Electoral System and Ballot Type Implications for the Count

This section discusses how the electoral formula and chosen ballot type might affect vote-counting procedures.

What Vote Counting Means

It is necessary to carefully distinguish between counting the votes and determining the winner (See Transforming Votes to Seats).

Counting the votes consists of opening the ballot boxes, sorting their contents, determining the validity of ballot papers, and counting ballot papers counted. Except in countries using voting machines, this is a very concrete operation, based on actual objects (ballot papers and, if applicable envelopes), and is often done manually. It is a labour intensive operation. In some countries mechanical or electronic devices are used to facilitate the counting.

Counting votes requires concentration, literacy, and honesty. Those who count votes are not highly paid and in some countries the literacy requirement excludes many applicants.

Vote counting involves the preliminary operation of checking the validity of ballot papers. Electoral legislation normally outlines detailed grounds for rejecting ballot papers. Election officials must be fully familiar with those provisions.

This operation requires a higher skill level than simply counting the votes. Decisions on the validity of ballot papers may be made collectively (for example, by a majority decision of all election officials present) or hierarchically (by the presiding officer). The decision may also be "referred to higher officials". Decisions of that nature must be subject to judicial review to prevent abuses.

Vote counting results normally produce the following information for each counting unit:

1. How many voters have voted?
2. How many ballot papers were rejected?
3. How many ballot papers were valid?
4. How many votes went to each party and/or candidate, and in the case of the referendum how many votes went to each option.?

 

 

Counting the votes can be accomplished by counting officials, usually at the voting station level, but also at the electoral district level, or on a national level.

The final stage of vote counting is the aggregation of figures for electoral districts. Electoral districts are the territorial units for which representatives, in a first-past-the-post system, are elected and where votes are added before the electoral formula is to be applied to determine who is elected. If the counting centre is smaller than the electoral district, the figures included in the statements of votes for each counting unit must be aggregated for all the counting units in the electoral district.

This operation involves gathering the results from each counting centre, checking whether all statements are in, and aggregating the figures included in each statement. Only once the totals are available for the electoral district is vote counting over. The next step is applying the electoral formula to determine who is elected.

Electoral Formula

An electoral formula may be defined as the criterion that determines the winner(s) of an election. For legislative elections, the electoral system is the rule whereby members of a legislative house are elected and votes transformed into seats. For presidential elections, the electoral system is the benchmark a candidate must reach to be declared elected: e.g. a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

Electoral formulas are outlined in Transforming Votes to Seats. The electoral formula will affect many other variables of the election process. In particular, it has some effect on the ballot type and on the counting procedure.

Influence of Electoral Formula over Ballot Type

The variables of ballot type are outlined in greater detail in file Ballot Type Counting Requirements.

1. Ordinal or Categorical Ballots The main effect of the electoral formula on the ballot type is whether a categorical or an ordinal choice will be required from voters.

 

 

A categorical ballot is one where the voter makes a straight choice, either for a candidate or for a party list, or for a party and a candidate at the same time. An ordinal ballot is one where the voter indicates his preferences among the various candidates or parties by numbering their respective names, in declining order (1, 2, 3) or by cumulating votes on certain candidates. On an ordinal ballot a voter is able to alter his vote between the first and second round of an election.

Most electoral formulas require voters to make a categorical choice, which means that categorical type ballots are the most common occurrence. Ordinal ballots only account for one-quarter of the world total of ballots. They can be required for four formulas:

• The Alternative Vote,
• The Single Transferable Vote,
• The Block Vote, and
• The Two-Round System 

 

 

Ballot Structure: The Australian Ballot, the "Ballot and Envelope System," and the French Ballot

Another important dimension of the ballot paper is its structure. Two broad options exist: an "Australian ballot" (named after its country of origin) on which the names of all-competing parties and candidates are grouped on a single sheet of paper, to be marked by the voter.

The other option, the "ballot and envelope" system, requires printing a distinct ballot paper for each of the competing parties or candidates, and inviting voters to insert a single paper into an envelope, which is to be dropped into the ballot box.

Between those two types exists an intermediary solution: the French ballot, which lists the candidates to be marked by the voter. This type of ballot is used in some jurisdictions where proportional representation (PR) is combined with the right for voters to express preferences for individual candidates within the party list. Most electoral formulas are fully compatible with either ballot structure option (see "group 1" in the appendix). However, some electoral formulas (First Past the Post, Two-Round, or PR) in multi-member electoral districts with panachage or preferential voting within a list, are compatible with both.

Australian ballots are clearly advisable as a simpler format of ballot paper and for the cost factor of producing less ballot papers, especially if the number of members to be elected is high: (see "group 2" in the appendix.) Finally, some electoral formulas are only compatible with Australian ballots, and cannot be operated with the ballot and envelope system. This is the case for the alternative voting and STV (see "group 3" in the appendix), because both require an ordinal choice which cannot be expressed with enough clarity under the ballot and envelope system.

Influence of Electoral Formula over Vote Counting

The most important influence of the electoral formula over vote counting is to determine what must be counted. Some formulas simply require counting the votes for candidates or parties. Other formulas require counting the votes both for parties and for candidates within each party list.

If the electoral formula requires voters to express an ordinal choice, then vote counting is performed in a very different way.

Another influence of the electoral formula is the determination of which territorial level (the voting station, the electoral district, or the nation as a whole) votes must be counted and aggregated.

Appendix

This is a discussion of the compatibility of various formulas with the Australian ballot paper and the ballot and envelope system.

Group 1 - The following formulas are compatible with both the Australian ballot and the ballot and envelope system:

• First-past-the-post (FPTP) in single-member electoral districts;
• FPTP in multi-member electoral districts, with no panachage allowed (akin to the Party Block Vote;
• FPTP in multi-member electoral districts, with panachage allowed, and with distinct individual competitions for each seat (the Block Vote);
• Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV) 
• Two-Round System in single-member electoral districts;
• Two-Round System in multi-member electoral districts, with closed lists no panachage allowed 
• Two-Round system in multi-member electoral districts, with panachage allowed, and with distinct individual competitions for each seat;
• PR with closed lists.

 

 

Group 2 - The following formulas are compatible in theory with both the Australian ballot and the ballot and envelope system. However, in practical terms, it is advisable to use Australian ballots, especially if the number of votes to be cast in the district is high.

• The Block Vote;
• Limited Vote;
• Two-Round system in multi-member electoral districts, with panachage allowed, but no distinct competition for each seat;
• PR list with panachage allowed.

 

 

Group 3 - The following formulas are compatible only with Australian ballots:

• Alternative voting in single-member electoral districts;
• Alternative voting in multi-member electoral districts;
• Single Transferable Vote (STV).

 

 

Electoral Systems Counting Requirements for Different Electoral Systems

Which electoral formula is in force has an effect on how vote counting is carried out, what has to be counted, and where the counting is to be done is examined.

1. What has to be counted? Following is a summary of the counting requirements for each electoral formula:

• First-past-the-post (FPTP) in single-member districts - count the votes for each candidate.

• FPTP in multi-member districts (the Party Block Vote) - count the votes for each party list.

• Limited vote - count the votes for each candidate.

• Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV) - count the votes for each candidate.

• Proportional representation (PR) with closed list, no panachage between list - count the votes for each list.

• PR list with panachage allowed - count the votes for each candidate. If voters are allowed to cast a single list vote instead of voting for individual candidates, also count the number of votes cast for each list.

• Two-Round System in single-member districts - count the votes for each candidate. If a second ballot is necessary, count the votes again for each candidate standing at the second ballot.

• Two-Round System in multi-member districts, with closed lists - count the votes for each party list. If a second ballot is necessary, count the votes again for each party list standing at the second ballot.

• FPTP in multi-member districts (the Block Vote), with panachage allowed, there are two possible ballot arrangements: a. Each seat in the district is numbered in a distinctive way (Seat "A", Seat "B", etc.), with one distinct competition for each seat, and each elector has a vote for each seat.

1. There is no distinct competition for each seat and the voter has as many votes as there are members to be elected in the district.

In both cases, count the votes for each candidate.

• Two-Round system in multi-member districts, with panachage allowed. There are two possible ballot arrangements:

1. Each seat is numbered in a distinctive way (Seat "A", Seat "B", etc.), with one distinct competition for each seat.
2. No distinct competition for each seat, voter has as many votes as there are members to be elected. In both cases, count the votes for each candidate. If a second ballot is necessary, count the votes again for each candidate standing at the second ballot.

PR list when preference votes for individual candidates are allowed.

• Scenario A - Voters must vote for a single individual candidate, and this vote is also deemed to be a vote for the party sponsoring that individual. In this case, count the votes for each candidate.

• Scenario B - Voters may vote either for a party list or for one individual candidate within a party list. In this case, count the votes for each party list and count the votes for each candidate.

• Scenario C - Voters must vote for a party list and may, in addition, vote for one or many of the candidates within that list. However, individual preferences cast for the candidates sponsored by a given party will be taken into account only if 10 percent of the ballot papers cast for that party are so marked. In this case, first count the votes for each party list. Second, count for each party the number of ballot papers which bear preference votes for candidates. Third, count individual preference votes for each candidate.

• Scenario D - Voters must vote for a party list and they may vote for one of the candidates within that list. They may, in addition, cross out the name of a candidate within that list. In this case, first count the votes for each party list. Second, count the votes for each candidate. Third, count the number of ballots where the name of a candidate was crossed out.

• Alternative voting in single-member districts: Count only first preferences for each candidate. If necessary, count second or other subsequent preferences expressed on eliminated candidates' ballots (the latter count must be done at the electoral district level, though Australia provides for a preliminary unofficial counting of second and subsequent preferences at the lowest level).

• Alternative voting in multi-member districts: Each seat in the district is numbered in a distinctive way (Seat "A", Seat "B", etc.), with one distinct competition for each seat. Count the first preferences for each individual candidate for each seat. If necessary, count the second or other subsequent preferences expressed on eliminated candidates' ballots.

• Single Transferable Vote (STV): Count only first preferences for each candidate. If necessary, count second or other subsequent preferences expressed on eliminated candidates' ballots (the latter count must be done at the electoral district level).

• Mixed Member Proportional Systems: Count the votes for each party, and the votes for each candidate. If the two cannot be done simultaneously, count party votes first as these are the most decisive.

• Parallel Systems: Count votes for each candidate and votes for each party. If the two cannot be done simultaneously, start with the category of members that is the most numerous.

• Mixed Coexistence Systems: In each district, use the relevant counting procedure, depending on which formula is used in the district.

1. Where are votes to be counted?

Determining at which level of electoral administration, i.e. national, provincially or regionally, at electoral district level or at the voting station, counting will take place is determined by national legislation.

The simplest option is to count the vote at each voting station. This is generally recommended since the officials who perform the operation are already at the location and there is no need for transport of the ballot boxes, which supports transparency of the count.

Counting at voting stations also has an impact on timing: voters and candidates are anxious to know the results.

Votes can also be counted at counting centres, at the electoral district level or even nationally.

This necessitates safety precautions to overcome the security and public trust considerations mentioned above: ballot boxes must be sealed carefully so that their contents cannot be emptied or tampered with during transportation. Reliable officials must transport the ballots. A worthwhile precaution is to require representatives from the various parties to sit in, or when there are a number of party or candidate representatives to accompany, the vehicle transporting the boxes. In politically volatile countries, armed protection of the vehicles transporting ballot boxes and party inspectors may be necessary.

While counting the votes at a location other than the voting station is often not the best alternative, there may be sound reasons for selecting this option:

1. Protecting voting secrecy: All voters, or a number of voters in a given voting station vote for the same candidate or party, in which case their vote is known to all. Counting the votes at another venue, where the contents of numerous voting stations are mixed together, minimizes the likelihood of such an occurrence.
2. Protecting voters: if the elected party representative or candidate knows which voting stations supported him or her and which did not, there is a risk of retribution during his or her term of office against those parts of the district that voted "the wrong way".
3. Protecting national or social cohesion: If electoral districts include communities sharply differentiated by language, social class or otherwise, making the results available for smaller subdivisions within each district may reveal sharp differences within the electorate. In highly charged political situations, this may lead to victimisation, by losing candidates, of a particular sub-group (for example, an ethnic or linguistic minority). Counting the votes at a location other than the voting station helps to conceal those differences and, presumably, to preserve national and social cohesion.
4. Material considerations: Voting stations may be ill-equipped physically to count the votes. For example, if they are located in open-air spaces due to the unavailability of appropriate buildings, or are too poorly lit for the operation to be done in an efficient way. In such cases, it may be better to count the votes in larger counting centres located in public buildings (like schools or administrative offices) that are better equipped and better protected against intruders.
5. Size considerations: In very small countries, it may be deemed easier to centralize counting in view of the small distances to be traveled.
6. Ensuring that the rules governing the rejection of ballot papers will be uniformly and fairly applied: While counting the votes for individual candidates or parties is a simple and straightforward operation, which does not require high skills, deciding on the validity of each ballot paper demands higher qualifications. Even trained judges may have difficulty in deciding some specific cases. Further, the rules governing ballot validity may be understood differently by numerous voting station and/or counting staff. Presumably, making such decisions at the electoral district or national level ensures they will be made by trained officials and that the law will be applied the same way in all dubious cases.
7. Electoral systems requirements: While national electoral legislation often differs on the location of the vote counting, electoral formulas impose minimal constraints to legislators in this regard. In other words, whichever of the above-mentioned formulas is chosen, it is possible for vote counting, as distinguished from determining the winner(s), to be done at voting stations, or at alternative locations.

Alternative Vote (AV) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) impose only one important constraint with regard to vote counting: while counting of first preferences can be done in voting stations, the transfer of second and other subsequent preferences must be done at the electoral district level.

It is only on the basis of the aggregate figures for the whole district that the decision can be made as to whether any transfer will be necessary, and as to which candidates, if necessary, will be eliminated and have their second preferences counted and transferred.

The crucial point to be ascertained before deciding to count second or subsequent preferences is whether or not a candidate has obtained a majority of first preferences in the electoral district. This decision can only be made on the basis of district-wide figures. If such a majority has been reached, counting stops there and second or subsequent preferences will never be counted.

If the opposite is found, then it is up to the officials for the electoral district to eliminate the weakest candidates, to count second preferences on the ballots where first-preference votes have been given to such candidates, and transfer them to the remaining candidates, until one candidate secures the required majority or quota.

This implies that the winner(s) of the election will be known later under both AV and STV. This is one of the drawbacks pointed out by the opponents of these formulas.

Ballot Type Counting Requirements

An explanation and description of the types of ballots (single ballot, open and closed lists) takes into consideration the following three variables:

• Whether voters must make a categorical or ordinal choice;

• The structure of the ballot paper;

• The number of offices to be filled.

Ordinal vs. Categorical Ballots

A categorical ballot is one where the voter makes a straight choice either for a candidate or for a party list. An ordinal ballot is one where the voter is required to indicate preferences among the various candidates or parties by numbering their respective names, in declining order (1,2,3...).

Preferential ordinal ballots make ballot counting more complex. The chief rule is that only "first preferences" i.e. the number of ballots where the name of a given candidate are marked with the figure "1", are normally counted on election night, assuming that counting takes place directly after voting. Subsequent preferences are to be counted only if no candidate is found to have obtained a majority (more than 50 percent) of first preferences. In this case, the weakest candidate is eliminated and the second preferences expressed on his or her ballots are counted and transferred to other candidates.

The Structure of the Ballot Paper

The simplest option is the so-called "Australian ballot", which groups the names of all candidates for a single office on a single ballot paper, to be marked by the voter. Another option is the French "ballot paper and envelope system" where there is one ballot paper for each candidate, voters collect each candidate's ballot and insert one in an envelope to be dropped into the ballot box, and dispose of all other unused ballots.

“Australian ballots” are easier to count, as they are simply taken out of the ballot box, unfolded and sorted. A supplementary advantage is that the results of the count are easier to check after the election. Once counting is completed, the ballot papers marked for each party or candidate are placed in distinct sealed envelopes and archived. If the results of the election are later challenged, the envelopes may be reopened before a judge and their contents counted again. Further, rejected ballot papers may be re-examined to determine whether they ought to have been rejected or not.

