Democracy may have fewer detractors but the process of voting itself still has many critics. Sometimes it is hard not to be critical. It's more than disappointing when democracies are run by governments that received a minority of votes cast. The absence of genuine-majority governments brings alive Churchill's conclusion that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others. When the majority of people voted for somebody other than the victor that can’t be good. 

Just take a look at the US and UK as two prominent western democraices. British post-war governments routinely received under 45% of votes. America’s electoral college did a somewhat better job of matching power to the popular vote. Yet still most of America's governments received somewhere under 50% of the votes cast. No wonder it’s a battle to get voters to bother in both countries. People naturally become disillusioned when, to paraphrase the anarchist view, it doesn’t matter which way you vote because the government you didn’t vote for gets elected.

(As a side note on problems with American democracy gerrymandering, the process of matching voting groups to repesentatives, has all but excised competiion from seats in America's lower house. Of 435 congressional districts barely 30 are truly competitive. In statistical terms that means 95% of the time you can predict a congressional election. No wonder turnout is low.)

But one method of voting helps. Single Transferable Votes (STV) is used by more and more places in the world. This includes the Republic of Ireland (president), Australia (House of Representatives), London (mayor), San Francisco (mayor and major city offices), New Zealand, Northern Ireland and Nepal (upper house only; the lower house uses FPTP). Britain's Liberal Party has campaigned for proportional representation since the 1920s. In 1929 the minority Labour government came within a whisker of granting this wish. Its heir, the Liberal Democrats, still believe that FPTP is unfair because its takes no account of the 'wasted' votes of people who don't vote for the winning candidate.

To understand STV and their benefits it's worth remembering the central habit of the 'traditional democracy' practiced by the US and UK and many others is the idea of a single cross. Voters put one mark (or chop) on one ballot paper. It sounds simple. Doutless this is why it is thought incorruptible and classic democracy - 'one person, one vote'. The result is usually based on First-Pass-the-Post (FPTP) meaning the person or party with the most crosses gets elected.

Single transferable votes work somewhat differently to a single cross on the ballot paper. Also known, sometimes, as 'instant run-off voting' in the United States (or IRV) there are three differences:  

1. Ranking. Voters do not use a single mark but instead rate a candidates in order of preference using 1,2,3. 
   
   
2. Counting. Unlike traditional elections there is more than one round of counting. The candidate with the least first choice votes is eliminated in the first round of counting. Their preferences are then awarded to other candidates according to the second choice of those people. These 'second preferences' are added to the other candidate and swell their number of votes. Thus voters are expressing a compromise: if my first choice candidate does not get elected then I would prefer such-and-such a candidate. This transferring process is repeated until a majority is reached for one candidate. 
   
   
3. Finishing counting (the quota). When it is decided enough counting is done (quite when this happens is up for some debate) a winner is declared. Their victory is based on the number of first preferences plus other preferences received.

This process of ranking creates some interesting possibilities. A paper candidate can be included as standing for election. They can be called 'No Confidence'. This 'candidate' is unusual as no other votes are required after registering support for him. Thus mlore single-minded voters can support Candidate A but view other candidates with either loathing or mistrust (or, given that politicians are involved, both these feelings). People holding this sharp view mark their ballots with a ‘1’ for Candidate A followed by a ‘2’ for No Confidence. They leave the rest blank. No Confidence has the advantage of ensuring people can protest against one or all the candidates.

In several elections it seems this is rather a good thing though it raises the thorny problem of nobody (that is of 'No Confidence') being elected over real people. Churchill famously feared that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. It's theoretically possible that somewhere in the world a thorny electorate will see to it that ‘No Confidence’ gets elected.

Another option with STV voting is to impose quotas on the victor. Thus, for example, once a candidate has reached more than 50% of votes cast they become the victor. This is applied in New Zealand as one example. There, 50% of the votes cast + 1 more are required for a winning candidate. Once this 50%+1 vote formula is met re-counting stops. Such quotas stop endless rounds of counting. However, like including an option, 'No Confidence' they hold the theoretical possibility of a divisive candidate defeating a consensus-building candidate because he gets a large bulk of second choice votes. 

It would only be fair to say that some problems have occurred with STV. This can happen in elections where candidates are close. In 1981 in Malta, for example, the Maltese Labour Party won a majority of seats despite a different party (the Nationalist Party) winning a majority of first preference votes. This caused a constitutional crisis and led eventually to the provision of bonus seats. These bonus seats were used in 1987 and again in 1996. Similarly, the Northern Ireland elections in 1998 led to the Ulster Unionists winning more seats than the Social Democratic and Labour Party. This happened despite the Unionists winning a smaller share of the vote.

Obviously democracy is going to be a big part of the story of the twenty-first century. At the time of writing it is said that 80 countries are either democratic or have taken significant steps towards democracy in recent years; nearly half of those have removed military regimes. This means approaching 150 of the world’s nearly 200 countries now hold elections in some form. As a way of connecting the mass of humanity to its leaders it is a historical trend. Thus the voting method is important. A critical benefit of STVs is to create a psychological sense of inclusivity. John Stuart Mill once warned about ‘the complete disfranchisement of minorities’. STV is one way to if not prevent then at least reduce this feeling. They also save money and time with superfluous ‘run-off’ elections.