Talk:Single transferable vote/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Effective votes

Recent edit has created sentence: "The person that the vote helps elect is not always the voter's first preference but is either someone that that voter marked as one of his or her preferences, or the ballot is exhausted."

I agree overall but the last clause is un-necessary.

Of course not all votes under STV are used to elect someone. Some are found to be exhausted (have opportunity to be transferred but there are no next usable marked preference to transfer the vote to) or they belong to the last eliminated candidate whose votes (usually) are not transferred.

When a vote is used to elect someone, it is sometimes used to elect the voter's first preference but often is used not to elect the voter's first preference but to elect someone the voter preferred over others.

It might be acceptable to point out that under First past the post as few as 18 percent of the votes cast are used to elect the member (such as we saw in one ward of the 2014 Toronto city election) while the proportion actually used to elect someone under STV is something like 80 percent. 174.3.203.119 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggest including the 80% example you mention (with reference). Maybe even directly contrast with FPTP (with reference). Or rephase so that even without last clause it's technically correct. HudecEmil (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop adding this unsourced sentence "The person that the vote helps elect is not always the voter's first preference but is either someone that that voter marked as one of his or her preferences, or the ballot is exhausted." It does NOT mean what you clearly think it does.

a) it needs sourcing

b) pretty sure what you're trying to say (although it is very much a struggle to understand the vague language) is that the PORTION of the vote TRANSFERRED will always go to someone that voter supports (unless their preferences are exhausted) but guess what? even with multiple preferences, some people will not see ANY of their preferred candidates elected, so the statement is manifestly false. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I am being mis-understood - I admit the sentence could be more clearly written (but I don't appreciate my hard work being called nonsense or utterly false.) Under some STV systems (Ireland and Malta), whole votes are transferred so talking about portion of the vote transferred does not make sense in those cases. Also, my statement is meant to apply to both votes that are never transferred and to those that are.

Here are the possible outcomes of a vote: (I will use the whole vote system for simplicity sake, even so, it is complicated. Don't know how to make it simple): 1. first preference is marked for a candidate who is elected, elected either on the first count or later. The vote is considered as being used to elect the candidate and is left with the candidate. (those unable to be transferred are left with the successful candidate). 2. first preference is marked for a candidate who is elected, elected either on the first count or later. The vote is considered as being part of the surplus and is transferred to the next usable marked preference. The receiving candidate may be elected, in which case the vote either stays with that candidate or is transferred on to be used in the end to elect a successful candidate. the eliminated or elected and the vote is transferred on, to be eventually used to help elect someone. (not the voter's first preference but someone the voter prefers over others) 3. first preference is marked for a candidate who is elected, elected either on the first count or later. The vote is considered as being part of the surplus and is transferred to the next usable marked preference. If that candidate is neither eliminated nor elected, the vote is not transferred any more and is not used to elect anyone. The vote is counted among the votes not used to elect anyone. If the candidate is eliminated, the vote (in these cases) are transferred to the next usable preference (and possibly to others back-up preferences in succession) until either being exhausted or at the end being cast for a candidate who is neither eliminated nor elected. These votes too are counted among the votes not used to elect anyone. 4. first preference is marked for a candidate who is eventually eliminated. the vote is transferred to next usable preference and in some cases transferred again and again. The vote eventually is used to elect someone and is left with the successful candidate. (not the voter's first preference but someone the voter prefers over others) 5. first preference is marked for a candidate who is eventually eliminated. the vote is transferred to next usable preference and in some cases transferred again and again but never used to elect anyone or on one of the transfers it is found to be exhausted and put in the exhausted pile. The vote is counted among the votes not used to elect anyone. 6. first preference is marked for a candidate who is neither eliminated nor elected. vote is not transferred and is counted among the votes not used to elect anyone.

Not all votes are used to elect anyone but most are. 1 are used to elect the voter's first preference 2 are used to elect a member but not to elect the voter's first preference but to elect someone the voter prefers over others. 3 are not used to elect anyone 4 are used to elect a member but not to elect the voter's first preference but to elect someone the voter prefers over others. 5 are not used to elect anyone. 6 are not used to elect anyone.

So that is how some votes (1) are used to elect the voter's first preference; others (2 and 4) are used to elect someone the voter prefers over others but not the voter's first preference; some (some of 3 and 5) are exhausted; some (some of 3 and some of 5 and all of 6) are neither exhausted nor used to elect anyone.

