |access-date=2013-06-16))</ref> The US-Based [[Pacifica Radio]] Network uses STV to elect its station governing boards.

The [[Object Management Group|Object Management Group (OMG)]] uses STV for their Architecture Board (AB) elections.

The selection of nominees for [[Academy Awards]] is via an STV ballot of the members of the [[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]]. Differences from STV are that voters may only rank as many choices as nominees (five for most categories, with ten for best picture), and that at least one first preference is required for a candidate to be successful. Selection of a winner from among the nominees is done using [[plurality voting]].<ref name="TheEnvelope">((cite news |url=http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards/oscars/env-oscarvote7jan07,0,6919642,print.story?coll=env-home-headlines |title=Eight things every voter (and fan) should know about Oscar's decidedly unique nomination process |first=Steve |last=Pond |date=January 7, 2006 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=2007-01-27  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061017160343/http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards/oscars/env-oscarvote7jan07%2C0%2C6919642%2Cprint.story?coll=env-home-headlines |archive-date=17 October 2006))</ref><ref>((cite magazine |url=http://www.ew.com/article/2011/01/27/oscar-voter-ballot-reader-poll-results |title=Oscars: The wacky way the Academy counts votes, and the results of our 'If You Were an Oscar Voter' poll |last=Young |first=John |date=27 January 2011 |magazine=[[Entertainment Weekly]] |access-date=29 February 2016))</ref>

==Footnotes==
((reflist|group="n"))

== References ==
((reflist))

===Bibliography===
* ((cite book |last1=Bowler |first1=Shaun |author-link1=Shaun Bowler |last2=Grofman |first2=Bernard N. |author-link2=Bernard Grofman |name-list-style=amp |date=2000 |title=Elections in Australia, Ireland and Malta under the Single Transferable Vote: Reflections on an Embedded Institution |location=Ann Arbor |publisher=[[University of Michigan Press]] |isbn=978-0-47211-159-6))
* ((cite thesis |last=Jansen |first=Harold |date=1998 |title=The Single Transferable Vote in Alberta and Manitoba |type=PhD |publisher=Department of Political Science, [[University of Alberta]]|isbn=0-612-29051-4 |url=https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQDD_0004/NQ29051.pdf))

((DEFAULTSORT:History And Use Of The Single Transferable Vote))
[[Category:Single transferable vote]]
[[Category:History and use of electoral systems]]
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):
History and use of the single transferable vote (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:As of (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite book (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite magazine (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite report (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite thesis (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dead link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:More citations needed section (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:See also (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Sfn (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Snd (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Sp (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Spaced en dash (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Update inline (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Use dmy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes/anchor id list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes/anchor id list/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes/whitelist (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Return to History and use of the single transferable vote.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_use_of_the_single_transferable_vote"