Ballot
Rank candidates in order of preference, usually 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on.
Serious comparator
STV: proportional, local, and more demanding on the ballot
STV is one of the strongest and most important reform options in British politics. If Westminster ever moves to multi-member districts, STV will be one of the first systems many reformers reach for.
Its big strength is clear: it offers proportional representation without closed lists. Its big tradeoff is also clear: it asks more of voters and more of the count.
Try an STV ballot
An STV ballot asks you to put candidates in order: 1 for your favourite, 2 for your next choice, and so on. That is perfectly workable, but it is a meaningfully bigger ask than simply ticking every candidate you find acceptable.
Click the rank buttons below to build a ballot. As you do, the explanation panel updates to show what your ranking means and how transfers work.
Your STV ballot
Give candidates numbers in the order you prefer them.
–
Alice Morgan Labour
Centre-left local campaigner with strong neighbourhood profile
–
Ben Clarke Conservative
Traditional conservative candidate with a safe-core vote
–
Chloe Rahman Liberal Democrats
Cross-party appeal candidate with moderate local base
–
Daniel Okoro Green
Environment-first candidate with loyal issue-based support
–
Ella Hughes Independent
Popular independent focused on local services and planning
What your ballot currently says
Transfer preview
Add a second preference to see how transfers continue your ballot if your first choice cannot use your full vote.
Why this is more demanding
- You are not just saying who is acceptable — you are putting people in a complete order.
- That gets harder as ballots get longer and parties run multiple candidates.
- The count must then track eliminations, surplus transfers, and later preferences.
Serious reforms still make ballot choices
Once you move beyond FPTP, the next question is not just how proportional you want the result to be. It is also what you are asking voters to do on the ballot. STV, AMS/MMP, and open-list systems are all serious reform options. But they each make a different choice about how voters express support, and that choice shapes how simple, legible, and forgiving the system feels in practice.
✓ STV Gets Proportionality Right
STV elects multiple candidates per constituency, ensuring proportional representation. It's used successfully in Ireland, Scotland (local elections), and Northern Ireland.
⚠️ Its Main Trade-off Is Ranked Complexity
That does not make STV a bad system. It does mean reformers should weigh real costs:
An STV-style ballot asks you to rank candidates in order:
- Long ballots: Ranking 10+ candidates asks more of voters than a simple approval mark
- Ballot errors: Ranked ballots can create more spoilage from skipped or duplicate numbers
- Slow counting: Transfer calculations are harder to explain and can take days
- Strategic pressure: Ranking rules can still create tactical anxieties and debate over count mechanics
A simpler alternative: Keep the multi-member proportional ambition, but let
voters support every acceptable candidate instead of forcing a full ranking.
🎯 The Core Issue: How Voters Express Support
The important point here is simple: proportionality matters, but the ballot interface matters too.
- FPTP-style local ballots force you to pick just one candidate, even if you'd be happy with several
- Ranked ballots ask you to order candidates even when many are simply "acceptable" or "not acceptable"
So before asking which proportional family is best, it helps to ask a more basic question: what if the ballot simply let voters support every acceptable candidate? That is the idea we introduce in the next section.
Where STV sits in the design space
Districts
Needs multi-member districts, which means district magnitude and geography matter a lot.
Allocation
Uses quotas, transfers, eliminations, and surplus distribution to turn rankings into seats.
Political appeal
Strong for reformers who want proportionality without party lists and who value candidate choice highly.