The percentage of votes used to elect a candidate (or member if you prefer), whether first preference or someone else preferred by voter) is about 80 percent or more, with only a small percentage not being used to elect someone. The source for this figure is any STV election result. A total of the votes used to elect a member are about that percentage of the valid votes. It can be found on page 145 of Hoag and Hallett, Proportional Representation (1926) as well: Cleveland City council 1923 81 percent "Effective Vote for Council" ("the number of ballots which helped elect councilmen")

The use of transfers of fractional votes under the Gregory system used in some systems (such as in Australia and some Local Authority elections in Scotland) obscures that the basis of STV is single voting. Each person has just one vote. Fractional votes are used only for votes transferred when the candidate is elected. So to cover STV systems that use fractional vote transfers as well as systems that use whole vote transfers, I should say "some votes are used to elect the voters' first preference; some are not used to elect the voter's first preference but are used to elect someone the voter prefers over others; some are not used to elect anyone at all. In some STV systems (such as Gregory systems), the vote may be broken into fractions. Under such systems, parts of a vote or all of it is used to elect one or more members, or only part of it is used to elect someone and the rest not used to elect anyone. Other votes are not broken into fractions -- they are either not used to elect anyone at all or are so used but are not transferred thereafter. The percentage of votes cast in an STV election that are used to elect someone varies but experts and STV election results put the figure at about 80 percent or more. This compares well to First-past-the-post voting elections where as few as 18 percent are sometimes enough to elect the successful candidate, with all others not being used to elect a member.

Obviously a person cannot know whether their own vote is used to elect anyone. But they can see if their first preference choice is elected and under STV 50 to 80 percent have that satisfaction. Eighty percent saw their first choice candidate elected in a sample Local Authority election in 2022 in Scotland (City of Aberdeen - Dyce/Bucksburn/Danestone - 5287 gave their first preference for the four successful candidates, out of 6598 valid votes) so that is high rate of satisfied voters. A vote cast for a successful candidate may not be used to actually elect that candidate if it is transferred away (In whole or in part) as part of the surplus votes. In that Aberdeen district election, only 327 votes were found to be surplus and transferred away from successful candidates. so most of the votes cast for those candidates (92 percent) remained with those candidates.

I think that the above expresses the point I want to say, covering fractional-transfer systems and whole-vote systems, and exhausted votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.222.51 (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Highlands in Issues - Other

A note on Issues Other the statement that Highlands is too large to have STV is countered by fact that New South Wales is 30 times as large as Highlands and NSW is a district (with multiple members) and uses STV.

potential text for wiki article: "New South Wales is more than 30 times the size of the Scottish Highlands.) https://www.britannica.com/place/New-South-Wales

Also counter to the statement that the Highlands is too large for a MMD, is fact that in UK Parliament elections, the Highlands has just one member so obviously it is not too large for one member to represent it all at once (as much anyway as one member can represent any district, due to the variety of sentiment held by the constituents), so why couldn't multiple members (under STV) do what one member does under First Past the Post? 174.3.203.119 (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC) 174.3.203.119 (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You can't come to this conclusion yourself... that is TEXTBOOK original research. You need at least one reliable and verifiable source (preferably more) that states your postulation and then the claim can be stated and that source can be cited to back it up. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Bad lead edits

Have warned Stephen C Bosworth to cease the disruptive editing on the lead and to review MOS:LEAD. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Please specify and explain the part of my proposed edit that you see as most "disruptive."

Steve Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You made a very bold change. It was reverted, but not before others had either attempted to improve it or noted problems. Per WP:BRD, you should have come here to discuss the changes and gain consensus for them. Instead, you reinstated the same or close to the same changes, which—again—people noted as problematic and/or attempted to fix. Now that you've been told a second time, very clearly, that your changes have significant issues, you've come here demanding to be told what's wrong with them, even though several of the issues have already been highlighted.

You've been told, repeatedly, that lead sections don't have subsections, per MOS:LEAD. Even if they did (which, again, just to be clear, they DO NOT), they would not have pseudoheadings in title case, because we use sentence case for nearly all things at Wikipedia.

Other problems or cases where issues have been pointed out:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single_transferable_vote&diff=prev&oldid=1146432235&diffmode=source
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single_transferable_vote&diff=prev&oldid=1146695760&diffmode=source
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single_transferable_vote&diff=prev&oldid=1146698475&diffmode=source

—Joeyconnick (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

However, now (4/1/23) since Joeyconnick has not yet replied to my request for more advice, I now propose to edit these paragraphs with several small improving changes. I'm happy to receive any more guidance from anyone. At the same time, if you think that my edits should be reverted, I would appreciate having a dialogue with you so I can learn how better to make my contribution to improving this page. If you'd like, please feel free to email (4/1/23): [email protected].

4/1/23, 11:20 PST:

Hi Joeycommick,

Given the extra time, I hope I have now arrived at a better understanding of the modifications I need to make to my proposed edits. Please correct me if I'm mistaken: 1) only retain capitals for each letter beginning a sentence, each subheading, and acronyms. 2) remove any citations from the introductory paragraphs. 3) make these paragraphs more welcoming and clear for first-time readers.

