Talk:Counting single transferable votes

message: There is another technique, which also requires computer counting, called "Warren" - I assume, like "Meek" it's named for it's inventor.  Can anyone explain the differences between the Meek and Warren methods?  I think it's described in the Tidemann paper that introduced CPO-STV, but I can't find a copy of that any more - the link in CPO-STV is broken--Po8crg 02:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warren? 

message: Do these methods really transfer fractional surpluses from all votes, or just those which arrived in the counting round which put the candidate over quota? I.e. are they a fraction version of Hare or of Cincinnati.  The article currently suggests of Cincinnati (while saying Clarke) but I have seen a fractional version of Hare used. And the link  has a commentary for Dromore in 21 May 1997 saying "Of the 602 votes transferred to Gribben, 327 transferred further" suggesting that this is more Hare-like than Cincinnati-like.  Similarly, is Clarke Hare-like or Cincinnati-like? --Henrygb 00:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Senatorial/Gregory

message: On the subject of this pages meek's method section. Does anybody follow it? The paper referenced at the bottom gives a perfectly understandable explanation for anybody with the skills to reproduce it here.
Where does the formula 1-(quota/candidatesVotes) come from for the weighting of an elected candidate. If you read the paper everybody starts out with a hopeful weighting. When he becomes elected we use the equation w1j=w0j*q/vj, where in this case w0j=1. We then iterate this formula repeatedly till vj=q.
see section 2.9 in the paper for details.
Zfishwiki (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meek's method? 

message: Hi, I'm the author of the OpenSTV software.  There are two problems with the references to Wright STV on this page.  First, it is given undue attention as it is not well known and not used by anyone AFAIK.  There are some vocal proponents of Wright STV but a few people being vocal should not justify it being included here.  Second, it is misleading to say "The UK's Electoral Reform Society recommends essentially this method" as this is not true and the purported reference does not support the assertion (I know what the reference is although the link is broken).  The quote to a statement by the PRSA seems inappropriate as this is not a page for advocacy.  I suggest removing all references to Wright STV.  For the record, I think Wright STV is a good system but there are many good STV systems that are not discussed here.  Perhaps there should be a page that exhaustively lists STV systems.
jeff (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wright System 

message: In the section on the Wright System I don't really understand what is meant by "segmentation". Could anyone explain this? Martinwilke1980 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The terminology "segmentation" refers to the grouping and segmentation of votes in the process of distributing preferences.  Under the Hare-Clark last bundle system votes are segmented into parcels or bundles based on the order in which they are received. Under the Australian Senatorial rules votes are aggregated and segmented based on the value of each vote.  Segmentation came about as a way of breaking down the counting process in order to provide shortcuts to facilitate a manual count.  In the process it created distortions and inequality in the count. Ideally there should be no segmentation and all votes should be transferred in one single transaction and not broken down into segmented sections.  I hope this answers your question. The Meek method along with the Wright system was designed to avoid the need to segment the  counting process. Meek being the most accurate and the Wright system being a refinement of the Australian Senate rule. It uses a reiterative counting process where the vote is rest and restarted on every exclusion. Where every vote is transferred in a single transaction without segmentation. One transaction per candidate (Distribution of surplus or redistribution on a candidates exclusion. 123.200.221.128 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segmentation 

message: "The Duggan-Schwartz theorem proves that every choice voting system [...] is subject to gaming the system"
This "Duggan-Schwartz theorem" isn't elucidated or linked, so it's impossible to tell.  But I can say for sure that by definition, no theorem proves anything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handelaar (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Surpus reallocation" section contains sub-par material 

message: This section needs substantial revision because it contains no information about the Inclusive Gregory Method (used for Federal Senate STV elections in Australia) or the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method (used for local government STV elections in Scotland).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.85.174 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The weighted Gregory transfer system is also used in Western Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. It is extensively covered in the article. Counting_Single_Transferable_Votes#Gregory_method  123.200.221.128 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surplus re-allocation  

message: The article makes no mention of how to handle multiple candidates at the same rank.  I know that some suggestions for this have been thrown around on the election-methods list, but have any been used in a real election? DanBishop (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The established process is that if more than one candidate has an equal value then looking back in the count the candidate that had the lowest score is excluded first.  If no candidate has a lower rating then the tie is broken by drawing lots.  By retaining the remainder of any division with the value of the vote reduces the likely hood of a draw situation.  The other option that needs to be considered is the question of bulk exclusion in which case the order of exclusion does not matter or effect the outcome of the election 123.200.221.128 (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equal rankings? 

message: Reduced the word count by 40% or so, and standardized much of the wording. I left several comments and questions in line because the original text was so broken. Looking at related articles, this one seems incomplete and still confusing. Cheers!
Lfstevens (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-edit 

message: I got to this page via a link to Gregory method, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_method, which then redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_method#Gregory_method - but, there's no Gregory_method anchor on the page, only a Gregory anchor.
I presume this is true for other available redirects, but I'm relatively unfamiliar with this level of detail of how wikipedia functions.
So, I thought of changing the section name from "Gregory" to "Gregory method", but I'm not sure if that's the correct way to go about solving the problem that the redirect doesn't actually get me to the point in the page that it's trying to get me to.
If someone who knows the system better could either comment on what's a good methodology or just change it, that'd be lovely.
Lindes (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of article subsections? 

message: This sentence seems quite biased 
"The system minimizes "wasted" votes, provides approximately proportional representation, and enables votes to be explicitly cast for individual candidates rather than for closed party lists"
This ignores open list voting, which does allow voters to explicitly vote for individual candidates. It implies that SVT is the only proportional voting system that allows voters to vote for individuals. It can't be allowed to stand as is, as far as i am concerned, and will rephrase or simply remove the last part of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.112.41 (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias