Talk:Single transferable vote

vote transfers fractional or whole

Currenty process section reads "When surplus votes are transferred under some systems, the vote is apportioned fractionally to different candidates. In others, transfers are done using whole votes."

I think this is more clear: Under some systems, a fraction of the vote is transferred, with a fraction left behind with the winner. In others such as Ireland or Malta national elections, transfers are done using whole votes, with some of the votes that are directed to another candidate left behind with the winner and others of the same sort of votes moved in whole to the indicated candidate.

in each transfer only the next usable back-up preference is referred to. So vote at most can only be split between the present position and the next candidate. 174.3.203.119 (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Under Gregory or variant thereof, as surplus transfers "cascade", one of the vote fraction created in an early surplus transfer could be split again in a subsequent transfer. If a vote was split and then if the fraction that went to another candidate helped elect that new candidate (i.e. if the receiving candidate is elected) and if surplus is transferred, the fraction could be split again.

so you could have the vote being split two, or three, or four or more candidates, with later splits affecting smaller and smaller fractions of the vote.

Whole-vote STV is much simpler.

vote either stays with first winner it helps elect, or goes to new recipient, which may or may not be elected, and then either staying with that winner or moving on to new candidate. Each vote remains whole and only is counted as electing one candidate at the most (although perhaps temporarily being lodged with successful candidates at different points in the counting process). 24.65.114.206 (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The gist of my criticism has been addressed. 2604:3D09:887C:7B70:0:0:0:6A17 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Improving how this article handles the many regional names for STV in the lead.

Based on the example of Instant-runoff voting, this article should mention, in the lead section, the common names for STV from within the Anglosphere. P-RCV (Proportional Ranked Choice Voting) is a name used for STV by Fairvote, which is by far the largest American political organization advocating for STV. I have reflected this fact with a clause in the first sentence of the lead. It would be better fit this information elsewhere in the lead section; however, I do not believe it should be buried entirely in the terminology subsection.

It would be better practice to get good WP:RELIABLE sources on terminology around STV. Although this can't be a basis for an edit because it's WP:NOR, I have never heard any of the described "American" terms for STV besides "Multi-member Ranked Choice Voting" and "Proportional Ranked Choice Voting." A Tree In A Box A Tree In A Box (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a solution in search of a problem... we’ve covered the main terms... the others can be mentioned in the article where warranted and backed up by RS. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with change made in Feb. 14 2024 to say STV is Proportional IRV.

its name usually is proportional ranked choice voting but seldom PIRV.

see https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/proportional-ranked-choice-voting/ 2604:3D09:8880:11E0:0:0:0:7044 (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree strongly... that was a mischaracterization and I've reverted it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Multi-seat

It says:

"Under STV, no one party or voting bloc can take all the seats in a district unless the number of seats in the district is very small or almost all the votes cast are cast for one party's candidates (which is seldom the case)."

Surely multi-seat districts are NOT implied by STV?

Multi-seat districts implies larger districts, or much larger legislative houses.

I'd like this language removed from the lede; it implies that replacing FPTV with STV would involve much deeper changes than would actually be needed. I don't mind if that kind of language occurs somewhere in the body, but the lede should only include claims that are agreed on by most people, whether or not they are advocates of STV. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not entirely clear what you're saying/asking, but yes STV requires multi-seat districts to work. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

yes, I agree STV does indeed mean multi-seat districts.

to go from FPTP to STV means re-districting (to make multi-member districts) but each voter retains their one vote

to go from block voting to STV does not mean re-districting. the change would mean keeping the multi-member districts already in use (or creating others if preferred) but each voter just gets one vote instead of the multiple votes they had before.

(Also to change from FPTP to MMP would require re-drawing districts unless the number of members overall are increased.)

Yes, multi-seat districts does imply larger districts (what is sometimes called "grouped constituencies") at least compared to previous districts used under FPTP, or much larger legislative houses than had been previously used under FPTP. But no such deeper change is required if previous system was block voting. 2604:3D09:887C:7B70:0:0:0:6A17 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Undisclosed payments?

Closed Limelike Curves, what leads you to believe that this article was edited for pay? And what cleanup do you think is necessary? Eeidt (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I seconded the request for clarification as well. I have done a cursory reading on the article and nothing jumped out to me as paid editing. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Eeidt @SunDawn, it's related to this discussion. The allegation is that a FairVote employee has made significant contributions to pages relating to voting methods. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)