The Australian Vote: Transferable Voting, Its Limitations and Strengths
Anthony B. Morton

TL;DR
This paper analyzes Australian transferable voting systems AV and STV, examining their strengths, limitations, and paradoxes, with detailed modeling and empirical data to understand their behavior and properties.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive analysis of AV and STV, including their non-monotonicities, relation to Condorcet winners, and how they balance majority rule and voter choice.
Findings
Non-monotonicities occur in less than 3.5% of scenarios
AV always elects a majority candidate or a Condorcet winner
STV can resemble largest-remainder list voting in certain cases
Abstract
The voting systems known as Alternative Vote (AV) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) are extensively used for elections in Australia, possibly more than in any other jurisdiction. Often proposed as superior alternatives to Plurality and other common systems, they are also criticised by theoreticians for their vulnerability to paradoxical outcomes. It is argued these 'transferable voting' systems in fact operate to balance competing desiderata that attempt to distil the common notions of 'majority rule' and 'voter choice'. Among positive characteristics of AV is that its outcome is always a majority runoff between two candidates with substantial voter support, and that a Condorcet winner who gains at least one-third of votes is always elected. It is shown that in situations where a Condorcet winner is not elected, there always exists a monotonic shift producing a Condorcet cycle without…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
