Now, take that and apply it where the number of seats = 1.
You get IRV.
Check the textbook I already referred you to, which treats them as separate systems.
Well, it's wrong, unless you claim that formula for STV is incorrect. I invite you to submit the corrected formula so that we can correct that Wiki page.
The book might treat them as "effectively" different methods, because for example in the Australian senate and house, the senate uses STV, whereas the house uses IRV. That is, the senate uses the results from a series of multi-winner elections, whereas the house is comprised of the winners of a bunch of single-winner elections.
I consider standard textbooks a little more reliable for such classifications than wiki-fricking-pedia. You could have put that sentence in Wikipedia yourself.
If you read a text book about STV, then feel free to describe STV, and show us how it does not reduce to IRV in a single-winner election. Show us an example.
If STV with only one winner is the same as IRV, so is a list system with only one candidate per list. That doesn't make a list system the proper term to describe IRV.
I don't know what you're trying to say here, but my intuition is that your response here doesn't make sense. ANY voting system is going to pick the same winner in an election with only one candidate. That has nothing to do with how the systems actually operate.
You do not use the same rules for the two. The act of intending it for single winners instead of multiple winners changes the rules.
The number of winners with STV can be set to whatever you like. If you pick 78 winners, it's STV. If you pick 2, it's STV. So changing the number of winners doesn't change whether it's STV.
The Droop quota threshold calculation, for instance, which is the key feature of STV, has no place in IRV whatsoever, where you just skip it and go to simple majority.
The Wiki on "Droop quota" says:
The brackets denote the operation of rounding down. This gives the Droop quota the special property that it is the smallest integral quota which guarantees that the number of candidates able to reach this quota cannot exceed the number of seats. In a single winner election, in which STV becomes the same as Instant Run-off Voting, the Droop quota becomes a simple integral majority quota–that is, it will be equal to an absolute majority of votes.
But I know, you probably think I edited this myself as well. I promise you, I didn't.
Neither does the surplus vote allocation, a concept totally alien to anything in IRV.
That's a fallacy. In a two-winner STV election, for instance, after you pick the first winner, any surplus vote goes to the second winner. After you pick that last winner, you don't do anything with the surplus vote..you just halt the election, because you have no more candidates to select as winners. With IRV, you just do that same halting process, just one candidate sooner. Single-winner STV is to two-winner STV what two-winner STV is to three-winner STV.
The original point was that IRV is the term for what Hugo voting uses, STV isn't.
That's like saying, "ape" is the proper term for what you and I are, "mammal" isn't. We are both mammals and apes, just as single-winner STV is both STV and IRV.
Stop being so stubborn, and accept that the Wiki entries are correct, and you are just misunderstanding what your text book says.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 10:39 am (UTC)On the contrary, I have shown you otherwise. IRV is the concept of applying STV to a single-winner election.
Here's the formula for STV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Counting_the_votes
Now, take that and apply it where the number of seats = 1.
You get IRV.
Check the textbook I already referred you to, which treats them as separate systems.
Well, it's wrong, unless you claim that formula for STV is incorrect. I invite you to submit the corrected formula so that we can correct that Wiki page.
The book might treat them as "effectively" different methods, because for example in the Australian senate and house, the senate uses STV, whereas the house uses IRV. That is, the senate uses the results from a series of multi-winner elections, whereas the house is comprised of the winners of a bunch of single-winner elections.
I consider standard textbooks a little more reliable for such classifications than wiki-fricking-pedia. You could have put that sentence in Wikipedia yourself.
If you read a text book about STV, then feel free to describe STV, and show us how it does not reduce to IRV in a single-winner election. Show us an example.
If STV with only one winner is the same as IRV, so is a list system with only one candidate per list. That doesn't make a list system the proper term to describe IRV.
I don't know what you're trying to say here, but my intuition is that your response here doesn't make sense. ANY voting system is going to pick the same winner in an election with only one candidate. That has nothing to do with how the systems actually operate.
You do not use the same rules for the two. The act of intending it for single winners instead of multiple winners changes the rules.
The number of winners with STV can be set to whatever you like. If you pick 78 winners, it's STV. If you pick 2, it's STV. So changing the number of winners doesn't change whether it's STV.
The Droop quota threshold calculation, for instance, which is the key feature of STV, has no place in IRV whatsoever, where you just skip it and go to simple majority.
The Wiki on "Droop quota" says:
But I know, you probably think I edited this myself as well. I promise you, I didn't.
Neither does the surplus vote allocation, a concept totally alien to anything in IRV.
That's a fallacy. In a two-winner STV election, for instance, after you pick the first winner, any surplus vote goes to the second winner. After you pick that last winner, you don't do anything with the surplus vote..you just halt the election, because you have no more candidates to select as winners. With IRV, you just do that same halting process, just one candidate sooner. Single-winner STV is to two-winner STV what two-winner STV is to three-winner STV.
The original point was that IRV is the term for what Hugo voting uses, STV isn't.
That's like saying, "ape" is the proper term for what you and I are, "mammal" isn't. We are both mammals and apes, just as single-winner STV is both STV and IRV.
Stop being so stubborn, and accept that the Wiki entries are correct, and you are just misunderstanding what your text book says.