Talk:BC-STV

Distinct STV variant

I'm not sure this qualifies as a distinct variant version of STV in its own right as virtually all the features cited exist in other versions in use, particularly amongst many private organisations that use the system. So should it be on the election systems template when other precise applications are not? Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not the voting system as such, but the unique way in which the proposal was evolved and brought forward - the Citizen's Assembly - and the revision of the riding system into "mega-ridings" were all part of the BC-STV package. What was voted on in 2005 was also STV, but it was not the same system, and also didn't involve the mega-ridings; this was a particular proposal/format with a certain political controversy/rivalry attached to it (the person in the previous section is right in complaining that the anti- position is not properly presented, or wasn't anyway; maybe since then but given that post was on the virtual eve of the referendum indicates this article had big POV problems, if it doesn't still).Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism for this Page

Hi I feel that this article is very poorly constructed, and it hasn't given me a single better idea on what exactly BC-STV is. I have a number of criticisms that I feel would improve this article:

Beyond the first sentence, the intro paragraph says NOTHING about what BC-STV actually is: after the first sentence the next two just talk about whether people support it or not (i.e. the referendums). Somebody who has absolutely no prior experience with BC-STV (like me) still doesn't know what the system is and how it's different from any of the basic voting systems that I know about (proportional, first-past-post, etc.).

The intro needs to talk about the main points of BC-STV. For example if I were to re-word the intro paragraph, this is what I would say:

BC-STV stands for BC-Single Transferrable Vote and it's a voting system proposed by (). It allows a voter to have a choice in a list of candidates and we think it's more fair than first-past-the-post. Right now it hasn't been tried in any other country, except maybe Australia. Australia's system has a list of candidates, but in our system you don't have to rank every candidate. That way you don't HAVE to vote for a candidate you don't know about or support.

That tells me a LOT more than what is currently there. Maybe I might also include that it's currently in the process of being implemented or voted on in BC. I would remove entirely the information about the referendum in the intro paragraph because it is too specific, and the intro paragraph should be geared to an audience who has never heard of the term before.

The background section doesn't say anything about why anybody wanted a new system and what was wrong with the old system. This needs to be added and addressed - nobody will understand why anybody would propose a new system if there were no problems with the old system. Right now it just launches into the measures that the elected official put into place to get this system going forward without explaining any context which is what a background section is supposed to do.

In fact, I would put the whole referendum statistics/logistics information into either the last section as an appendix or keep it all in its specialized article. These details are *specifics* that aren't important to the larger picture, or vital to understanding the concept of what BC-STV is.

It would also be helpful if there's a list of good pros and cons of the new system, but I think the aforementioned concerns need to be addressed first. I would do it but I know *nothing* about this new system (which is why I went to this article in the first place). I'm placing my comments here because I'm just relating what I got from the article and I hope this is the right place to voice my opinions.

Cheers, XieChengnuo (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BC-STV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050924143403/http://citizensassembly.bc.ca/public to http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Mechanics of the system section needs change

It should read something like: The most important feature of the system is that it would achieve a degree of proportionality in representation. Few votes would be wasted, because if a voter's first preference is not elected, his vote can be transferred to be used to elect someone else preferred over another less-preferred candidate. To this end, the voter is invited to rank-order candidates, although they are not required to do so. The candidates will be grouped by political party in separate columns on the ballot paper, as is the practice in the Australian state of Tasmania. STV being based on voters and candidates, not parties, allows voters to express preferences for candidates of different parties if they chose to do so.

After polls close, an quota for the district is determined based on the number of valid ballots cast and the number of seats available in the district. Those candidates with enough votes (first preferences or second or later preferences) to meet or exceed the quota are elected.*

When the polling closes, all the votes are counted and sorted by the voters' first preferences. Those candidates with enough first-preference votes to meet or exceed the quota are elected. If any of the elected candidates, if any, have a surplus of votes over the quota, the surplus is transferred proportionally based on the second preferences marked on the ballots. If there are still seats not filled, the lowest ranking candidate is dropped off and his/her votes transferred based on second preferences (if any). This multiple-step vote counting, drop-off/surplus reckoning and transfer process continues until all the seats are filled.

Why these changes are desired? This statement about apportionment causes confusion -"each voter has only one vote, their single vote may be apportioned and used to elect multiple candidates based on the voter's ranked preferences (if any)." Apportionment may be implied in the report. But voters do not apportion his/her vote - he/she only indicates his/her preferences, with no idea of how the vote will be applied. One vote may be transferred several times; another may go directly to one candidate who was elected - there would definitely be no apportioning in that case. And a vote can only go to one candidate - it cannot be used as a portion, a fraction. If it is transferred it goes as a whole to the new candidate; if it is not transferred from the first choice, it goes as a whole to the first preference candidate. (the confusion arises from the idea of the transfer of surplus being derived from the portion of the surplus that would be allocated to each type of secondary preference. but that does not mean that part of the vote remains and part of it is transferred. It means that mathematical steps are taken to determine how many whole votes in the transferred surplus should reflect each of the different shades of secondary preferences of the voters.)

Why should talk of election of multiple candidates cease? Because it leads votes to think that if they write in second preferences their second preferences will be used against their first preference. when in fact, second preferences are only referred to after the first preference candidate is elected or eliminated. This will encourage them to plumb for just their first preference which eludes the purpose of STV.

• Candidates must achieve quota to be elected - this basic rule is fundamental to understanding STV. Any candidate in first or 10th rounds of counting is elected by achieving the quota, except if there are but one more candidate left than empty seats, then a candidate could be elected with a partial quota when the least popular candidate drops off.

To say that "A multiple-step vote counting and transfer process is then used to determine the winners of the remaining seats in the district by taking voters' secondary preferences into account." is so unclear that it sounds overly complicated or impossible for mere mortals to understand. Is it done with party lists, with mathematical calculation, with computers? And anyways not all voters secondary preferences are taken into account even at this stage. Nor are only secondary preferences taken into account. Many win by the transferring of others' secondary preferences to their own first choice votes, so even first preferences are still important to the election of candidates even in the last round. The secondary preferences of those candidate who were not elected in the first round are not taken into account until and if they are eliminated.174.3.178.111 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Tom Monto, Edmonton

I think some of the changes proposed are good (although I think we should refer to voters using the singular "they" and not as "he" or "she/he" because MOS:SLASH) but BC-STV uses Gregory as the counting/transfer method and from what I can tell at Counting single transferable votes § Gregory (as per here), how that works is that all votes are transferred at fractional values, so that if in round 1 Candidate A is elected with twice as many votes as needed to reach the quota and I ranked them first, then half my vote is used towards electing Candidate A and the other half is tallied for my second-ranked candidate. As per Single transferable vote § Counting methods, [t]he Gregory method (also known as Newland-Britain or Senatorial rules) eliminates randomness by allowing for the transfer of fractions of votes. [emphasis mine] How is this "going as a whole" to the new candidate? —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Specifically from this document on BC-STV, we have:

To be fair and to ensure vote counting can be precisely repeated, every ballot cast for the newly elected candidate is redistributed to the next-ranked candidate marked on each ballot. But, not at full value, because a portion of each vote has already been used to elect a candidate. The portion of each vote used to give the elected candidate a quota, stays with that candidate. The unused portion is transferred. To determine what fraction of the vote should move on to the next preference, the transfer value is calculated.

[again, my emphasis] —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I see that later presentations of the process present the surplus transfer differently than an old source I am reading. Hare's STV was presented without talk of fractions of votes in Alberta in the 1920s, as in John D. Hunt's A Key to PR (1924), reprinted in A Report on Alberta Elections and also in Alberta's Centennial Series, available at reference libraries). This does not speak of fractions of votes being transferred. Perhaps i am wrong but under BC-STV when surplus votes are transferred, don't actual ballots carrying third and fourth and subsequent preferences get transferred to second-preference candidates? This was the case in STV as operating in Alberta in the 1920s. These are the votes I see as being transferred as whole votes, not fractions. And the votes that stay behind - they stay behind as whole votes. A reason I see it fuzzy to say fractions are used is I have not seen vote counts that are in fractions, always whole numbers. I think it is clearer (although admittedly not simple) to say that only the surplus is transferred and in such a way that it reflects the composition (as to second (or next relevant) preferences) of the votes. Thus the surplus is mathematically derived to be a smaller copy of the votes received by the candidate (in whole votes, based on second (or next relevant) preferences) so as to preserve proportionality/not give unfair advantage to any candidate. 174.3.203.119 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Tom

So it appears BC-STV is the same system as the Hare-Clark system used in Tasmania. With all votes transferred but only at a fraction of their power. I am not sure that the BC-STV information demos show this - that transferred votes are not transferred at full value and that all votes are transferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.178.111 (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, you must be referring to transfer of surplus votes when you refer to "all votes are transferred but only at a fraction of their power". Transfer of votes when lowest-ranking candidates are eliminated are transferred at full power, in whole votes, except if they are exhausted (no secondary preference marked) when they are transferred to the exhausted pile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.194.17 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)