Editing Single transferable vote (section)

== Process ==
{{More sources|date=June 2024}}
In a single transferable vote (STV) system, the voter ranks candidates in order of preference on their ballot. A vote is initially allocated to the voter's first preference.

A quota (the minimum number of votes that guarantees election) is calculated by a specified method (STV generally uses the [[Hare quota|Hare]] or [[Droop quota|Droop]] quota), and candidates who accumulate that many votes are declared elected. In many STV systems, the quota is also used to determine surplus votes, the number of votes received by successful candidates over and above the quota. Surplus votes are transferred to candidates ranked lower in the voters' preferences, if possible, so they are not wasted by remaining with a candidate who does not need them.

If seats remain open after the first count, any surplus votes are transferred. This may generate the necessary winners. As well, least popular candidates may be eliminated as a way to generate winners. 

The specific method of transferring votes varies in different systems (see {{section link||Vote transfers and quota}}). Transfer of any existing surplus votes is done before eliminations of candidates. This prevents a party from losing a candidate in the early stage who might be elected later through transfers.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Which quota? |url=http://www.prsa.org.au/quota_droop_vs_hare_voting_in_democracies_lakeman_&_lambert.pdf |access-date=27 February 2023 |website=prsa.org.au}}</ref> When surplus votes are transferred under some systems, some or all of the votes held by the winner are apportioned fractionally to the next marked preference on the ballot. In others, the transfers to the next available marked preference is done using whole votes.

When seats still remain to be filled and there are no surplus votes to transfer (none of the remaining candidates' votes have surplus votes needing to be transferred), the least popular candidate is eliminated. The eliminated candidate's votes are transferred to the next-preferred candidate rather than being discarded; if the next-preferred choice has already been eliminated or elected, the procedure is iterated to lower-ranked candidates.

Counting, eliminations, and vote transfers continue until enough candidates are declared elected (all seats are filled by candidates reaching the quota) or until there are only as many remaining candidates as there are unfilled seats, at which point the remaining candidates are declared elected.<ref>Humphreys, Proportional Representation, p. 136-137</ref>

=== Example for a non-partisan election ===
Suppose an election is conducted to determine what three foods to serve at a party. There are seven choices: Oranges, Pears, Strawberries, Cake (of the strawberry/chocolate variety), Chocolate, Hamburgers and Chicken. Only three of these may be served to the 23 guests. STV is chosen to make the decision, with the whole-vote method used to transfer surplus votes. The hope is that each guest will be served at least one food that they are happy with.

To select the three foods, each guest is given one vote{{snd}}they each mark their first preference and are also allowed to cast two back-up preferences to be used only if their first-preference food cannot be selected or to direct a transfer if the first-preference food is chosen with a surplus of votes. The 23 guests at the party mark their ballots: some mark first, second and third preferences; some mark only two preferences.

When the ballots are counted, it is found that the ballots are marked in seven distinct combinations, as shown in the table below:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! 1st preference
| [[File:Emojione 1F34A.svg|50px|Orange|alt=Oranges]]
| [[File:Emojione 1F350.svg|50px|Pear|alt=Pears]]
| [[File:Emojione 1F353.svg|50px|Strawberry]]
| [[File:Emojione 1F370.svg|50x50px|Strawberry Chocolate Cake]]
| [[File:Emojione 1F36B.svg|50px|Chocolate]]
|[[File:Emojione 1F354.svg|50px|Hamburger]]
|[[File:Emojione 1F357.svg|50x50px|Chicken]]
|-
! 2nd preference
| [[File:Emojione 1F350.svg|50px|Pear|alt=Pears]]
| [[File:Emojione 1F353.svg|50px|Strawberry]]
| [[File:Emojione 1F34A.svg|50px|Orange|alt=Oranges]]
| [[File:Emojione 1F36B.svg|50px|Chocolate]]
| [[File:Emojione 1F370.svg|50x50px|Strawberry Chocolate Cake]]
|[[File:Emojione 1F357.svg|50x50px|Chicken]]
| [[File:Emojione 1F36B.svg|50px|Chocolate]]
|-
!3rd preference
|
| [[File:Emojione 1F370.svg|50x50px|Strawberry Chocolate Cake]]
|[[File:Emojione 1F350.svg|50px|Pear|alt=Pears]]
|
|[[File:Emojione 1F354.svg|50px|Hamburger]]
|
|[[File:Emojione 1F354.svg|50px|Hamburger]]
|-
!# of ballots
! 3
! 8
! 1
! 3
! 1
! 4
! 3
|}
The table is read as columns: the left-most column shows that there were three ballots with Orange as the first choice and Pear as second, while the right-most column shows there were three ballots with Chicken as first choice, Chocolate as second, and Hamburger as third.

