It can be noted that the preferential voting system can seek for a high and effective

vote from the voters, and the system can also restrict the partisanship of the parties. 1 One

of the forms of these preferential voting system is the Single Transferable Vote (STV). This

voting system is currently adopted for the elections of the Northern Ireland Assembly, local

government and European Parliament in Northern Ireland. It is not only suited for the

divided communities in Northern Ireland, but it is also used by many organisations in the

United Kingdom itself, including some trade unions and even the Liberal Democrats party

used STV for their party election in 2006.

The voting process is rather simple; each constituency will vote for several members.

For example, five members are elected for the Northern Ireland Assembly. A ballot paper in

an STV election contains the names of the candidates in alphabetical order, along with the

party for which they will be standing for. Voters will mark the candidates they support in

order of preference in a numerical order. The quota for the amount of votes for the

candidates to reach is then calculated, which is the number of votes casted divided by the

number of seats available plus one.2 Thus, an example that can be given is if a three-

member constituency received 22,000 votes, the quota that is needed to be achieved to win

a seat would be 5,500 votes.

Successful candidates are those reaching the quota, and any surplus votes would be

redistributed to the second and then the third preferences.3 The same method is applied for

candidates who are eliminated where their votes are redistributed amongst the other

1
Dawn Oliver, Constitutional Reform In The United Kingdom (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2003) 142.
2
Oonagh Gay, Voting Systems: The Jenkins Report (1998) House of Commons Research Paper 98/112 73.
3
Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional & Administrative Law (11th edn, Routledge 2016) 306.
remaining candidates. This process of elimination continues until the quota is reached for all

five available seats.4

STV has some advantages that we can look at as an alternative to the First Past the

Post system. It can be said that the effective vote will be high, where about 83 per cent of

voters in five-member constituencies will be represented by at least an MP of their choice or

vote. This definitely encourages voters to go out and vote knowing well that their votes are

now valuable.5 STV also ensures that there are no issues regarding party partisanship and

also the possible legal regulations of parties that arise in party list systems, especially the

closed party lists that raise controversy.6 This system also provides a push towards party

organisations supervising candidate selection to be receptive to the voices of their

supporters by placing candidates whose views reflect those of the local people. This system

also benefits parties which are more geographically spread.7

According to the Jenkins Report, regarding the possible reform of the United

Kingdoms electoral system, the STV would turn all seats into marginal seats, and like other

proportional systems, would ensure a better geographic spread of parties and that it can be

said that no vote is wasted and smaller independent parties are given an opportunity to

prosper.8 This may cause the dominance of strategic voting to diminish as voters can pick

their candidate of preference in confidence. Since STV gives heavier weight to minority

opinion, its impact on national politics is likely to produce more coalition-type governments,

which may produce wider representation in the government and it will encourage

4
Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional & Administrative Law (11th edn, Routledge 2016) 306.
5
Dawn Oliver, Constitutional Reform In The United Kingdom (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2003) 143.
6
ibid
7
Oonagh Gay, Voting Systems: The Jenkins Report (1998) House of Commons Research Paper 98/112
8
Home Department, The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System (Cm 4090, 1998).
consensus and compromise between the two.9 This cannot happen in the current Single

Past the Post system where political minorities cannot find their place in the plurality-based

electoral systems.10

The STV system has been challenged and questioned by various authorities and

criticised for many impractical features. Firstly, STV has a very complex counting process,

this may give rise to a long and gruesome task for counting officers. A single mistake may

force a recount and it will take up a considerable large amount of time.11 It is said that since

there are no single constituency MPs, the multi-member constituencies are large in

representatives and it will affect the ability of the MPs to discharge their functions in the

redress of constituents problems.12 It also encourages candidates from the same party to

campaign against each other. However, this factor can go both ways, where the voter has a

wider choice to choose from the party, or it may lead to more party in-fighting and tarnish

the political partys image and public confidence.13

On the topic of coalitions, the proportional system may sometimes lead to

government instability, where in encourages the formation of many independent parties

who may be unwilling to build coalitions.14 There may be even a proliferation of parties

which may make it hard for the government to form coalitions with so many parties with

different ideologies and manifesto demands, to which Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the

9
Home Department, The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System (Cm 4090, 1998).
10
W.H. Riker, Electoral Systems and Constitutional Restraints 104-105
11
Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional & Administrative Law (11th edn, Routledge 2016) 293.
12
Dawn Oliver, Constitutional Reform In The United Kingdom (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2003) 142.
13
ibid
14
Kostas Chryssogonos, Limits of electoral equality and political representation [2012] ECLR 9
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms suggests and

encourages political pluralism.15

Many more questions are raised as to the powers of the head of state, which might

be more difficult to resolve such as in cases of a hung parliament, whether the Queen is

entitled to refuse a request for the dissolution of parliament. This may be of great

significance as it can be said that if the proportional system is to be used for elections of the

House of Commons, almost every parliament would end up as a hung parliament, and

parties are stuck with the choice of forming coalitions.16 With this, the effectiveness of the

new government is questioned and coalitions may be formed which may not please the

electorate.17

With the above characteristics, and its analysis of the effectiveness if it were to be

used as an election system for the United Kingdoms House of Commons, Dawn Oliver and

many critical authorities of the STV system in the Jenkins Commission state that, the STV will

not be an appropriate alternative to the First Past the Post system currently employed.

15
Howard Davis, Constitutional reform in the United Kingdom and the right to free and fair elections [1999]
EHRLR 411.
16
Vernon Bogdanor, Enacting a British Constitution: some problems [2008] PL 38.
17
Ibid.