Editing Single non-transferable vote (section)

==Proportional representation==
SNTV facilitates minority representation, that is, it produces mixed representation of large and small parties where no party takes all the seats.<ref>Lijphart, A. Pintor, R.L. Sone, Y. “The Limited Vote and the Single Nontransferable Vote: Lessons form the Japanese and Spanish Examples.” Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences. Ed. Bernard Gromfman and Arend Lijphart.  Agathon Press, INC., New York 2003. 154-169. Print.</ref>

In fact, SNTV would elect the same people as are elected in STV contests where the vote transfers do not move an initially-lower-placing candidate over an initially-higher-placing one. It is common even after STV vote transfers to elect the same as would be elected under SNTV. But not having transfers, SNTV sees more votes wasted than under STV due to votes being placed on un-electable candidate or due to surpluses received by successful candidate over and above the quota used in STV elections that are not able to be transferred under SNTV.<ref>A Report on Alberta Elections, 1905-1982)</ref> In 2007 Scottish local authority elections, only 73 out of 1222 members were not in winning position in the first round, so only 73 owed their wins to vote transfers.<ref>"Local authority elections in Scotland, May 2007" https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2007-Scottish-local-elections.pdf accessed April 25, 2025</ref> (But that is not to say that first past the post or block voting would have produced the same winners. In each district, under SNTV multiple parties elected representatives, not the likely result under those two non-proportional systems.)

Representation elected under SNTV is most proportional when political parties have accurate information about their relative levels of electoral support, and nominate candidates in accordance with their respective levels of electoral support or when all parties suffer from poor information of that sort. Knowing the share of the votes a party will take allows it to avoid vote waste due to lessening the chance of vote splitting and inefficient placement of party support. Under 'perfect' tactical voting and strategic nomination, SNTV would be equivalent to the [[D'Hondt method|D'Hondt]] (Jefferson) method of proportional representation.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cox |first1=Gary W. |title=SNTV and d'hondt are 'equivalent' |journal=Electoral Studies |date=June 1991 |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=118–132 |doi=10.1016/0261-3794(91)90043-R }}</ref>

But under SNTV even inefficient distribution of votes allows more balanced representation than would be elected under either single-member plurality or [[Multiple non-transferable vote|block voting]].

Given <math>n</math> candidates to be elected, Candidate A can guarantee success by receiving one more than <math>\frac{1}{n+1}</math> of the votes (the [[Droop quota]]), because <math>n</math>+1 other candidates cannot each receive more than Candidate A (too many would not pass Droop quota)

But as SNTV is a plurality system and votes are wasted (not used to elect anyone), it is possible to win with less than Droop quota (but never possible to lose if you have at least Droop). 

To determine the successful candidates, candidates' vote tallies are compared with the vote tallies of others, not with a theoretical threshold or quota. In the [[2020 Vanuatuan general election]], using SNTV, as few as 5 percent of the vote was enough to be elected in a seven-seat district, where about 13 percent is Droop quota.<ref>{{Cite web| title=Election Report 2020 | publisher=Republic of Vanuatu | url=https://electoral.gov.vu/images/PDFs/General_Election_Report_2020.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210120005005/https://electoral.gov.vu/images/PDFs/General_Election_Report_2020.pdf | archive-date=2021-01-20}}</ref>

Vote splitting due to poor information on voters' behaviour may deny a popular party its due share of representation. (Single Transferable Voting does not suffer from this handicap as votes are transferable and many are transferred and used that are wasted under SNTV.) Parties organizing slates of multiple candidates may nominate many candidates and then learn on election night that the party was not as popular as they thought.

If every party does that, all suffer the same inefficiency and the final result is proportional. If one party is more prudent, it may do better than the others. Because votes cannot be transferred, there is more chance of vote wastage than under STV.

But in elections that use SNTV, representation is usually mixed. It is rare for one party to make a sweep of a city's seats, a thing common in [[First past the post]] elections. The number of wasted votes in an SNTV election is generally lower than in [[First past the post]] elections as well.<ref>{{Cite web| title=Election Report 2020 | publisher=Republic of Vanuatu | url=https://electoral.gov.vu/images/PDFs/General_Election_Report_2020.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210120005005/https://electoral.gov.vu/images/PDFs/General_Election_Report_2020.pdf | archive-date=2021-01-20}}</ref><ref>A Report in Alberta Elections, 1905-1982</ref>

Under SNTV, parties often do not receive representation exactly proportional to their strength, because it is difficult to accurately judge their strength when deciding how many candidates to field ([[strategic nomination]]) and difficult to direct party supporters as a whole to spread their votes efficiently. If they field too many, supporters' votes might be [[split vote|split]] across too many candidates. The party votes might spread their vote numbers to the point where all of a party's candidates lose to a less thinly spread opposing party.

If a party fields too few candidates, they might elect all their candidates but not win seats proportional to their level of support, and the winning candidates would have more support than necessary and thus [[wasted vote effect|wasting]] votes.

The risks of poor strategic nomination are not equal for parties of various strengths. A large party would have much more to lose from the split vote effect than to gain from avoiding the wasted vote effect, and so would likely decide to err on the side of fielding fewer candidates (but probably not less than their existing number of seats). A small party with little representation would be more risk-tolerant and err on the side of too many candidates, hoping to gain as many seats as possible, perhaps even winning more than its proportion of the electorate if they can edge out candidates from larger parties with just a few votes. As well, a small party running just one candidate would not suffer from vote spitting, while a larger party running four or more may suffer from that.

SNTV electoral systems, like STV and [[Proportional representation|proportional electoral]] systems generally, typically produce more proportional electoral outcomes as the size of the electoral districts (number of seats in each constituency) increases.<ref>Farrell and McAllister, The Australian Electoral System, p. 33</ref>