The election step-by-step:
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! rowspan="2" |Step
! colspan="7" |Votes for each option
|-
! [[File:Emojione 1F34A.svg|50px|Orange|alt=Oranges]]
! [[File:Emojione 1F350.svg|50px|Pear|alt=Pears]]
! [[File:Emojione 1F353.svg|50px|Strawberry]]
! [[File:Emojione 1F370.svg|50x50px|Strawberry]]
! [[File:Emojione 1F36B.svg|50px|Chocolate]]
![[File:Emojione 1F354.svg|50px|Hamburger]]
![[File:Emojione 1F357.svg|50x50px|Hamburger]]
|-
! Setting the quota
| colspan="7" | The quota is 6 ([[Droop quota]])
|-
! Step 1
| 3
| 8
ELECTED

(2 surplus vote)
| 1
| 3
| 1
|4
|3
|-
!Step 2
|3
|ELECTED
| {{nowrap|1 + 2 {{=}} 3}}
|3
|1
|4
|3
|-
!Step 3
|3
|ELECTED
|3
| {{nowrap|3 + 1 {{=}} 4}}
|''eliminated''
|4
|3
|-
! Step 4
| {{nowrap|3 + 1 {{=}} 4}}
|ELECTED
| ''eliminated''
| {{nowrap|4 + 2 {{=}} 6}}
ELECTED

(0 surplus votes)
|''eliminated''
|4
|3
|-
! Step 5
| 4
|ELECTED
|''eliminated''
| ELECTED
|''eliminated''
| {{nowrap|4 + 3 {{=}} 7}}
ELECTED

(1 surplus vote)
|''eliminated''
|-
!Result
|
|ELECTED
|
|ELECTED
|
|ELECTED
|
|}

[[File:Single Transferrable Vote example.png|thumb|A [[Sankey diagram|Sankey chart]] illustrating the vote process. Not shown is the one-vote transfer from Strawberry to Oranges in Step 4.]]

'''Setting the quota:''' The [[Droop quota]] formula is used to produce the quota (the number of votes required to be automatically declared elected) = floor(valid votes / (seats to fill + 1)) + 1 = floor(23 / (3 + 1)) + 1 = floor(5.75) + 1 = 5 + 1 = 6

'''Step 1:''' First-preference votes are counted. Pears reaches the quota with 8 votes and is therefore elected on the first count, with 2 surplus votes. 

'''Step 2:''' All of the voters who gave first preference to Pears preferred Strawberry next, so the surplus votes are awarded to Strawberry.

No other option has reached the quota, and there are still two to elect with six options in the race, so elimination of lower-scoring options starts.

'''Step 3:''' Chocolate has the fewest votes and is eliminated. According to their only voter's next preference, this vote is transferred to Cake. No option has reached the quota, and there are still two to elect with five in the race, so elimination of options will continue next round.

'''Step 4:''' Of the remaining options, Oranges, Strawberry and Chicken now are tied for the fewest votes. Strawberry had the fewest first preference votes so is eliminated. In accordance with the next preference marked on the vote cast by the voter who voted Strawberry as first preference, that vote is transferred to Oranges. In accordance with the next preference marked on the two votes cast by the Pear–Strawberry–Cake voters (which had been transferred to Strawberry in step 2), the two votes are transferred to Cake. (The Cake preference had been "piggy-backed" along with the transfer to Strawberry.) Cake reaches the quota and is elected.

Cake has no surplus votes, no other option has reached the quota, and there is still one choice to select with three in the race, so the vote count proceeds, with the elimination of the least popular candidate.

'''Step 5:''' Chicken has the fewest votes and is eliminated. The Chicken voters' next preference is Chocolate but Chocolate has already been eliminated. The next usable preference is Hamburgers, so the three votes are transferred to Hamburgers.

