Editing Single transferable vote (section)

===Other===
Some opponents{{who|date=April 2014}} argue that larger, multi-seat districts would require more campaign funds to reach the voters. Proponents{{who|date=October 2022}} argue that STV can lower campaign costs because like-minded candidates can share some expenses. Proponents reason that negative advertising is disincentivized in such a system, as its effect is diluted among a larger pool of candidates.

In addition, candidates do not have to secure the support of the largest voting block to be elected as under FPTP. STV ensures that each substantial group gets at least one seat, allowing candidates to focus campaign spending primarily on supportive voters. Under STV, it is not necessary to be the most popular candidate in the district to be elected; it is only necessary to have quota (or survive to the end when the remaining candidates are declared elected). To have quota, you do not need support from across the district necessarily. If a corner of the district has a quota worth of votes and the voters there support a candidate, that candidate will be elected and there is nothing the others elsewhere in the district can do about it. So, at least theoretically, you would not need to campaign across the district.<ref>Hoag, Effective Voting, (1914)</ref>

The larger, multi-member constituencies can result in less, rather than more, representation of local communities within the electoral district. The representatives could potentially all be from one part of the region, leaving other communities without representation.

Furthermore, STV requires multi-member districts (MMDs). It is thus impossible to use MMDs in the Scottish Highlands to elect member of the UK Parliament because only one member is elected in that area.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://ukchristianparty.org/where-are-you/scotland/ |title=Scotland |access-date=18 December 2022 |archive-date=19 August 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819013610/https://ukchristianparty.org/where-are-you/scotland/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> To create an MMD in a sparsely-settled area, an electoral district would have to cover a large area just to capture the required population to be represented by multiple members. There can be a greater disconnect between the voter, or community, and their representatives. If areas with low population density were using multi-member districts to elect the relatively few high-level members of Parliament in Scotland or of the UK Parliament, constituencies could become so large as to seem to be impractical.<ref>{{cite web |date=18 June 2013 |title=Advantages and Disadvantages of Using the Single Transferable Vote System |url=https://www.uk-engage.org/2013/06/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-the-single-transferable-vote-stv-system/ |access-date=3 June 2022 |website=UK Engage}}</ref> However, Scotland successfully uses multiple-member regions in its Scottish Parliament elections and STV in its Local Authority elections. The large number of Local Authority or Scottish Parliament members allows the creation of MMDs without having each district cover too large an area.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.scotland.org/live-in-scotland/where-to-live-in-scotland/the-highlands |title=The Highlands &#124; Scotland.org |website=Scotland |access-date=27 February 2023}}</ref> Meanwhile, MMDs even of immense size can be used successfully. In New South Wales, Australia, the whole state elects 21 members of the upper house in one single STV contest and has done so since 1991.<ref>"Legislative Council – State Election 2019". vtr.elections.nsw.gov.au. Archived from the original on 26 March 2019. Retrieved 26 March 2019</ref>