Accordingly, I've drafted what I hope you will see as an improved draft for my proposed edit. Please help me by editing it or giving me more suggestions with regard to the following draft:

Single transferable vote (STV) elects a number of candidates at the same time. It is used to elect many local councils and state legislative bodies for example in the US, UK, Australia, and Malta. In the US, STV is usually called proportional ranked-choice voting (PRCV).

Each voter casts a single vote in the form of a ranked-choice ballot. Consequently, many more voters are represented more proportionally than they were when elected by traditional plurality voting (first-past-the-post (FPTP)). Voters have the option to rank the candidates so their vote may be transferred according to the preferences marked on their ballot. If an STV voter’s first preference candidate has not received enough votes to be elected, perhaps their vote will enable their second, third, or later preference candidate to be elected.

Under STV, no one party or voting bloc can take all the seats in a multi-winner 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). This makes it different from other multi-member district voting systems. In plurality systems (first-past-the-post (FPTP)), one party or a voting bloc can take all the seats in a district. Under STV, multiple winners are selected. Every sizable group within the district wins at least one seat: the more seats the district has, the smaller the size of the group needed to elect a member. In this way, STV provides some proportional representation. Minority factions have a better chance to be represented. STV reduces the number of wasted votes. STV enables votes to be cast for individual candidates. STV allows voters to create their own ordered list of candidates.

In contrast, note that when ranked-choice ballots are used only to elect a single winner (a mayor), these ballots are counted somewhat differently only to help ensure that the winner will have been supported by the largest possible plurality. This method is usually called ranked-choice voting (RCV) in the US, and instant run-off voting (IRV) or the alternative vote (AV) in the UK.

Below, the way STV votes are counted to "waste" as few votes as possible is described. After that, a 2020 development of STV is outlined that wastes no votes (evaluative proportional representation (EPR)).

Finally, under Process, examples and different ways STV votes are sometimes counted are described.

Counting votes.

STV’s count of all the votes starts by calculating the smallest total number that each of the target number of winners must receive both to be elected and to exclude the possibility of any additional candidate being elected by the remaining votes that are not counted for any of the winners. This smallest number is called the quota. [Meek, B., 1994 A new approach to the single transferable vote. Voting matters, 1, 1-11. https://www.votingmatters.org.uk/issue 1.htm, https://www.votingmatters.org.uk/issue1/p2.htm]

[ERS97 STV rules. http://www.electoralreform.org.uk/votingsystems/stvrules.htm. 3-8-2023.]

For example, the droop quota is equal to one vote more than the quotient resulting from dividing the total number of ballots cast (the dividend) by one more than the target number of winners: droop quota = 1 + [number of ballots/number of winners + 1].

For simplicity, consider below an STV election for a seven-member electoral district. Therefore, when electing these seven members, the divisor is 8.

In the first round of counting all the STV ballots, the total number of first preferences awarded to each candidate by all the ballots is recorded. If any candidate’s total is equal to or larger than the above quota, they are elected. If any of these elected candidates has received more than the quota number of votes, the surplus number of ballots received by this winner are transferred to the candidate next preferred on each of all the ballots initially received by this winner.

To treat all ballots equally, the winner retains only the fraction of each of these ballots that together provide this winner with the required quota for their election. The fraction not retained is transferred to the next preferred candidate on each ballot.

Next, after all these relevant fractions are transferred to each next preferred candidate, any other candidate who now has at least the quota is also elected. Again, any surplus fractions received by this next winner are also similarly transferred to other relevant next-preference candidates. This process is repeated until all the surplus votes from all these winners have been transferred to available candidates.

Next, if the target number of candidates to be elected has not yet been elected, the candidate who received the fewest first preferences is eliminated, and all the ballots they received are transferred to the next preference candidate on each of their ballots when available. This eliminating and transferring process continues until the required number of candidates has been elected.

If any of the ballots initially held by losing candidates did not also prefer any winning candidate, these ballots are “non-transferable” and said to be “exhausted.” The vote in each of these ballots is "wasted."

This can also mean that one or several of the last number of candidates to be elected has unavoidably not received the full quota. However, each such winner among the target number of seven council members has at least received the largest number of votes available at that closing stage of the count.

Evaluative proportional representation (EPR)

In contrast to STV’s "wasting" the “exhausted votes” as explained above, a new iteration of STV developed in 2020 and called evaluative proportional representation (EPR) wastes no citizen’s vote.[Bosworth, S. et al., 2020. Electing legislatures by (EPR: an algorithm. https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/.] With EPR, voters rank candidates instead by grading them as either Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or Reject. These grades allow voters more clearly to express the value judgments that led them to rank the candidates differently on their ballot.

