Talk:Single transferable vote
STV and clone independence
Woodall proposed one particular multiwinner extension of clone independence in paper 5 of issue 3 of Voting Matters,[1] because it's ambiguous how to generalize clone independence in a way that proportional systems pass. Still, STV does not pass all of Woodall's generalized clone criteria, so I'll remove the claim that STV does pass clone independence.
Related: attempts to find other generalizations of clone independence, or claims that Woodall's clone criteria still won't do the job. [2] [3] Kristomun (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting. I was trying to avoid being too specific by putting the clone independence point in only the IRV article, but it looks like that's the only place it can go. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
When is this wiki from?
Noting "British Columbia will decide in 2005 by referendum whether to adopt STV to replace its current First Past the Post electoral system, after a recommendation of STV [6] by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform[,]
" with emphasis added on the tense used, when is this wiki from? I remember voting in that referendum. I didn't fully understand Single Transferable Vote as I do now, and remember finding it complicated, but in theory, it's my preferred PR system. MMP may be generally even more proportional, but I just haven't found an MMP system I particularly like.