Talk:Supplementary Vote

I wanted to include the Tennesse example for comparison with other articles but it's not ideal because with the sincere preferences as they are it cannot demonstrate the operation of transfers under SV.

(What it does demonstrate, however, is the big flaw with SV).

I think the best thing would be to include a second, better example as well. Not sure what this should be though. -Iota (3 Mar, 2004).

A few options are available. 1) Also include a real example, say, from London, in which transfers mattered. 2) Re-run the Tennessee example, this time with some strategy. I recommend the first. 3) Reconvene the discussion about what examples to use (this same discussion is happening at talk:Instant-runoff voting). Perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting Systems.

Also, you did such a good job with this page, I wonder whether you might try your hand at cleaning up some of the other single-winner systems?

DanKeshet 22:07, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Why not call SV "IRV2" and SV in Sri Lanka "IRV3"[edit]

Why not call SV "IRV2" and SV in Sri Lanka "IRV3".

1 .... x^0 ...... SV.. ... IRV0 No choice at all - Soviet Voting (SV)
x .... x^1 ...... FPTP ... IRV1 First Past The Post
xx ... x^2 ...... SV.. ... IRV2 Supplementary Voting - London
xxx .. x^3 ...... SV3. ... IRV3 Supplementary Voting - Sri Lanka
xxxx . x^4 ...... SV4. ... IRV4
x..x . x^n ...... IRV. ... IRV. Instant Run Off Voting

Why introduce a new term SV, when IRV2 and IRV3 explain what London and Sri Lanka Do?

Why do physists write x^4, when xxxx is perfectly good?

If you choose bad names for thing, it hinders understanding.

Syd1435 13:25, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

This article was recently moved from Supplementary Vote to supplementary vote. The system is almost always written with capitals and in any case there shouldn't have been a move without a discussion here first. I've just moved it to The Supplementary Vote, as it's the closest I can get to the original title and is better than supplementary vote.

Iota 18:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the description of this method and replaced the sample ballot image with a new one based on the ballot papers used to elect the Mayor of London. The description as regards the use of SV in the UK was wrong (you have 2 columns and you place an X in one column to indicate your first choice and an X in the second column to indicate your second choice, you do not write numbers on the ballot paper). The article did seem to have an emphasis on the usage of SV in the UK to elect mayors but the method described did not reflect the current voting procedure.

Dgamble997 18:31, 2nd Sept 2006

In the elecion for Mayor of Newham last year the ballot paper asked for people to write "1" and "2" in single columns. (To my amusement the Labour incumbent's manifesto said "Robin Wales #5" on the ballot paper, meaning his placing but no doubt confusing many. By the time Labour printed its "how to vote" instructions it removed all reference to the place on the ballot paper for Mayor, but kept it for the simultaneous council election.) Timrollpickering 13:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name (again)[edit]

Surely it should be reverted back to Supplementary Vote, where most articles already link. The "The" is completely redundant, so everything is a redirect. It needs an administrator to change it as "Move" won't work because Supplementary Vote already exists as a redirect page. Sceptic 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B would be to copy the article and talk page manually back to Supplementary Vote and fix the redirects. I will do this if nobody comes up with a better idea in the next couple of days. Sceptic 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have now implemented Plan B and transferred the article back to Supplementary Vote

Sceptic 11:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on factions and candidates[edit]

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)[reply]