Hamburgers is elected with 7 votes in total. Hamburgers now has a surplus vote, but this does not matter since the election is over. There are no more foods needing to be chosen{{Snd}}three have been chosen.

'''Result:''' The winners are Pears, Cake, and Hamburgers.

Orange ends up being neither elected nor eliminated.

STV in this case produced a large number of effective votes{{Snd}}19 votes were used to elect the successful candidates. (Only the votes for Oranges at the end were not used to select a food. The Orange voters have satisfaction of seeing their second choice – Pears – selected, even if their votes were not used to select any food.)

As well, there was general satisfaction with the choices selected. Nineteen voters saw either their first or second choice elected, although four of them did not actually have their vote used to achieve the result. Four saw their third choice elected. Fifteen voters saw their first preference chosen; eight of these 15 saw their first and third choices selected. Four others saw their second preference chosen, with one of them having their second and third choice selected.

Note that if Hamburger had received only one vote when Chicken was eliminated, it still would have won because the only other remaining candidate, Oranges, had fewer votes so would have been declared defeated in the next round. This would have left Hamburger as the last remaining candidate to fill the last open seat, even if it did not have quota.

As in many STV elections most of the candidates in winning position in the first round went on to be elected in the end. The leading front runners were Pears and Hamburgers, both of whom were elected. There was a three-way tie for third between Cake, Chicken and Oranges, Cake coming out on top in the end. Transfers seldom affect the election of more than one or two of the initial front runners and sometimes none at all.<ref>{{Cite book |title=A Report on Alberta Elections |publisher=Alberta Legislature |year=1982 |pages=38–81}}</ref>

==== Compared to other systems ====
This result differs from the one that would have occurred if the voting system used had been non-PR, such as [[single non-transferable vote]] (SNTV), [[first-past-the-post]] (FPTP) in three districts, first-past-the-post at-large [[Group voting ticket|group ticket voting]] as used to elect members of the US electoral college, or a single-winner winner-take-all system in three districts.

Single non-transferable vote would have seen a three-way tie for third place with Oranges, Cake and Chicken tied. The tie would have been resolved by the flip of a coin or the choice of an election official. Possibly Oranges or Chicken would have been determined to be the winner among the three, even though Cake was seen in the vote count process to have more general support. Under SNTV, 15 voters would have seen their first preference win{{snd}}Oranges (or Chicken or Cake), Pears and Hamburgers. Eight voters would have not seen their first-preference food served. The pro-Oranges voter, if Oranges was not chosen, may have been consoled by their second choice, Pears, being served, but the others would not be served any of the foods they like, except maybe the voter who likes Strawberry and the one who likes Chocolate whose third choice, Hamburgers, was a winner. At least three voters would not be served any of their favorites.

Under first-past-the-post, the guests would have been split into three groups with one food chosen by each group based on just the most popular food in each group. The result in this case would have been dependent on how the groups are formed ([[gerrymandering]] of the groups to bias the election toward a particular result could occur). It might have been Strawberry cake, Pears and Hamburgers, but also the foods chosen might have been Pears in two groups (districts) and Hamburgers in the other. Or even just Pears alone might have won in each of the three "districts", in which case only 8 guests out of 23 would have seen their first choice served, a very unrepresentative outcome, given that three different foods could have been served.

Using FPTP, it could happen that under any three-district single-winner system, none of the groups elect Pears, if the 7 votes for it are split and in each "district" there is another food that beats it (e.g. Oranges, Hamburgers and Chicken).

Similar problems arise to a lesser degree if all districts use a majority system instead of plurality (for instance, [[Two-round system|two-round]] or [[instant-runoff]] voting) as at least in all districts the majority would have been quite happy, but that still leaves the minority unrepresented.

If the voters had been able to choose only one food to serve such as in the ticket voting system used in the US electoral college (first-past-the-post but without "districts"), it is likely that Pears, the choice of less than a third of the 23 party-goers, would have won, meaning Pears would be the only food served at the party. 

Even if they held two rounds of voting (as in the [[two-round system]]), the bare majority that prefers some other kind of fruit (Oranges, Pears, Strawberries) would have dominated all other choices.

Giving electors a {{em|single}} transferable vote is very different from simply having more seats to fill and giving each voter more votes to cast. [[Plurality block voting]] is such a system. Under it, each voter is given as many votes as there can be winners. This system can produce very unrepresentative results. In the example above, if every voter voted for three options, the small majority of voters who chose a fruit could easily force all three outcomes to be fruit of some kind: an outcome that is unlikely to be more representative than simply choosing only one winner. In an extreme example, where no faction can command an absolute majority, the largest of the minority groups can force a one-outcome result by running [[Independence of clones criterion|clone candidates]]. For example, the seven supporters of Pears could arrange in advance to have three types of Pears included on the ballot, then vote for all three, and if no other option reaches more than 7 votes, all three foods served would be a type of Pear. The only way this could be avoided would be for those who do not want Pears to vote [[tactical voting|tactically]], by not voting for their preferred option but instead voting for whatever they consider to be the least bad outcome that is still likely to gain the required number of votes.

=== Example for an election with parties ===
Elections with parties are conducted in very similar manner to the non-partisan STV election presented above. Parties actually play no role in STV elections – each voter marks preferences for individual candidates and the voter's secondary preferences may be of a different party.

This example shows election of five members in a district. Party A runs five candidates, Party B runs three, and there is one independent in the race. The election is conducted under STV with the Hare quota, which for five seats is 20% (100% divided by five).

==== First round ====
{| class="wikitable"
!Candidate
! colspan="2" |Party
!Votes
(first preferences)
!Quota
!Elected?
!If elected: surplus votes
|-
|Candidate A1
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|1%
| rowspan="9" |20%
|
|
|-
|Candidate A2
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|9%
|
|
|-
|'''Candidate A3'''
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|'''25%'''
|'''Yes'''
|5%
|-
|Candidate A4
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|8%
|
|
|-
|Candidate A5
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|5%
|
|
|-
|Candidate I
|
|Independent
|7%
|
|
|-
|Candidate B1
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|11%
|
|
|-
|Candidate B2
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|18%
|
|
|-
|Candidate B3
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|16%
|
|
|-
| colspan="3" |''TOTAL''
|''100%''
|
|
|
|}
In the first round, the vote tally of the most popular candidate of Party A, Candidate A3, is more than quota, so they win a seat.

==== Second, third and fourth rounds ====
Surplus votes are distributed; the voters of Candidate A3 have marked their second preference for another politician of the same party, Candidate A4, so A4 now receives Candidate A3's surplus votes. This transfer of 5 percent of the votes leaves A3 with the quota (20 percent) and A4 with 13 percent.

In the third and fourth rounds, the least popular candidates are eliminated (Candidates A1 and A5) and their votes transferred to their next preferences. Voters of Candidate A5 are not very partisan, preferring the independent candidate over the other candidates of Party A.

{| class="wikitable"
!Candidate
! colspan="2" |Party
!Votes
!Quota
!Elected?
!If elected: surplus votes
|-
|<s>Candidate A1</s>
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|1% − 1% = 0%
| rowspan="9" |20%
|
|
|-
|Candidate A2
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|9% + 1% = 10%
|
|
|-
|'''Candidate A3'''
| style="background:#D10000" |
|'''Party A'''
|25% − 5% = 20%
|'''Yes'''
|'''already elected'''
|-
|Candidate A4
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|8% + 5% = 13%
|
|
|-
|<s>Candidate A5</s>
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|5% − 5% = 0%
|
|
|-
|Candidate I
|
|Independent
|7% + 5% = 12%
|
|
|-
|Candidate B1
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|11%
|
|
|-
|Candidate B2
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|18%
|
|
|-
|Candidate B3
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|16%
|
|
|-
| colspan="3" |''TOTAL''
|80% (1 already elected)
|
|
|
|}

