Background: I am seeking an alternative UK electoral system that would have multi-member constituencies instead of single member, which would create multi-party (proportional) governments. Proportional representation and STV both meet this criteria.

Question: What are the differences between them other than PR favours parties over individual representatives?

  • I edited your post to try and make it more clear, please inform me if I messed anything up. Oct 22 '21 at 16:21
  • Off topic, but the appetite for change to the electoral system in the UK was badly damaged by the AV referendum of 2011. It was perceived as an attempt at a power grab by the Lib Dems. Right or wrong, you've got a mountain to climb to persuade people that change is worth considering en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Oct 24 '21 at 17:59

Wikipedia writes:

The most widely used families of Proportional representation (PR) electoral systems are party-list PR, single transferable vote (STV), and mixed-member PR (MMP).

I take it you're asking about party-list PR as opposed to STV?

One difference is that in party-list PR, the preference order is assumed to lie along party lines (and in some systems, determined by the party rather than the individual voter). This means that exotic voter preferences can not be expressed.

On the other hand, party-list PR can easily be expanded to transfer votes outside the district, which STV systems generally find impractical. For instance, in Biproportional Apportionment, a party that is eliminated in one district can "transfer" their votes to that party's candidates in other districts, which (unlike STV or plain party-list PR) enables smallish, geographically distributed parties to be represented in parliament, which in turn makes it easier to start a new political party, thus increasing the diversity of the political spectrum.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .