Electing more than one, simply — majoritarian vs. proportional¶
Sometimes you're not picking a single winner — a board, a committee, a top-4. The instant there's more than one seat, a fork appears that trips almost everyone up: do you want the N best candidates, or a body that mirrors the whole electorate? Those are different goals, and they need different methods. This page is the plain-language fork; the machinery lives in proportional representation.
Level: 201 · for voters Prerequisite: you know single-winner STAR.
The fork: two different questions¶
The moment you fill more than one seat, "fair" splits into two meanings:
1. Majoritarian / at-large — "pick the N best." Everyone scores the candidates, and the STAR count runs once per seat — elect a winner, remove them, re-run — until N seats are filled. Simple, and exactly right when you genuinely want the best few, factions aside — a club choosing its 3 favorite logos, a shortlist of finalists. Its catch: a cohesive majority can sweep every seat, so a large minority can end up with nothing. Great for "best options," wrong for "represent us."
2. Proportional — "mirror the electorate." Seats are shared in proportion to support: a group that's ~40% of voters wins about 40% of the seats. Right when the body is meant to represent a diverse population — a city council, a legislature, a union board. It deliberately gives a minority its fair share instead of letting the majority take everything.
Neither is "better" — they answer different questions. The whole trick is knowing which question you're asking.
Which do you want?¶
| You want… | Use | Because |
|---|---|---|
| the N best candidates, factions aside | Bloc STAR | you're picking winners, not representatives |
| a body that mirrors the electorate | Proportional STAR or STV | a 40% group deserves ~40% of the seats |
The tell: is this a body meant to represent people, or a shortlist of the best options? Representation → proportional. Best-of → bloc. If a cohesive majority sweeping all the seats would feel wrong, you want proportional.
See it — same ballots, different bodies¶
The Pets Governance set runs the same electorate under bloc vs. proportional and elects different committees — the concrete version of the fork, side by side.
How proportional actually shares the seats (the one idea)¶
Proportional methods all rest on a quota — roughly "how many votes buys one seat" (for 3 seats, about a quarter of the voters each). When a candidate crosses the quota they're elected, and their surplus (or their voters' remaining weight) flows to the next choice, so no bloc is over-rewarded. STAR-PR and STV differ in the bookkeeping, not the goal. The full mechanics: the math behind proportional STAR.
Go deeper¶
- Bloc STAR — majoritarian multi-winner (the top-N extension of STAR)
- Block preferential voting — the ranked-ballot answer to the same majoritarian question, and the one most often mistaken for STV. Worth knowing precisely because it proves the fork is decided by the count, not the ballot: identical rankings sweep 2–0 under it and split 1–1 under STV
- Proportional representation — the proportional family (Allocated Score, SSS, RRV) and STV vs STAR-PR on the same electorate
- Electing a committee — the same fork on the approval side, counting-only (a gentle companion)
- Comparing multi-winner methods — which pairs of methods can honestly be compared, and why "Bloc Approval vs STAR-PR" answers nothing
- Curriculum: 201.5 multi-winner intro → 301.1 proportional STAR and 301.2 STV (separate rungs — same question, different ballot)