Under the ballot and envelope system, the first step is to count the unopened envelopes to determine how many votes were cast. Then each envelope can be opened, the ballot paper taken out and the name of the candidate or party on the ballot read aloud and recorded by counting officers.

From this moment, nothing distinguishes a ballot paper which has been cast, and the only evidence of how many votes were cast for each party or candidate is the tally sheet used by counting officers, and the final statement of the votes cast. Only the latter has any official value and is kept for recording purposes. Normally more than one copy of the statement is made.

If conflicting figures are found in the various copies of the statement for any voting station, there is no authoritative evidence as to what the right figures are, because the ballot papers are not kept. Even if the ballot papers are kept and put into sealed envelopes, nothing distinguishes a ballot paper actually cast for a candidate or party from any other ballot paper that was not actually cast. Only ballot papers and envelopes that were rejected are kept and annexed to the statement of votes.

This system makes it difficult for judges to recount the ballot papers subsequently, or even to decide whether a ballot paper has been lawfully rejected. For example, if a vote has been rejected because the envelope was found to include no ballot, or because a ballot paper was inserted in the box without being put into an envelope first, or because the envelope included ballot papers for different candidates, the only evidence available, apart from suitable mentions on the minutes of proceedings of the counting station, is an empty envelope or isolated ballot papers.

Sometimes legislation provides for a mix of both schemes. Voters can be required to insert the list of candidates representing a single party into the envelope, but in addition, allow voters to mark the name of one or more candidates on that list. This kind of hybrid can be found notably in some proportional representation (PR) countries where preferential voting for some candidates is allowed.

The Number of Offices to be Filled

In most countries, an election involves a single set of elective offices, e.g. Members of Parliament. This requires a single ballot paper.

Sometimes numerous offices are to be filled at the same time such as President, member of Parliament, etc. This raises numerous issues, both political and technical. a. Straight ticket vs. Split ticket: One option is to oblige voters to give a single vote for a party, which is deemed to count for each of the candidates sponsored by that party for the various offices to be filled. For example, the Venezuelan ticket, whereby a single vote is valid for all the candidates sponsored by a party at the local, state and national level, is an extreme example of this. Another option is to allow voters to have a distinct vote for each office.

Counting implications: When voters are required to cast straight tickets, vote counting is simplified because ballot papers cast for each party simply need to be counted. When voters are granted a distinct vote for each office to be filled and which allows them to "split their ticket", counting is much more complex. Separate tally sheets must be used for each office to be filled, which makes vote counting a lengthy operation.

In such cases, the use of mechanical or electronic voting machines may appear the only solution that ensures a quick determination of the winner(s).

1. A single multi-office ballot paper vs. numerous single-office ballot papers. The former option allows for both straight and split tickets. The latter is compatible only with split tickets.

Counting implications: Same as above. If numerous ballot papers, one for each office, are used, it is recommended that the ballot papers for each office be printed on paper of a distinctive colour to avoid confusion during the count. This is particularly relevant if all ballot papers, irrespective of the office to which they relate, are put into a single ballot box.

Transforming Votes to Seats

Determining the winner(s) is usually accomplished at the electoral district level, though it may be done also at the national level. Most often senior electoral officials, with specific technical skill conduct the votes to seats formula application.

The rules governing the determination of winner(s) (the electoral formula) can be complex, especially if a scheme of proportional representation is in force. Further, determining the winner is an important political responsibility: any serious error made at this stage might generate a political crisis. Any suspicion of fraud will have the same consequence. There are various electoral formulas that fall into three main clusters:

• Plurality-majority,

• Proportional representation (PR), and

• Semi-PR systems.

However, each of these clusters includes different formulas.

Plurality-Majority Formulas

• First-past-the-post (FPTP) in single-member districts. The candidate with the highest number of votes is elected.

• FPTP in multi-member districts, with no panachage allowed (the Party Block Vote): The candidates on the party list with the highest number of votes are all elected.