This makes the public post-election reports of EPR elections more informative than existing STV reports. In addition, all the grades awarded on all the ballots are counted to ensure that each voter’s ballot equally increases the voting power of the elected candidate to whom they have awarded their highest available grade. Each elected candidate has a different weighted vote in the legislative body exactly equal to the number of ballots finally counted for them. No vote is wasted quantitatively, or qualitatively.

Process

.… Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not my (or any other editor's) responsibility to give you feedback (even though I and other editors already have). The onus is on YOU per WP:STATUSQUO to gain consensus for any changes you want to make. If you get reverted, especially by multiple people, then that's a pretty clear indication you don't have consensus.

The lead has been stable for years. While no article is perfect, that's a pretty good sign your edits are a solution looking for a problem. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Joeyconnick,

Aim I correct in understanding that you accept that I have improved my proposed edit by now following the rules about limiting the use of capitals to the first letter in each sentence, etc.? However, I also understand that you still want me to show the need to change the statues quo (i.e. the current April 5^th article)? Perhaps you will consider that my following edits and comments [within square brackets in the following part of that version suggest some valuable changes can be made. What do you think? I look forward to your feedback:

%%%….

…. their vote may be transferred[ to one of their lower] preferences if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with surplus votes, so that their vote is used to elect someone they prefer over others in the running. STV [provides some ] proportional representation [when electing a number of candidates from a multi-member] district so that each vote is worth about the same as another.

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). This makes it different from other district voting systems. In [/...SB: suggest this edit so as not to confuse “majority” with ...plurality”] In ... plurality- first-past-the-post (FPTP) [multi-winner-district] systems all the seats in a district [can be taken by one party or] voting bloc by block voting. [This is much less likely when STV is used.] [SB: this avoids confusing IRV (RCV) with STV (PRCV). This lack of clarity may also be present in the next paragraph. Also, the wording seems not always clearly to maintain the difference between single-member districts and multi-member districts. Currently, I see my proposed version as providing this clarity. What do you think?].

Under STV, multiple winners are selected for a constituency (a multi-member district). Every sizeable group within the district wins at least one seat: the more seats the district has, the smaller the size of the group needed to elect a member. In this way, STV provides some proportional representation, ensuring that substantial minority factions have representation.

STV is distinguished from plurality voting systems, like FPTP, plurality block voting and the single non-transferable vote (SNTV) by the fact that votes are transferable under STV but are not under the other systems. STV reduces the number of "wasted" votes, votes which are cast for unsuccessful candidates by electing multiple representatives for a district. Additionally, surplus votes collected by successful candidates are transferred to aid other candidates, preventing waste caused by successful candidates receiving votes over and above those actually needed to secure the seat.

An important characteristic of STV is that it enables votes to be cast for individual candidates rather than for parties. Party lists are therefore not needed (as opposed to many other proportional electoral systems); it is the voters who create their own ordered list of candidates. The ranked voting also allows voters to form consensus behind the most popular candidates. Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

In the context of myearlier responses to Joeycommick, I've worked hard to learn what is expected of an editor. As a result, I have started with the existing Single transferable vote page, and produced a proposed modification of it. This proposal is currently located in my personal Sandbox. I hope Joeycommick or anyone else will examine that proposed replacement and give me any constructive criticisms so it can be improved. I look forward to your help and guidance. If I do not hear from anyone about this proposal, how long should I wait before actually editing the page? I look forward to hearing from you. If you'd prefer to send me an email, it is [email protected].

Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that WP:PSEUDO does not go where Joeyconnick probably intended. —Tamfang (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Argh they apparently changed it... or else only MOS:PSEUDO used to go there. MOS:PSEUDOHEAD is what I meant (and I've corrected it above). —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Since the additional discussion on the Single transferable vote TALK page only mentions template questions that I do not yet understand, could I request that someone else simply change the existing STV page as suggested in my sandbox? Could this be done after they put this sandbox's proposed replacement into the appropriate template? I ask this because no-one seems to have offered any substantive criticisms of my proposed replacement. Please email me:[email protected]

If this is not yet possible, please explain and guide me to the next step.

Thank you, Steve (19 April 2023 Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@@TamfangIn the absence of having received no

substantive criticisms of my proposed replacement. I plan to replace the existing page with my sandbox proposal in the next few day. Please email me and explain why I should not do this if this is what you believe.

[email protected]

Thank you, Steve (22April 2023 Stephen C Bosworth (talk) : [email protected]

Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did you tag me? —Tamfang (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Arjayyay,

I'm new to editing. Please advise me. I now understand that what you must have read is my preliminary draft which I did not intend to replace the existing article yet. I mistakenly thought this does not happen until I would click on the "Permanent" button.

Can you please advise me on how I can first copy the existing page to a different place, so I can then work on that copy until I'm satisfied with my edits. At that point, I would then propose it to you and others for approval before it could replace the existing page. What do you think?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Steve Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)