VUWSA Adopts Single Transferable Voting System Ahead of Upcoming Elections

Walter Zamalis (he/him)

The Victoria University Students’ Association (VUWSA) will adopt the Single Transferable Vote voting system (STV) for its upcoming executive elections this September, VUWSA CEO Matt Tucker has confirmed. A motion to switch to STV was voted on and carried at an executive meeting held on 28 March 2025. The system will replace first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting for VUWSA elections only. FPTP will remain in use for University Council elections, which are run separately.  

FPTP is a form of plurality voting: where the winner is simply the candidate with the most votes, not a majority of 50% overall. This is the case even if they win by just one vote more than the next candidate, and even if a majority of voters did not vote for them. While known for producing decisive outcomes, it also results in what are called “wasted votes”—votes for unsuccessful candidates that have no impact on the final result.  

A plurality can be surprisingly small. For example, in an election with ten candidates for a VUWSA officer position,  the candidate could win with just 10.1% of the vote. Since FPTP winners rarely secure an outright majority, they often cannot claim the confidence of most voters.

STV aims to address these issues through optional preferential voting, where voters rank candidates in order of preference. First-choice votes are counted initially, and candidates who fail to meet a minimum threshold are eliminated. Crucially, instead of being discarded, votes for eliminated candidates are transferred to the next preferences indicated by voters. This process continues until only two candidates remain, and the one with more than 50% of the preference votes is declared the winner—thus reflecting the broader support of the electorate. The winner therefore can claim the confidence of most voters. 

STV is already used  across New Zealand in local body elections, including in Wellington. 

Speaking to Salient, Tucker said the shift to STV was first proposed in a routine post-election review following the Campaigns Officer by-election held from 17-19 March 2025. The review addressed concerns put to VUWSA about vote-splitting. 

The transition to STV was straightforward because VUWSA’s election software is modeled on that of the Otago University Students' Association (OUSA), which already uses STV. VUWSA can simply activate an existing function in its system without needing to overhaul the software. It also streamlines election management, says Tucker, as “it is easier for the web developer to maintain one similar system rather than two”

Tucker said the executive approved STV for its “more accurate representation” of voter interests, its mitigation of wasted votes, and its representative and empowering qualities by giving voters a less binary way to express choice. This, he noted, may improve engagement. 

However, not everyone is convinced. The same meeting raised concerns that adopting STV might be “complex for voters to understand, potentially leading to voter confusion and lower turnout”, Tucker divulged.

Graeme Orr, professor of electoral law at the University of Queensland Law School in Brisbane, strongly disagrees that STV is too complicated for students. “I just don’t buy that; it’s not that difficult.” Optional single-winner STV has been Australia’s primary voting system since 1918. It is known there as preferential voting, and is widely understood.

Although he claims to “hate using market-based metaphors”, Orr compares the system of ranking candidates to “getting a series of choices” in a marketplace. One may want a Dr Pepper from the supermarket, but will substitute Dr Pepper for Pepsi because it is more popular and therefore more likely to be available. Given we choose between our initial preferences and alternatives everyday without giving it much thought, Orr says, the same logic can be applied to VUWSA candidates. 

The complexities of box-ticking, Orr says, are brief and only ever surface level. STV is based on the choices we make everyday. It creates political diversity impossible under FPTP by giving other candidates the ability to run without losing outright or splitting the vote. There will always be greater demand for candidates campaigning on issues with a broad consensus among students, such as transport affordability and the cost of living, than minor candidates. But minor candidates can still exist and broaden the debate. Since virtually all votes under a STV election count, minor candidates can still influence the results.

The unopposed election of VUWSA president Liban Ali last year also posed a question—how is STV better for student elections than FPTP if there is no opponent? The answer is diversity, Orr says. In rural areas of Queensland in the 1970s, conservative Country Party candidates often ran unopposed. But the staleness of these elections eventually encouraged political diversity aided by the greater freedom of choice STV promises. 

Given it intimidates minor candidates, FPTP discourages diversity. Despite circumventing incumbency, STV is still “a neutral system of choice”, says Orr. The proliferation of wide choice by removing the fear of failure far outweighs the risk of partisan manipulation, which all voting systems are vulnerable to.

Orr says the essential advantage of STV for students was best articulated by Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam: “it not only maximises the number of choices you have, but allows you to express indifference”. VUWSA will adopt optional STV, allowing students to rank as many or as few candidates as they like on their ballots. With STV, says Orr, “you can consciously leave people off”, whereas under FPTP you may “agonise for days” over your one choice. FPTP makes tactical voting difficult and allows merely a singular expression of choice, which disillusions many voters.

Under STV, says Orr, no matter if voters cast votes irrationally (i.e. out of “brand loyalty” or friendship), voters can express a wider spectrum of preference that reflects the student body as a whole. This evens out “rationally ignorant” choices - votes cast by people for whom it would be irrational to spend ages choosing. These votes would otherwise cause vote-splitting under FPTP. At a university where most candidates are “different shades of left”, Orr explains, STV is better than FPTP because it allows students to rank multiple similar candidates without “asking people to do too much research [about them] irrationally”.

With candidates similar to each other, the risk under FPTP would be that students would just vote based on name recognition or friendships, potentially splitting the vote. VUWSA president Liban Ali was similarly scathing of FPTP for this reason, describing it to Salient as merely a “big popularity contest”. Any VUWSA position, he said, could be won by a popular student enticing their hall of residence to vote for them, thus winning by a plurality thanks to students who otherwise would not have voted. STV prevents that by choosing an ultimate winner who reflects the preferences of all students.

Orr concludes “in principle, [STV is] a much better system clearly, because it maximises your potential choices, including the choice to be indifferent” while still having a say and taking part. VUWSA President Liban Ali told Salient that the university adopting STV will prove “really good practice” for students at the upcoming local body elections.