Talk:Contingent vote

Supplementary Vote cleanup

(Transferred from Talk:Supplementary Vote.) Anyone got suggestions on better wording?

Impact on factions and candidates

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)

Later-no-harm for Sri Lankan and Supplementary

There is dispute in another article over whether or not Sri Lankan contingent vote and Supplementary vote also satisfy Later-no-harm criterion. I would assert that they do, given that subsequent choices are only counted when previous choices are eliminated. I would like a consensus to add the Later-no-harm criterion to a new section of satisfied criteria. Tastywheat (talk - contribs) 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong info on alternate vote / runoff part

There is a wrong info on the part of the text about alternate vote / runoff.

The text say "Under the alternative vote only candidate(s) for whom it is mathematically impossible to win", runoff just remove the guy with less votes to them try get the winner. A guy would just have an mathematically impossible chance to win, if the first candidate had 50% plus 1 votes.

With coombs method you can sort of, remove the candidate with an mathematically impossible chance to win, but this will only happen sometimes. This happens when you remove an the candidate with most amount of last place votes and he has more than 50% of the votes

But this only happens on this case on coombs method, and even on this case, you are changing what you consider a good thing, now what matters the most is not being disliked instead of being liked.177.92.128.26 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

'History and current use'

"However, a similar system was already in use since 1978 (the year on which the law providing for direct mayoral elections, rather than indirect mayoral elections by the city councils) to elect mayors in Israel."

The part in parentheses does not make sense, and I have no idea what the correct wording might be. Harfarhs (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Harfarhs: I have replaced the sentence to "However, a similar system was already in use since 1978 to elect mayors in Israel, which replaced a indirect election method used previously." I would like to know if you think it could be improved. JDuggan101 (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting back so quickly! I would phrase it "..had already been in use" but otherwise that seems quite clear. Thanks for the clarification. Harfarhs (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)