Talk:Single transferable vote

"compose a separate party ticket under list PR"

Hi 68.148.137.191

This edit makes more sense but since voters cannot themselves organize a party list under list PR (this is done by the parties, not the voters, correct?), this statement is meaningless because it's conflating voter intent with actions they could not possibly take.

Or are you thinking of some variant of list PR where voters somehow do "organize a party list"? If so, please elaborate because that is not at all clear from the sentence and I would guess most people would, as I do, assume in list PR that parties themselves set the lists, not voters, which is why list PR is often preferred by major parties over STV since it gives more control to parties.

More info is needed... I think if this statement continues to be included, it needs to refer to voters' freedom under STV to support candidates of multiple parties whose beliefs/interests match their own without having to support those candidates' parties outright or support candidates from those parties whose platforms/beliefs do not match the voters' interests. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we have agreement but here's a reply:

under STV, voters believing in A can show support for (vote for) candidates believing in A, and have chance to elect them,

while under list PR a separate party list would have to be organized. 68.150.205.46 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Right... but my issue is that voters cannot organize a separate party list, so why are we making it sound like they can by putting these two ideas in the same statement? If we are including both ideas, it needs to be formulated more like Under STV, voters have the freedom to support candidates regardless of their party affiliation, whereas with list PR, they are constrained to supporting candidates chosen by the party with which they are most closely aligned.

Including "under list PR a separate party list would have to be organized" makes it sound like this is something voters can accomplish themselves, which they cannot. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

transfers of surplus votes

basically three different methods to do transfers: random (Cambridge) "exact" method as done in |Ireland Gregory (three variants)

so article should say "Transferring votes without considering later preferences may influence later transfers and such systems are sometimes thought of as being random. To address this at the cost of introducing complication, in some STV systems the elected candidate's votes are sorted out into many separate piles, making up piles of votes based just on the next usable marked preference or based on the combinations of all the marked preferences on the ballots. Then a requisite number is transferred from each pile. The vote is transferred in the form of the ballot paper, carrying its own back-up preferences with it for possible later use." ~2025-31288-48 (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Transfer math

in "Transfer of surplus votes of elected candidates" article reds: The Droop quota is given by the floor function formula: I cannot cut and paste math formula] where ... produces the integer less than or equal to its argument.

but the formula has no ... and what argument? so I suggest simply remove where ... produces the integer less than or equal to its argument. because it refers to things not there and raise more question than it answers.

Simpler just to say: Droop quota is determined by dividing the number of valid votes in the district by the number of seats plus one, and then adding one or rounding up.

The reader doesn't need to have to deal with the term "floor function formula". Thanks ~2026-73911-7 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The extra text that you find so difficult to follow is explaining what the floor symbol, i.e.:

$\lfloor \ldots \rfloor$

in the actual formula:

$${\text{votes needed to win}}=\left\lfloor {\frac {\text{valid votes cast}}{{\text{seats to fill}}+1}}\right\rfloor +1$$

means.

The ellipsis (i.e. "...") 100% refers to a thing that is there: "..." is taking the place of:

$${\frac {\text{valid votes cast}}{{\text{seats to fill}}+1}}$$

Your suggestion is Droop quota is determined by dividing the number of valid votes in the district by the number of seats plus one, and then adding one or rounding up. – that is exactly what the floor function version does, expressed in proper math without the ambiguity of "when do you add one and when do you round up?" —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Carroll and SNTV

In the related systems area, there should be a link to the SNTV page. Note that McLean points out that Dodgson/Carroll also proved things about SNTV abstractly, so one doesn't have to only use his (Carroll's) suggestion that the candidates get to move the votes, though that is certainly an interesting idea of his. ~2026-25253-57 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)