Single non-transferable vote (SNTV)

How SNTV works

In practice, SNTV is straightforward: a district elects multiple representatives (the district magnitude), but each ballot records only one preferred candidate. Once all votes are counted, the top N candidates — where N equals the number of seats in the district — are declared winners. There is no transfer of surplus votes or redistribution of ballots after counting.

• Ballot format: one vote per voter for one candidate.
• Seat allocation: candidates with the highest vote counts fill the seats up to the district magnitude.
• No transfers: votes are not reallocated if a candidate has excess votes or is eliminated.

Political effects and strategic behavior

SNTV can produce outcomes ranging from highly proportional to sharply disproportional, depending chiefly on district magnitude and the number of candidates. In very large multimember districts with many seats, different parties and groups can win representation roughly in proportion to their support. In small multimember districts the system often benefits well-organized parties and disciplined vote management.

The system encourages several strategic practices. Parties may nominate only as many candidates as they believe they can elect and try to manage supporters' votes so they are distributed evenly among those nominees. Poor coordination can lead to vote-splitting, where similar candidates divide the same pool of supporters and lose seats to less-preferred rivals. Conversely, successful vote management or strong local personal votes can allow factions within the same party to compete without costing overall party representation.

History, usage and notable examples

SNTV has been used in a variety of national and local elections around the world. Two of the better-known historical examples are Japan, which used SNTV in multi-member districts for its lower house until electoral reforms in the 1990s, and Taiwan, which used SNTV for its legislature before switching to a mixed system. The system has also appeared in municipal and legislative contexts in other countries and in specific institutional elections where individual candidacies are emphasized.

Comparison with other systems

SNTV differs from plurality-at-large (block voting) because in block voting each voter has as many votes as there are seats, which tends to allow a cohesive majority to win all seats. SNTV can be contrasted with the single transferable vote (STV): STV permits voters to rank candidates and transfers votes to ensure more proportional outcomes, while SNTV allows no transfers. It also differs from party-list proportional representation, where parties present ordered lists and seats are allocated to parties rather than named individuals.

Advantages and criticisms

Proponents of SNTV note its simplicity for voters and administrators, and its potential to produce diverse representation if district magnitudes are large. Critics point to the system's encouragement of intra-party rivalry, the difficulty of effective vote coordination, and the possibility of unpredictable results. For more context on electoral methods and their comparative effects, see electoral systems.