Editing Single non-transferable vote (section)

==Voting==
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 more votes than the others ([[plurality voting]]). Thus, in a three-seat constituency, the three candidates receiving 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.<ref>Amy, D.J. ''Behind The Ballot Box: A Citizens Guide To Voting Systems''. Praeger Publishers Westport, CT (2000) 128. Print</ref>

===Example===
Three seats are to be filled among five candidates: A, B, C, D and E fielded by 3 parties X, Y and Z.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left:1em; border-collapse:collapse;" align="center"
! Votes
! Candidate
! Party
|-
|2,718
|E
|Y
|-
|1,999
|D
|Z
|-
|1,996
|C
|Z
|-
|1,804
|B
|Y
|-
|819
|A
|X
|-
|}
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 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:
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left:1em; border-collapse:collapse;" align="center"
! Party
! Votes
! Percent
! Seats
|-
|Y
|4,522
|48
|1
|-
|Z
|3,995
|43
|2
|-
|X
|819
|9
|0
|}

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 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.

=== SNTV Compared to Block Voting (multiple non-transferable voting) and Limited Voting ===
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 a single candidate.

* Under [[Plurality block voting|block voting]] (multiple non-transferable voting), each voter may cast 3 votes (but does not have to)
* Under [[Limited voting]], each voter may cast 2 votes maximum.
* Under the single non-transferable vote, each voter may cast 1 vote.

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 [[Sincere voting|vote sincerely]]; there is no tactical voting.
Percent of votes under MNTV and Limited Voting is the percent of voters who voted for the candidate, not the percent of votes cast.
{| class="wikitable"
! rowspan="3" |Candidate
! colspan="2" rowspan="3" |Party
! colspan="8" |Multiple non-transferable vote
! colspan="4" rowspan="2" |Single non-transferable vote
|-
! colspan="4" |Plurality block voting
! colspan="4" |Limited voting
|-
!Votes
!%
! colspan="2" |Elected?
!Votes
!%
! colspan="2" |Elected?
!Votes
!%
! colspan="2" |Elected?
|-
|Candidate A1
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|'''3700'''
|'''37%'''
|'''1.'''
|'''Yes'''
|'''3500'''
|'''35%'''
|'''1.'''
|'''Yes'''
|'''2000'''
|'''20%'''
|'''1.'''
|'''Yes'''
|-
|Candidate A2
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|'''3600'''
|'''36%'''
|'''2.'''
|'''Yes'''
|'''1900'''
|'''19%'''
|'''2.'''
|'''Yes'''
|800
|8%
|4.
|
|-
|Candidate A3
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|'''3555'''
|'''36%'''
|'''3.'''
|'''Yes'''
|1800
|18%
|4.
|
|700
|7%
|7.
|
|-
|Candidate B1
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|2600
|26%
|4.
|
|'''1950'''
|'''20%'''
|'''3.'''
|'''Yes'''
|'''1100'''
|'''11%'''
|'''2.'''
|'''Yes'''
|-
|Candidate B2
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|2500
|25%
|5.
|
|1750
|18%
|4.
|
|'''900'''
|'''9%'''
|'''3.'''
|'''Yes'''
|-
|Candidate B3
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|2400
|24%
|6.
|
|1425
|14%
|7.
|
|400
|4%
|12.
|
|-
|Candidate I1
|
|Independent
|2300
|23%
|8.
|
|1400
|14%
|8.
|
|800
|8%
|4.
|
|-
|Candidate I2
|
|Independent
|2395
|24%
|7.
|
|1500
|15%
|6.
|
|800
|8%
|4.
|
|-
|Candidate I3
|
|Independent
|1900
|19%
|9.
|
|1300
|13%
|9.
|
|700
|7%
|7.
|
|-
|Candidate I4
|
|Independent
|1800
|15%
|10
|
|1200
|12%
|10.
|
|700
|7%
|7.
|
|-
|Candidate I5
|
|Independent
|650
|7%
|11.
|
|625
|6%
|11.
|
|600
|6%
|10.
|
|-
|Candidate I6
|
|Independent
|600
|6%
|12.
|
|550
|6%
|12.
|
|500
|5%
|11.
|
|-
| colspan="3" |''TOTAL votes cast''
|28000
|
|
|
|19000
|
|
|
|10000
|
|
|
|-
| colspan="3" |TOTAL possible votes
|30000
|
|
|
|20000
|
|
|
|10000
|
|
|
|-
| colspan="3" |Voters
|10000
|
|
|
|10000
|
|
|
|10000
|100%
|
|
|}

* Single non-transferable vote described here is not a type of approval voting.
* The three most-popular candidates according to voters' first preferences are elected, regardless of party affiliation.
*Under block voting ([[Plurality block voting]]), the three candidates of the most-popular party are elected if its supporters vote along party lines. In this case a party with only 35 percent support took all the seats.
* Under limited voting, it is most likely that the party with a plurality takes two seats (or the same number of seats as the number of votes each voter has), and another less-popular party receives the remaining seat(s).
* Under the single non-transferable vote (like in the other two methods) the number of seats are sometimes not proportionately allocated. Over-optimism (running too many candidates) and vote splitting is harshly punished. But each popular party that runs one candidate is assured of success to that degree anyway. In this case, even though the most-popular party ran three and risked vote splitting, it did elect one member.
* STV (not shown here) would see each party take its due share of seats if voters mark their preferences along party lines. Thus Party A and Party B would take one seat for sure, with the other seat going to Party B due to it being the choice of supporters of the lesser parties if it came to choice of those two main parties.