Talk:Supplementary Vote

message: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not call SV "IRV2" and SV in Sri Lanka "IRV3".
* 1 .... x^0 ...... SV.. ...  IRV0 No choice at all - Soviet Voting (SV)
* x .... x^1 ...... FPTP ...  IRV1 First Past The Post
* xx ... x^2 ...... SV.. ...  IRV2 Supplementary Voting - London
* xxx .. x^3 ...... SV3. ...  IRV3 Supplementary Voting - Sri Lanka
* xxxx . x^4 ...... SV4. ...  IRV4
* x..x . x^n ...... IRV. ...  IRV. Instant Run Off Voting
Why introduce a new term SV, when IRV2 and IRV3 explain what London and Sri Lanka Do?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do physists write x^4, when xxxx is perfectly good?
If you choose bad names for thing, it hinders understanding.
Syd1435 13:25, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
:This article was recently moved from Supplementary Vote to supplementary vote. The system is almost always written with capitals and in any case there shouldn't have been a move without a discussion here first. I've just moved it to The Supplementary Vote, as it's the closest I can get to the original title and is better than supplementary vote.
:Iota 18:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the elecion for Mayor of Newham last year the ballot paper asked for people to write "1" and "2" in single columns. (To my amusement the Labour incumbent's manifesto said "Robin Wales #5" on the ballot paper, meaning his placing but no doubt confusing many. By the time Labour printed its "how to vote" instructions it removed all reference to the place on the ballot paper for Mayor, but kept it for the simultaneous council election.) Timrollpickering 13:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not call SV "IRV2" and SV in Sri Lanka "IRV3" 

message: The Electoral Reform Society criticised SV following the mayoral election in Torbay in October 2005, claiming that 43.5% of second preference votes were ignored as not being given to either of the top two placed candidates, disadvantaging supporters of non-party candidates.
We really need to get the figures for this election on Wikipedia as to my knowledge it's the single biggest example of an SV election taking place with more than three credible candidates (Labour were in tenth place!).
It could be said here, of course, that a cursory look at opinion polls taken during the campaign would give voters an informed idea of which candidates are the front-runners.
Maybe true for the Mayor of London which is high profile, has an electorate of millions and is routinely opinion polled by the media, but for other Mayoral elections the posts's profiles are far far lower for the national & regional media, have smaller electorates and are thus less likely to be polled impartially. So the "informed voter" has to make a far greater effort than in London to work out what is going to be a wasted vote, particularly in a situation like Torbay where a lot of the independent candidates were sitting local or county councillors who were the products of local party turmoil & with notable activist backing and thus potentially credible in a way that the average random independent isn't. I suspect most voters would only see figures on party leaflets, usually in a distorted bar chart with the message "only this candidate can beat that hated candidate". Timrollpickering (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact on factions and candidates