• FPTP in multi-member districts, with panachage allowed (the Block Vote):

There are two possible ballot arrangements:

1. No distinct competition for each seat, voter has as many votes as there are seats to be filled in district. The candidates with the highest number of votes are elected.
2. Each seat in the district is numbered in a distinctive way (Seat "A", Seat "B", etc.), with one distinct competition for each seat, and each elector has a vote for each seat. In this case, the candidates with the highest number of votes for each seat are elected.

• Two-Round system in single-member districts: On the first ballot, the candidate with a majority of the vote is elected. If no candidate obtains a majority, a second ballot is held at a later date.

There may be no restriction as to who may stand [at the second ballot], there may be a threshold eliminating the weaker candidates, or only the two strongest candidates may stand [at the second ballot]. In each instance the candidate with the highest number of votes is elected.

• Two-round system in multi-member districts, with closed lists, no panachage allowed: Voters cast a vote for a party list. On the first ballot, the candidates on the party list with a majority of the vote are all elected. If no party list obtains a majority, a second ballot is held at a later date.

• There may be no restriction as to who may stand at the second ballot, there may be a threshold eliminating the weaker party lists, or only the two strongest party lists may stand at the second ballot. In any case, the candidates on the party list with the highest number of votes are all elected.

• Two-round system in multi-member districts, with panachage allowed.

There are two possible ballot arrangements:

1. Each seat is numbered in a distinctive way (Seat "A", Seat "B", etc.), with one distinct competition for each seat. Voters cast one vote for each seat. Votes are counted separately for each seat. On the first ballot, the candidate with a majority of the vote is elected. If no candidate obtains a majority, a second ballot is held at a later date (e.g. one or two weeks later).

There may be no restriction as to who may stand at the second ballot, or there may be a threshold eliminating the weaker candidates, or only the two strongest candidates may stand at the second ballot: in any case, the candidates with the highest number of votes are all elected.

1. No distinct competition for each seat; voter has as many votes as there are seats to be filled. In this case, candidates who have a majority of the vote are elected. If some seats remain unfilled after the first ballot, a second ballot is to be held later, with voters casting as many votes as there remain seats to be filled.

There may be no restriction as to who may stand at the second ballot, or there may be a threshold eliminating the weaker candidates. In either case, voters cast as many votes as there are members to be elected at this second ballot, and the candidates with the highest number of votes are elected.

• Alternative voting in single-member districts; Voters express preferences for each candidate by numbering each one consecutively (1, 2, 3, etc.). The candidate who obtains a majority of first preferences is elected. If no candidate obtains a majority of first preferences, the weakest candidate is eliminated and the second preferences on his or her ballot papers are transferred to the candidates for whom they are expressed. If necessary, this process is repeated until a candidate obtains a majority of the vote.

• Alternative vote in multi-member districts: Each seat is numbered in a distinctive way (Seat "A", Seat "B", etc.), with one distinct single-member competition for each seat. For each seat, voters express preferences for each candidate by numbering each one consecutively (1, 2, 3, etc.). For each seat, votes are counted, preferences eventually distributed and members elected as if it were a single-member seat with alternative voting (see above).

Semi-Proportional Systems

• Limited vote: Takes place within multi-member districts. Voters cast a number of votes that are lower than the number of seats to be filled. The candidates with the highest number of votes are elected.

• Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV): Takes place within multi-member districts. Same as for the limited vote, except that irrespective of the number of seats to be filled, voters cast a single vote.

• Parallel Systems: This system combines members elected in local districts by plurality or majority, and regional or national members elected by PR. Both plurality (or majority) and PR apply throughout the country. Both systems operate independently of each other. Notably, PR seats are filled without any consideration of the results in single-member districts.

• Parallel-Mixed coexistence systems: In this kind of mix, some districts within the country use either a plurality or majority formula, while in the other districts some form of PR is used. No formula applies to the whole country.

Proportional Representation (PR) - Multi-Member Districts

• PR with closed list, no panachage between lists: the party on the party list ranks candidates. Voters cast a single vote for one of the parties. Seats are distributed in proportion to the votes cast for each party list. Within each party list, seats go to the candidates ranked higher on the party list.

