Talk:History and use of the single transferable vote/Archive 1

Other users in the UK
There's a difference between Student Unions, politically radical and anti-establishment organisations that they are, and the University of Cambridge, which, approaching its 800th anniversary, is a paragon of the establishment and thought leadership in the UK. This is why I think it deserves a separate mention. You can see that individual student unions are relatively insignificant. Stephen B Streater 13:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that the article covers usage of STV. Unless there is an objection, I'll add University of Cambridge back in. Stephen B Streater 14:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Stephen B Streater 10:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

An individual voter can discover how their vote was ultimately distributed
The statement contained in the second sentence of: In Hare's original STV system, he further proposed that electors should have the opportunity of discovering which candidate their vote had ultimately counted for, to improve their personal connection with voting.[1] This is unnecessary in modern STV elections, however, as an individual voter can discover how their vote was ultimately distributed by viewing detailed election results. is comment at best; patently false at worst (in an 8 member area, a voter can probably work out that his/her vote has gone to one of 3 candidates), but won't be able to work out which one).
 * What do you mean "which one?" I thought we were talking about a fractional vote transfer here. Scott Ritchie 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Apart from Meek's method, which is pretty complicated, I don't think voters are guaranteed to be able to work out who got their vote. In a particular election some, perhaps most, voters will be able to do so, but others may not, since all other methods have some element of random selection of ballots for transfer. I've removed the assertion until someone can back it up. jnestorius(talk) 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was cited, Lambert & lakeman make the claim that that was hare's intent, so I'll restore the text. I suspect in hare's system the location of a ballot paper could finally be found...--Red Deathy 06:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The disputed part is not about Hare; it's the second sentence "This is unnecessary in modern STV elections, however, as an individual voter can discover how their vote was ultimately distributed by viewing detailed election results." jnestorius(talk)  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious
Quote:
 * In 1917, the Speaker's Conference in the United Kingdom advocated the adoption of STV for 211 of the 569 constituencies in the UK, and instant-runoff voting for the rest.

I find it incredible that there would be 211 STV constituencies. Given that each such was to elect 3 or more members, that would total more than 633 MPs; add in the 358 MPs from the single-seat constituencies and you have 1000! I surmise that the figure 211 is the number of MPs rather than the number of constituencies. On the other hand, a total of 569 MPs would be a significant reduction from the 1917 total of 670. The Representation of the People Act 1918 actually increased the number to 707, and was based on the non-STV recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. Does anyone have a source to clear this up? The current links don't give that detail, but the cites in Barzachka probably would, if you have a good library: The report itself seems never to have been published. jnestorius(talk) 14:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hart, Jennifer. Proportional Representation: Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
 * Chadwick, Andrew. Augmenting Democracy: Political Movements and Constitutional Reform during the Rise of Labour, 1900-1924. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 1999.


 * A thought: Ireland had 103 MPs in 1918; so 569 MPs in Great Britain, rather than the United Kingdom, would be an increase of just 2. jnestorius(talk) 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The report of the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform was published on 30th January 1917. See The Times, Wednesday, Jan 31, 1917; pg. 9. The proposals were debated but no agreement could be reached on electoral reform so that element was abandonded. Awnisbet1 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why has it been discarded?
E.g., "system was used in 1856 to elect the Danish Rigsdag, and by 1866 it was also adapted for indirect elections to the second chamber, the Landsting, until 1915." Well, why did the Danes stop using it?! Who opposed it, and why? What reasons did they offer? What was public reaction? Etc. Same with British Columbia: "During this term of office, the SoCreds abolished the new voting system and returned the province to the traditional voting system." Why? Etc. DBrnstn 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Danish 1866 constitution was a reactionary constitution designed by the landed gentry to provide conservative guarantees and reverse the effects of universal male suffrage (for men with their own household) given in 1849. It used ideas from the two "Constitutions of the Realm" from the 1850s, which were designed to manage the joint affairs of the undemocratic duchies of Slesvig and Holstein and the democratic Denmark within the same state and therefore quite conservative. The Landsting was elected indirectly by electors chosen by the largest tax-payers in the countryside using STV (but often there were just a handful - especially in poorer areas of Jutland) and with plural voting based on tax paying in the towns (ie. the rich had several votes, craftsmen and shopkeepers one, and workers had none). The electors then chose the members using the Andræe variation of STV. In 1915 the Landsting was changed to a democratic institution being elected indirectly by all voters above 35 (now including women and servants). They chose the electors by PR using D'Hondt. The electors still used the Andræe version of STV to elect the Landsting until it was abolished in 1953. What disappeared was the limited use of STV in the direct election among the few large landowners in the countryside (as well as the plural voting based transferable vote system in the towns and cities). I suppose that given it was now a democratically elected chamber just with a 10 year higher voting age it was natural to switch to the same method as for the elections to the Folketing for choosing the electors, especially since the Folketing was the basis for Danish parliamentarism and by far the most important chamber.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History and use of the single transferable vote. 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/20060514113227/http://citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/Farrell_McAllister_1983_Surplus_Change.pdf to http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/Farrell_McAllister_1983_Surplus_Change.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rss.org.uk/main.asp?page=1107
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards/oscars/env-oscarvote7jan07%2C0%2C6919642%2Cprint.story?coll=env-home-headlines

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)