But that only just begins to scrape the surface of the benefits of STV.

We’ll get an electoral system which more accurately reflects voter choices. It is quite simply more fair. Our current system does not represent the voters’ interests. In the 1996 general election the NDP formed government even though they received 40,000 fewer votes. In the 2001 the Liberal government ended up with SUCH a huge majority in the house that there were only two members of opposition in the legislature – and this in spite of the fact that the liberals only got 43% of the vote. That means that 57% of voters had zero representation in the house for the next four years. How are results like that fair to the voters?

Most countries other than Canada have discarded the first past the post system for some sort of proportional system. It is archaic, undemocratic and unfair. I want to participate in an electoral system which allows me to find someone who represents me and my interests. I want a system in which members of the same party have to compete for my vote, because if they are weak MLAs, they aren’t going to be picked as my number 1 on the ballot. I haven’t found a party which really represents me and what I believe in. The STV will allow me choose the candidates who most closely represent what I like and the issues I would like brought forward. It will allow me to choose the candidates who are most active in my community, and who take their responsibility to their voters seriously. If you want that too, I recommend voting for the stv on May 12th.

Unlike the X-vote, a preference vote is not wasted. If Independents or small party candidates do not achieve the fair share of votes, in a multi-member constituency needed to win a seat, their voters’ order of choice can include next prefered candidates.
But most voters’ first preferences do count to elect representatives: 74% did in 2007 Scottish local elections, which proportionly represented Scotland’s main 4 parties, as well as small party representation like the Greens.
STV in Malta has stayed a two-party system. But where there are more parties, the preference vote allows voters to prefer candidates across party lines, thus democraticly prefering a coalition with a majority to govern.

On #2, with FPTP more than 50% of voters needn’t have bothered voting at all. No portion of their votes went to electing anybody. I’d rather than system which reduces the number of wasted votes – or portions of votes – to no more than 20%.

As for #3, it’s simply nonsensical. Either the FPTP camp has no understanding of BC-STV (they keep claiming it’s confusing and complicated and even so-and-so can’t understand it), in which case why should we believe their interpretations of it; or they’re being dishonest. Take your pick. Both work.