• PR list with panachage allowed: Voters have as many votes as there are seats to be filled. They distribute those votes as they wish among candidates, irrespective of parties. The votes cast for candidates from each party are aggregated, and seats are distributed in proportion to the votes cast for the candidates of each party. The seats won by each party go to those candidates who obtained the highest number of personal votes. It is also possible to cast a single party vote, which is deemed to be one vote for each candidate sponsored by that party.

• PR list where preference votes for individual candidates are allowed: This is a diverse group with a general principle that voters vote for a party, but may register a preference for one or many individual candidates within that list, or cross out the name of one or many individual candidates within that list. Some jurisdiction’s legislation provides that individual preference votes will not be considered if they amount to less than a given percentage (e.g. 10 percent) of all ballots cast for that party, and that candidates will be elected according to their position on the party list.

At least five different scenarios have been found:

1. Scenario A - Voters must vote for a single individual candidate only. This vote is also deemed to be a vote for the party sponsoring that individual. Seats are first distributed among parties on the basis of the total number of votes cast for all candidates sponsored by that party. Thereafter, within each list, seats go to the candidates obtaining the highest number of individual votes.
2. Scenario B - Voters can only vote for a single individual candidate, and this vote is also deemed to be a vote for the party sponsoring that individual. Seats are first distributed among parties on the basis of the total number of votes cast for all candidates sponsored by that party.

Thereafter, for each party, a "list quota" is computed. This is the result of the division of the number of votes cast for the party by the number of seats it won. Candidates whose personal preference votes are equal to or higher than the quota are elected. The votes obtained by these candidates surplus to the list quota are then transferred to the other candidates in the order of listing. However, candidates who obtained more than half of the list quota are given priority when votes are transferred, irrespective of their position on the list. The other candidates remain in the order in which they originally appeared on the ballot papers. Candidates are then elected on the basis of the order in which they appear on the amended list.

1. Scenario C - Voters may vote either for a party list or for one individual candidate within a party list. Seats are first distributed among parties on the basis of the total number of votes cast for that party and for each of the candidates representing that party. The total number of votes cast for a party and its candidates is divided by the number of seats won by that party, plus one. The result is an "eligibility number". As party votes are deemed to indicate an acceptance by the elector of the rank-ordering of candidates determined by the party, party votes are then transferred to the highest-ranking candidate on the list, and added to his or her personal votes.

The surplus of party votes (i.e. the difference between the total number of party votes and the eligibility number) is then transferred to the second candidate on the party list and added to his or her personal votes, and on and on until all party votes have been allocated to individual candidates.

Then, the candidates with the highest number of votes, both party and personal, are elected.

1. Scenario D - Voters must vote for a party list and may, in addition, vote for one or many of the candidates within that list. Seats are first distributed among parties on the basis of party votes. Then, within each list, seats will go to the candidates obtaining the highest number of individual votes, provided that at least 10 percent of the ballots cast for the party include individual preferences. Otherwise, seats go to the highest-ranked candidates.
2. Scenario E - Voters must vote for a party list. In addition, they may vote for one of the candidates within that list or cross out the name of a candidate within that list. Seats are first distributed among parties on the basis of party votes. Each candidate's personal votes are increased by the number of votes cast for his or her party, and decreased by the number of ballots on which his or her name was crossed out. Then, seats go to the candidates who got the highest figures after those computations have been made.

• Single Transferable Vote (STV): Voters express preferences for candidates by numbering each one consecutively (1, 2, 3, etc.). The number of first preferences obtained by each candidate is counted. A quota is ascertained by dividing the total number of first preference votes cast for all candidates by the number of seats in the district, increased by one. Candidates who obtain a number of first preference votes higher than the quota are elected. If seats remain to be filled, the second preferences on the ballot papers of elected candidates are transferred to other candidates, in proportion to the number of votes they obtained in excess of the quota. If seats remain to be filled after that operation, the weakest candidates are eliminated and the second preferences expressed on their ballot papers are transferred to other candidates

• Mixed Member Proportional Systems. This system also combines members elected in local districts by plurality or majority, and regional or national members elected by PR. Both plurality (and majority) and PR apply throughout the country. However, PR seats are distributed to provide each party with an overall number of seats proportional to its share of the vote.