Talk:Single transferable vote/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Multi-seat

It says:

"Under STV, no one party or voting bloc can take all the seats in a district unless the number of seats in the district is very small or almost all the votes cast are cast for one party's candidates (which is seldom the case)."

Surely multi-seat districts are NOT implied by STV?

Multi-seat districts implies larger districts, or much larger legislative houses.

I'd like this language removed from the lede; it implies that replacing FPTV with STV would involve much deeper changes than would actually be needed. I don't mind if that kind of language occurs somewhere in the body, but the lede should only include claims that are agreed on by most people, whether or not they are advocates of STV. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not entirely clear what you're saying/asking, but yes STV requires multi-seat districts to work. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

yes, I agree STV does indeed mean multi-seat districts.

to go from FPTP to STV means re-districting (to make multi-member districts) but each voter retains their one vote

to go from block voting to STV does not mean re-districting. the change would mean keeping the multi-member districts already in use (or creating others if preferred) but each voter just gets one vote instead of the multiple votes they had before.

(Also to change from FPTP to MMP would require re-drawing districts unless the number of members overall are increased.)

Yes, multi-seat districts does imply larger districts (what is sometimes called "grouped constituencies") at least compared to previous districts used under FPTP, or much larger legislative houses than had been previously used under FPTP. But no such deeper change is required if previous system was block voting. 2604:3D09:887C:7B70:0:0:0:6A17 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)