IRV is a subset of STV, so it's totally applicable.
..it depicts STV as borrowing the procedure for IRV - which, in fact, it does not always need to do in actual cases - not as IRV being a special case of STV.
STV doesn't "borrow" from IRV - IRV is just STV applied to a single-winner election.
From FairVote.org, the ring leaders of the IRV movement:
Instant runoff voting (IRV) was first proposed in 1870 by William Robert Ware, the first professor of architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ware developed the idea of IRV for elections for single winner offices after reading the works of Great Britain’s John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hare about choice voting (also known as “the single transferable vote” or STV).
The only point being made in your quote is that situations can apparently arise in multi-winner STV that have to be accounted for, but that they don't arise in single-winner STV. That doesn't mean these systems are different.
Let me make this perfectly empirical. You show me any set of rank-order ballots you can devise, where IRV picks a different winner than STV.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 10:14 pm (UTC)IRV is a subset of STV, so it's totally applicable.
..it depicts STV as borrowing the procedure for IRV - which, in fact, it does not always need to do in actual cases - not as IRV being a special case of STV.
STV doesn't "borrow" from IRV - IRV is just STV applied to a single-winner election.
From FairVote.org, the ring leaders of the IRV movement:
The only point being made in your quote is that situations can apparently arise in multi-winner STV that have to be accounted for, but that they don't arise in single-winner STV. That doesn't mean these systems are different.
Let me make this perfectly empirical. You show me any set of rank-order ballots you can devise, where IRV picks a different winner than STV.
Clay