Talk:Issues affecting the single transferable vote

Untitled

The title of this page is grammatically wrong; please someone move and redirect. 131.111.8.102 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Revert and WP:BRD

I said I'd put a reverted section here so it can be worked on and clarified:

"Easy examples of strategic voting demonstrate its vulnerability. For voting lists in a constiuency with three members, consider the case of four parties, x, y, z and a. Voting is : xPyPaPz, 33 percent; yPzPaPz, 33 percent; zPxPaPy; 1 percent aPxIyIz The quota is 100/(3+1) percent + 1 vote 25 percent + 1 vote. Thus the parties x, y and z get one seat each. The 3 member Assembly makes decisons under majority decision making (qv). We know from consideration of voting cycles under majority decsion making (N-1 Cheers for Democracy, Dr. I. MacIntyre, Synthese 131: 259–274, 2002.) that any of x, y or z may be the outcome if all are risk averse. All 99 percent of voters for whom z or x or y is best are so risk averse that they prefer three members from party a to that prospect. Thus the selection procedure is weak Pareto inoptimal. The Gibbard Satterthwaite Theorem applies only to single valued outcomes. Thus mulltivalued outcome methods escape it. However the procedure clearly is amenable to strategic voting by all voters putting party a top. The problem addressed here deals a blow to the heart of STV. Voters are not allowed to vote on OUTCOMES. They are not asked whether they refer three party a candidates to one from each of x, y and z. As I have shown in Wikipedia discussions there, the Arrow Theorem depends on an identical mistake. Democracy only works when voters are allowed to vote on OUTCOMES - here the various 3 element combinations from the four lists The example above still holds true if the quota is defined using 100/3. for then pparty a's votes are redistributed and again the same outcome, one member each from x, y and z emerges

Party list option and malapportionment in Australia

In some Australian it is possible to have an option to allow you to vote for a party or rank candidates by preference. Some 95% opt for the party list option STV - party list or candidate vote choice

The article talks of malapportionment in the Australian Senate ie seats based on geography not population and states: "This system is intended to remove potential geographical discimination that can occur due to Australia's large size. If the system was proportional across the nation then a party could focus on the eastern states that have 77% of the population. Thus if allocated proportionately the eastern states would gain a disproportionate amount of political attention and thus government funding due to the concentration of voting power." If an area has 77% of the population it should get 77% of the seats. (Coachtripfan (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Align structure with the Issues section of the main STV article

It would be good if the issues outlined in the main STV article and those presented here were better aligned. There are also issues such as Elector confusion on the STV page that are missing from this article. Franzo (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Issues affecting the single transferable vote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118222346/http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0722/election.pdf to http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0722/election.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Issues affecting the single transferable vote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]