Talk:Multiple non-transferable vote

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was split off from Bloc voting. See also Talk:Bloc voting

Same as multi-member FPP

Is this the same as first past the post, but where there are n winners and each voter gets n votes? If so, this should probably be mentioned, as the city council in Hamilton, New Zealand (correctly or not) calls this FPP (see East and West ward results. Adabow (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The multiple member first-past-the-post system seems to be very similar. Both articles may need to be updated to clarify the difference.

Requested move 14 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality-at-large voting → Multiple non-transferable vote – At-large is (a) only a subset of the topic and (b) U.S.-specific terminology. There are MNTV elections using multiple electoral districts. The 2018 Guernsey electoral system referendum listed five choices of voting system, all of which all were MNTV, but two of which were fully at-large, one partly at-large and two not at-large. jnestorius^(talk) 14:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plurality block voting would also work. jnestorius^(talk) 15:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Better name

Calling out User:Jnestorius, as you were the one who asked for an RM. It seems that "Multiple non-transferable vote" isn't the best term for this type of election. In cases such as this, votes can be transferred to other candidates, as long as you do not overvote. A "multiple non-transferable vote" is you have 1 vote for x seats, where you 1 vote is a vote for all. (This is how Singapore's Group representation constituency works.) Your suggestion of plurality block voting seems to be a better suggestion. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: I disagree. When external sources use "multiple non-transferable vote", they overwhelmingly mean "Each voter votes for M ≤ N candidates for N seats, top N candidates win", which is the topic of this article (e.g. [1][2]. It is "non-transferable" because you can conceive the vote-counting process as using a pair of scissors to cut each ballot paper into the M candidates that a voter supports; no slip of paper ever gets reallocated to a different candidate. GRC is an entirely different voting system - it is single-vote and the voter votes for exactly one "candidate", and the most-supported "candidate" wins; the only twist is that the "candidate" is a slate of people. The difference here is that in MNTV / bloc voting, any combination of candidates could win if the voters desire to mix and match; in GRC, a human on one ticket will not be elected alongside another human on another ticket. Deryck C. 16:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: So that means the GRC mode of election (1 vote for all) isn't MNTV (for lack of a better term). We should probably get rid of it here. Also, I tried to rationalize this one, single transferable vote, single non-transferable vote and a hypothetical "multiple transferable vote" and I guess the current name is correct, only that the GRC example has to be removed Howard the Duck (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping; I endorse the conclusion you all have reached. jnestorius^(talk) 11:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concurrence. I have removed Singapore's GRC in the list. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Deryck C. 23:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: I've had my lightbulb moment. "Multiple transferable vote" is open-list proportional representation as applied to Luxembourg! In these elections voters choose N first-preference candidates for N seats but then the votes for all candidates of a party are aggregated and the seats allocated by party-list proportional representation. The order of election within a list is then decided by each candidate's number of individual votes. This is equivalent to each voter casting multiple first preference votes in a STV, but whenever a candidate has surplus or is eliminated, the surplus votes are transferred to the next person on the elected / eliminated candidate's party list. Deryck C. 14:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. A voter can also assign N votes to one person if you want to. Now only if WP:RS calls this/figured this out. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Panachage is the scholarly name for this. It also seems that other article pipelinks this article into "Bloc voting". Again, I dunno if this is the scholarly name for this type of electoral system, but it can, and will be confused with "voting block". Howard the Duck (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple transferable vote would be more appropriate to preferential block voting, consider: IRV is single winner single transferable vote, STV is multi-winner single transferable vote, both are preferential ballots and both make one vote count once. Transferable implies transferable via preferential ballot if it does not get used as the primary preference. First-past the post is single-winner single non transferable vote, but it is also the single winner version of the multiple non-transferable vote (with which it shares its majoritarian outcome). Therefore the two multi-winner versions of IRV are single transferable vote (proportional) and preferential block voting (majoritarian - the multiple transferable vote). The multiple comes from the multiple counts. Panachage would be more like proportional cumulative voting, if I understand correctly, it does not have the same preferential aspects that IRV and STV have. Otherwise cumulative voting would also be a type of multiple transferable vote, but it does not fit as well as preferential block voting.

Multiple non-transferable vote is good name for the general category of non-preferential multiple vote systems (including approval, limited and block voting), but the article itself probably needs some better explanation for those with no in-depth previous knowledge of all the other related systems. I would question if its appropriate to include "party block voting" as a name, as that would be a single vote for a list of candidates (General ticket) Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely confusing intro paragraph

Multiple non-transferable vote (MNTV) is a category of voting systems, in which voters elect several representatives from a single multi-member electoral district and each vote has more than one vote, which are votes are tallied similarly to plurality voting: the candidates with the most votes win.

The italicized bit is nonsensical to me. I'd attempt rephrasing it, but I'm not even understanding what it's trying to say. Ojh2 (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]