The question is not whether the IRV rules are a subset of the STV rules. I already agreed that they were, before you ever brought Wikipedia up. Yes, applying the STV rules to one seat amounts to IRV, I said so specifically, and I never said otherwise. That you apparently think I did shows your poor grasp of the argument.
The question is whether they are classified and terminologically described in political science as the same system. They are not, and I offered proof in the form of a poli sci citation. You offered Wikipedia, and the fact that you could say something like "proven wrong by Wikipedia" shows your ignorance and poor hold on both reality and argumentation. Wikipedia has a lot of useful and accurate information, but it is completely unreliable as proof of anything whatsoever. You'd be thrown out of class for using it as a citation of anything.
So if you "apply" STV to a one-seat election, you get IRV. AND YOU SHOULD CALL IT IRV, NOT STV. That was my original point in this thread. My original comment was not addressed to you, but to a curious bystander who was clearly uninterested in polisci trivia. And I'm sorry the fact that I didn't bother to mention to that person the complex relationship between the STV rules and IRV rules has confused your - again - poor overtaxed mind.
In the name "Single Transferable Vote," the word "transferable" refers to the surplus majority transfer. This has no place in IRV and consequently the name STV is totally inapplicable to IRV, despite the fact that all the rules of IRV do have a place in STV.
I dropped the discussion of the comparative virtues of systems not out of lack of counterarguments, but because you are completely impervious to the significance of the points that make you mistaken. See kevin_standlee's last comments, and see his next post. And indeed, I see you've gone on to claim that I am mistaken in my own personal preferences, so you've gone beyond all previous benchmarks of arrogance.
I thought I could continue to clarify this simple matter of terminological classification, but even there it turns out that your bewilderment is too great to overcome. Sorry.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 03:43 pm (UTC)The question is whether they are classified and terminologically described in political science as the same system. They are not, and I offered proof in the form of a poli sci citation. You offered Wikipedia, and the fact that you could say something like "proven wrong by Wikipedia" shows your ignorance and poor hold on both reality and argumentation. Wikipedia has a lot of useful and accurate information, but it is completely unreliable as proof of anything whatsoever. You'd be thrown out of class for using it as a citation of anything.
So if you "apply" STV to a one-seat election, you get IRV. AND YOU SHOULD CALL IT IRV, NOT STV. That was my original point in this thread. My original comment was not addressed to you, but to a curious bystander who was clearly uninterested in polisci trivia. And I'm sorry the fact that I didn't bother to mention to that person the complex relationship between the STV rules and IRV rules has confused your - again - poor overtaxed mind.
In the name "Single Transferable Vote," the word "transferable" refers to the surplus majority transfer. This has no place in IRV and consequently the name STV is totally inapplicable to IRV, despite the fact that all the rules of IRV do have a place in STV.
I dropped the discussion of the comparative virtues of systems not out of lack of counterarguments, but because you are completely impervious to the significance of the points that make you mistaken. See
I thought I could continue to clarify this simple matter of terminological classification, but even there it turns out that your bewilderment is too great to overcome. Sorry.