Quota-preferential proportional representation is widely regarded as the fairest electoral system. All systems of proportional representation ensure that the elected body reflects the views of the voters in a broad sense. Unlike single member systems, there are no ``safe seats'' where the election result is a forgone conclusion and hence all political parties can safely ignore the wishes of the voters. Every seat is marginal and hence parties are generally more responsive to all voters. Because the quota-preferential system uses direct election, the voters have a choice of individual candidates (rather than just parties or groups). Instead of just one member of each party being pre-selected, and many voters being faced with a choice of ``the lesser of two evils'', each voter can typically choose from a range of candidates from each party. This aspect further improves responsiveness to the voters in two ways, especially with the enhancements of the Hare-Clark system (filling casual vacancies by countback and using Robson Rotation for ballot papers). First, the voters can influence the policy direction of parties. For example, if a candidate with strong views on a particular issue such as environmental policy is elected, this is likely to influence party policy. Second, if a sitting member is not seen to do a good job of representing their constituents during a term of office, they run the risk of not being re-elected. We discuss this further in Section 3.4.
Quota preferential systems can vary in several ways. The most significant is the number of vacancies in each electorate, sometimes referred to as the district magnitude. The formality provision for votes is also important. Finally, the precise set of rules used to count votes can vary and affect the result in very close elections. We discuss these points below.