30 20 July 2012 12:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Sort By: Best

Comment author: 20 July 2012 11:38:58AM *  1 point [-]

[comment deleted]

Comment author: 20 July 2012 01:36:17PM 0 points [-]

The whole point of the distinction is that STV doesn't have a single winner. AV is used for elections with a single winner, STV for elections in multi-member constituencies. Because it's only used in single-member constituencies, AV can never be proportional, while STV in multi-member constituencies usually produces a roughly proportional outcome.

Comment author: 23 July 2012 08:18:35AM *  2 points [-]

[comment deleted]

Comment author: 23 July 2012 01:22:38PM -1 points [-]

The point is that the incentives for tactical voting linked to in the OP are not there for STV but are for AV, and that when you're talking about a Parliamentary election, electing 600 individuals by AV gives VASTLY different results to having 120 constituencies each elect five members by STV. You might as well say "I don't see a need for a separate name for subtraction -- it's just another name for addition to specify addition of negative numbers". When two processes have very different outcomes, even if the processes are similar, that's sufficient reason to distinguish them.

Comment author: 24 July 2012 08:40:39AM *  -1 points [-]

[comment deleted]

Comment author: 24 July 2012 11:16:00AM -1 points [-]

You are missing something. There is no such thing as STV 'under a single winner per constituency model'. STV is a system for deciding winners in multi-member constituencies.

There are two main axes for voting systems -- preferentiality and proportionality. STV is both preferential and proportional. AV is preferential but can't be proportional because it's for electing single members. First Past The Post is neither preferential nor proportional, and the bloody stupid d'Hondt system we use for European elections is proportional but not preferential.

This is not a matter of semantics. In AV you're voting for a single representative, in STV for multiple representatives. In AV if one candidate gets over 50% on first preferences that's the end, in STV preferences continue to count until all members have been elected. STV produces proportional results, AV exaggerates swings. They're similar in that the voter gets to rank candidates by order of preference, but the process of counting, and the results, will be wildly different.

Comment author: 24 July 2012 02:02:43PM *  -1 points [-]

[comment deleted]

Comment author: 24 July 2012 05:20:27PM 0 points [-]

That's neither STV nor AV, just some random mad system you've made up yourself where you've changed the rules half-way through!