Unlike other voting methods, a vote is not “wasted” when a voter’s first ranked candidate does not win. Instead, the vote is transferred or fractionally apportioned to their second, third, or fourth options. This maintains the importance of an individual’s vote and does not “waste” it.

STV implements more accurate and proportional representation. The elected body proportionally reflects the constituency through two processes. STV’s quota requirement and ranked ballot prevents vote splitting, where a candidate who is unrepresentative of the majority wins a seat with a minority number of votes. This is because candidates must meet a minimum quota. Those who are eliminated then have their surplus votes transferred to the next ranking candidate, and it would follow voters would rank a candidate with similar policy goals or candidate characteristics. This additionally allows for more power to be given to minority candidates who have a greater chance at being elected under STV, which is another feature of proportional representation.

The process of ranking candidate’s by individual preference and transferring surplus votes to other candidates absent one’s political party identification reduces the power of political parties in the electoral system.

A main critique of STV is that the method may be too complex to implement. This critique takes the form of being too complex for the voter to rank their candidates, and too complex for the voting officials to count and calculate the ballots. Another issue based on complexity is the problems that arise if a seat is vacated.

A second argument against STV is that, similar to other ranked choice voting methods, STV falls prey to the Arrow Impossibility Theorem.