==== Fifth and sixth rounds ====
In the fifth round, Candidate A2 is eliminated with all their votes going to the candidate A4, the last remaining candidate from Party A, who is elected. The surplus votes of Candidate A4 are transferred. All the voters who helped elect Candidate A4 prefer the independent candidate to the candidates of the other party so their 3% surplus votes will go to Candidate I in the sixth round.
{| class="wikitable"
!Candidate
! colspan="2" |Party
!Votes
!Quota
!Elected?
!If elected: surplus votes
|-
|<s>Candidate A1</s>
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|
| rowspan="9" |20%
|
|
|-
|<s>Candidate A2</s>
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|10% − 10% = 0%
|
|
|-
|'''Candidate A3'''
| style="background:#D10000" |
|'''Party A'''
|'''already elected'''
|'''Yes'''
|
|-
|'''Candidate A4'''
| style="background:#D10000" |
|'''Party A'''
|'''13% + 10% = 23%'''
|'''Yes'''
|3%
|-
|<s>Candidate A5</s>
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|
|
|
|-
|Candidate I
|
|Independent
|12% + 3% = 15%
|
|
|-
|Candidate B1
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|11%
|
|
|-
|Candidate B2
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|18%
|
|
|-
|Candidate B3
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|16%
|
|
|-
| colspan="3" |''TOTAL''
|80% (1 already elected)
|
|
|
|}

There are now only four candidates remaining and three seats remaining open. The least-popular candidate (Candidate B1) is declared defeated. The remaining three are declared elected regardless of whether they reached the quota.

If there is no reason to establish relative popularity of the elected members, the count ends there when the last seats are declared filled. Candidates A3, A4, I, B2 and B3 were elected.

If the ranking of the successful candidates is important, the vote count process continues into a seventh round.

==== Seventh round ====
If the ranking of the candidates is important, the votes belonging to the eliminated Candidate B1 are transferred as per below, assuming voters' alternate preferences are marked that way.
{| class="wikitable"
!Candidate
! colspan="2" |Party
!Votes
!Quota
!Elected?
!If elected: surplus votes
|-
|<s>Candidate A1</s>
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|
| rowspan="9" |20%
|
|
|-
|<s>Candidate A2</s>
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|
|
|
|-
|'''Candidate A3'''
| style="background:#D10000" |
|'''Party A'''
|'''already elected'''
|'''Yes'''
|
|-
|'''Candidate A4'''
| style="background:#D10000" |
|'''Party A'''
|'''already elected'''
|'''Yes'''
|
|-
|<s>Candidate A5</s>
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|
|
|
|-
|'''Candidate I'''
|
|Independent
|15% + 5% = 20%
|'''Yes'''
|
|-
|<s>Candidate B1</s>
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|11% − 11% = 0%
|
|
|-
|'''Candidate B2'''
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|18% + 6% = 24%
|'''Yes'''
|
|-
|'''Candidate B3'''
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|16%
|'''Yes'''
|
|-
| colspan="3" |''TOTAL''
|60% (2 already elected)
|
|
|
|}

Under STV, candidates A3, A4, I, B2 and B3 were elected.

This vote count varies from the reality of many STV systems because there were no "exhausted" non-transferable votes. In most real-life STV elections, some votes that are set to be transferred cannot be and fewer votes are still in play at the end compared to the first round. As well, the Droop quota is usually used in real-life STV elections. With the Droop quota in effect and five seats to be filled, it would have taken 17 percent to be elected with quota, not 20 percent as under the Hare quota. However, if B2's surplus votes under the Droop quota are transferred to any non–Party A candidate, the same five candidates are elected each time, albeit in a slightly different order.

In the first round, 74 percent of votes were cast for candidates who were successful in the end. In this case, as in all STV elections, about 80 percent or more of the votes were used to actually elect someone. Only the 11 percent of votes cast in the end for B1 were not used to elect someone. The members elected in the district represent the sentiments of a large majority of the voters. Due to the diversity of members elected, each voter has someone elected who shares the party label that they voted for in the first place, even if not the individual candidate they preferred, or has seen the election of the independent candidate that they prefer.

==== Compared to other systems ====
This result differs from the one that would have occurred if the voting system used had been non-PR, such as single non-transferable vote (SNTV), first-past-the-post (FPTP) in five districts, first-past-the-post at-large [[general ticket]] voting (as used to elect members of the US electoral college), or a single-winner winner-take-all system in five districts

This result is different from if all voters could only vote for their first preference but still all seats were filled in a single contest, which is called the [[single non-transferable vote]]. Under SNTV, the five candidates most popular when only first preferences are considered were candidates A2, A3, B1, B2 and B3. This means even though Party B's candidates had less support together, they would have received 60% of seats, and Party A only 40%. In this case, Party A overextended themselves by fielding too many candidates, but even if they had [[Strategic nomination|strategically nominated]] only three, they would not necessarily have been successful in gaining three seats instead of two seats, because one or two of their candidates might have taken the lion share of their party votes, leaving not enough votes for the other(s) to be elected. This could be addressed under SNTV if the party voters used coordinated [[strategic voting]].

