Talk:Single transferable vote

Improving how this article handles the many regional names for STV in the lead.

Based on the example of Instant-runoff voting, this article should mention, in the lead section, the common names for STV from within the Anglosphere. P-RCV (Proportional Ranked Choice Voting) is a name used for STV by Fairvote, which is by far the largest American political organization advocating for STV. I have reflected this fact with a clause in the first sentence of the lead. It would be better fit this information elsewhere in the lead section; however, I do not believe it should be buried entirely in the terminology subsection.

It would be better practice to get good WP:RELIABLE sources on terminology around STV. Although this can't be a basis for an edit because it's WP:NOR, I have never heard any of the described "American" terms for STV besides "Multi-member Ranked Choice Voting" and "Proportional Ranked Choice Voting." A Tree In A Box A Tree In A Box (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a solution in search of a problem... we’ve covered the main terms... the others can be mentioned in the article where warranted and backed up by RS. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with change made in Feb. 14 2024 to say STV is Proportional IRV.

its name usually is proportional ranked choice voting but seldom PIRV.

see https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/proportional-ranked-choice-voting/ 2604:3D09:8880:11E0:0:0:0:7044 (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree strongly... that was a mischaracterization and I've reverted it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Undisclosed payments?

Closed Limelike Curves, what leads you to believe that this article was edited for pay? And what cleanup do you think is necessary? Eeidt (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I seconded the request for clarification as well. I have done a cursory reading on the article and nothing jumped out to me as paid editing. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Eeidt @SunDawn, it's related to this discussion. The allegation is that a FairVote employee has made significant contributions to pages relating to voting methods. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Boardwalk.Koi: what was the outcome of that discussion, the archive doesn't go beyond May 8th? This page will become quite important for the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election and should ideally not have a huge disclaimer at the top of the page ;-) Braveheart (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The user in question was temporarily banned for "impersonating" the CEO of FairVote, pending proof of his identity. The COI discussion did not proceed beyond that point. IMO we should proceed with the assumption that that was the CEO of FairVote, as his contribution history seems biased for, not against, FairVote. --Brilliand (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge from "Counting Single Transferable Votes"

See counting single transferable votes, which probably needs to be merged into here. –Sincerely, A Lime 04:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree... this article is already significantly long per WP:SPLIT (Prose size (text only): 71 kB (11968 words) "readable prose size"), so merging more content into this article makes no sense. It probably makes more sense to move some of the counting parts of this article to Counting single transferable votes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Both articles need to be dramatically shortened as well, yes. They're much too verbose. But you could explain all the same material with probably a tenth of the current word count. –Sincerely, A Lime 04:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

significant changes to the lead

If, as editor Closed Limelike Curves has extremely boldly stated, The name "proportional ranked-choice voting" can refer to a wide variety of methods including CPO-STV, Schulze STV, or the Bucklin Transferable Vote. See also instant-runoff voting#Terminology. then Proportional Ranked Choice Voting needs to point to a disamgiuation page and not to this page.

I'd also advise ClosedLimelikeCurves that they should consider breaking up their edits into smaller chunks so other editors can better follow them, along with providing edit summaries and, most importantly, sources for dramatic changes they wish to incorporate. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

New examples needed

The examples in the article are all flawed in that everyone votes for the same 2nd choice candidate. This can give the implication that some votes count twice where others don't, or that only the plurality second choice votes get transferred or other misconceptions given the example appears before the surplus vote transfer systems are explained. It'd be better to replace them (or at least the second one, done by party) with a vote where the surplus votes are transferred proportionally. 1rre (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)