Talk:Single transferable vote

Single-winner version

Hi! I would like to contest the disclaimer at the beginning; I think it is misleading. If you run an STV with a single-winner, it is actually equivalent to the result of a first-past-the-post vote (with the first preferences). @2604:3D09:8880:11E0:C50:9CF3:7780:38AC it's true that instant runoff transfers votes while FPTP does not. But instant runoff only eliminates from the bottom of the list, while STV does from both ends. Moreover, instant runoff has several properties STV doesn't, such as center squeeze. Thank you in advance! Csimma Viktor (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

STV with single-winner is instant-runoff voting. Consider the rules of plain STV. Simplified:

1, 2, 3. If a candidate exceeds the quota, elect this candidate. Redistribute surpluses if we still have candidates left to elect.

4. If we haven't elected all the candidates we wanted to, eliminate the first preference loser and distribute their votes to the highest ranking continuing candidate on each ballot.

5. Repeat from 1 until every candidate is elected.

Let's consider what happens if the number of candidates is one. Then as soon as someone is elected, the process is over, and there's no need to distribute surpluses. So the simplified process is:

1, 2, 3. If a candidate exceeds the quota (i.e. a majority of the non-exhausted first preferences), elect this candidate and stop.

4. Otherwise eliminate the Plurality loser and distribute their votes to the highest non-eliminated candidate on each ballot.

5. Repeat from 1 until someone is elected.

That is IRV.

As for center squeeze, STV can also have it if we arrange matters properly. For instance, let the election be for three seats, with five candidates: U_1, U_2, Left, Center, and Right. Every voter ranks U_1 and U_2 first in that order, then the voters rank the remaining candidates in a way that exhibits center squeeze. STV will elect U_1 and U_2, and because the surplus redistribution is uniform, the last candidate will in effect be decided by an IRV election which will thus show a center squeeze failure.

Finally, some sources that refer to IRV as single-winner STV can be found here.

Template:Reply to My fault, I did not consider elimination of plurality losers. Thank you for pointing this out! By the way, wouldn't you like to write a similar explanation to the article? I think it is nice:) Csimma Viktor (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

"Single transferable vote" vs. "STV" in the article body

@Rankedchoicevoter et al. let's discuss whether we want to use "Single transferable vote" vs. "STV" in the article body. The latter is smaller and easier to type, though Wikipedia admonishes us "Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper". The initialism STV leads to a disambiguation page, so its meaning is seemingly context dependent. In contrast, "single transferable vote" is English words, which are at least as easily for the reader to understand as the initialism (I'd argue that words are easier); the English words will make it easier to quote Wikipedia in contexts that are not so focused on the single transferable vote; and it avoids context-specific jargon. As a general rule, unless is it is as common as DNA, laser, and FBI, I argue that we should avoid repeated use of abbreviations and initialisms (except in places where space is a premium). Thoughts? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Use the abbreviation. There is no need to repeat the long name so many times, maybe once per section at most. An article I recently read is Organic Rankine cycle, which also uses the abbreviation throughout. This is perfectly standard. The idea that you can't quote a section because a snippet may include an unfamilar abbreviation is ridiculous, it's always the responsibility of someone quoting to use the appropriate context. Just because we don't have a literal paper space constraint doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize a – yes – widely-used [1][2][3] abbreviation. Reywas92^Talk 15:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Quantling I think way less known terms can be safely abbreviated, and in this case, in is literally an abbreviation from the article title, not even something that stands for an alternative name that can be confusing. It's not that space is a premium but that is is going to be the most repeated term on the site, so it will add up to bloat the length, and it's a long terms so it's better for the reader not to have to read it out all the time. While DNA or laser make sense because people generally might not know what they stand for, in this case not only to many people know STV but not the whole term, but those who know the term but didn't know the abbreviation (I don't think this is common) or didn't know either will have not problem catching on immediately. There could be a debate on whether SNTV should be used or BV or FPTP on the same page, but it seems weird that it even comes up, especially because, disambiguation page or not, STV is not ambiguous when read in this context. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rankedchoicevoter given your choice of Wikipedia username, I wonder whether you are steeped in the jargon much more than the average reader. My gut tells me that those who are more distant from the topic will find "single transferable vote" more accessible than "STV"; the former at least hints that this is about voting. Yes, the reader can quickly memorize that "STV" means "single transferable vote", but what is the incentive for making them do that? I see the longer version as better in every way except possibly that it is bloat. However, the article on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defines RFK Jr and then never uses it again; seemingly we are not worried about bloat there despite that many do know him by his initials. Similarly the article on Lyndon B. Johnson uses LBJ sparingly, such as in direct quotations and when highlighting that his children and pets have the same initials. —Quantling (talk | contribs) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

actually the "vote" in STV should not be stressed, as STV is an election system not a voting system technically.

it is the STV election system, technically.

ranked voting or X voting are voting systems.

STV, like list PR, is an election system.

STV uses ranked votes but IRV also uses ranked voting.

list PR uses X voting (for party list) but FPTP also uses X voting.

elections can be broken down into four levels:

voter's vote (and transfers if any)

district results (and any top-up in MMP)

make-up of the chamber

selection of the party in power (ruling caucus) and the cabinet.

at least that is a useful structure IMO. 68.150.205.46 (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

History change

in History section I took out this paragraph "In modern elections, held by secret ballot, a voter may discover how their vote was distributed by viewing detailed election results (or at least trace the routes along which their vote, or other votes identical to the one they cast, may have been transferred and see to whom it may have been used to elect). This is particularly easy to do using Meek's method, where only the final weightings of each candidate need to be published. However, the elected member cannot verify who their supporters are." Why? because it doesn't refer to history of STV's use. 68.150.205.46 (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead section needs work

The lead section is unnecessary long and goes off on tangents without properly explaining how STV works. It also uses several terms not familiar to the casual reader without explaining what they mean or linking to them. E.g. "remainder votes" (at least this one is linked), "ticket voting" and "Gregory method".

I think the lead should talk more about how STV works, less about comparisons to other voting systems and less about how different STV systems differ in detail. –Joe vom Titan (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

"compose a separate party ticket under list PR"

Hi Template:U

This edit makes more sense but since voters cannot themselves organize a party list under list PR (this is done by the parties, not the voters, correct?), this statement is meaningless because it's conflating voter intent with actions they could not possibly take.

Or are you thinking of some variant of list PR where voters somehow do "organize a party list"? If so, please elaborate because that is not at all clear from the sentence and I would guess most people would, as I do, assume in list PR that Template:Em set the lists, not voters, which is why list PR is often preferred by major parties over STV since it gives more control to parties.

More info is needed... I think if this statement continues to be included, it needs to refer to voters' freedom under STV to support candidates of multiple parties whose beliefs/interests match their own without having to support those candidates' parties outright or support candidates from those parties whose platforms/beliefs do not match the voters' interests. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we have agreement but here's a reply:

under STV, voters believing in A can show support for (vote for) candidates believing in A, and have chance to elect them,

while under list PR a separate party list would have to be organized. 68.150.205.46 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Right... but my issue is that voters cannot organize a separate party list, so why are we making it sound like they can by putting these two ideas in the same statement? If we are including both ideas, it needs to be formulated more like Template:Tq

Including "under list PR a separate party list would have to be organized" makes it sound like this is something voters can accomplish themselves, which they cannot. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)