If voters could vote for five candidates (but not cast ranked votes){{Snd}}) as under the [[plurality block voting]] system, a type of [[multiple non-transferable vote]]{{Snd}}, Party A could have won all seats, leaving Party B and voters of the independent candidate without representation. This is because if all those who voted for A3 marked their votes for all five of the Party A candidates, every Party A candidate would be among the five candidates with the most votes and would be declared elected. That would mean that a voting block of only 25 percent of the electorate would have all the representation.

Under [[majority block voting]], if voters voted along party lines, every Party A candidate would receive a vote from 48 percent of the voters, and some even up to 55% if voters of Candidate I also vote for some Party A candidates with their 4 other votes. At the same time, Party B's candidates could only get up to 52% of the votes with the same tactics. If the voters are partisan enough, the likely outcome is that party A would take all the seats although Party A took less than half the votes (minority representation) and all other votes are wasted.

In single-winner [[First past the post]], the outcome is uncertain. It likely would be that Party A, with 48 percent of the votes, would achieve a clean sweep of all five seats or that Party A might easily take four of the five seats, with Party B taking just one. (The first case would be achieved by Party B votes being cracked by the district boundaries; the second case would be achieved by Party B voters being mostly packed into just one district, leaving Party A with easy victories in the other four districts.) On the other hand, if districts were drawn in a different fashion, Party A and Party B might divide the seats in a three-to-two ratio. Even under certain circumstances, the independent candidate might take a seat if their supporters are sufficiently concentrated in one district.

STV election results are roughly proportional (as much as the number of seats allows) and take into account more than the first preferences of voters. However, it could happen that the independent candidate is eliminated in an early round and so is unable to receive transfers from party voters. If that happens, the supporters of the independent candidate might aid one or another of the main parties. The five seats would be divided among the two main parties, in a more or less fair fashion.

However, under STV (as seen in the example above), the final result may be modulated by cross-party transfers, say from a party A or B candidate to a candidate of the other party or to the independent candidate. When secondary preferences are applied, some voters who gave their first preference to a candidate from a certain party, if that person cannot be elected, might prefer an independent (or even a rival party candidate) before other candidates of their first choice's party. This means that even if it seems that the outcome over-represents or under-represents some faction (based on first preferences), the outcome actually closely adheres to a combination of the first preferences of many voters and secondary preferences of most of the other voters. Under STV, about 80 percent of voters see their vote used to elect someone they prefer (and even more than that portion see someone they prefer elected, even if their vote itself was not used to elect anyone), while under FPTP, often less than half of the votes are used to elect anyone and only the largest group in each district is represented.

{| class="wikitable"
|+
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" |Party
! Popular vote{{efn|name=1st-preference|Based on 1st preference candidates}}
! colspan="2" | STV{{snd}}Hare quota
! colspan="2" | {{abbr|SNTV|Single non-transferable vote}}{{efn|Based on single vote cast for 1st preferences, no tactical voting}}
! colspan="2" | Plurality block voting{{efn|Likely outcome based on first preferences and assuming most voters also cast their second and third votes for candidates of the same party}}
! colspan="2" | Party-list PR{{efn|name=1st-preference}}
|-
!%
!Seats
!%
!Seats
!%
!Seats
!%
!Seats
!%
|-
| style="background:#D10000" |
|Party A
|48%
|2
|40%
|2
|40%
|5
|100%
|3
|60%
|-
| style="background:#0008A5" |
|Party B
|45%
|2
|40%
|3
|60%
|0
|0%
|2
|40%
|-
|
|Independent
|7%
|1
|20%
|0
|0%
|0
|0%
|0
|0%
|}

STV using the Droop quota produces the same results as STV using Hare in this case. A3 and A4 receive quota on first round or soon after. B2, B3 and the independent are elected at the end due to thinning of the field of candidates to one more than the number of remaining open seats, assuming same rules of transfer as above.