 | | | Subject: A87709666 - STV - the Single Transferable Vote
Posted Mar 21, 2012 by h2g2 Guide Editors
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
2
  | | As we see it, the main problems are in the "The Election is Here" section.
- Giving the names of actual h2g2 Researchers in this section confuses things. You could have the five going up for election as Angus Ambleton, Bernard Biggs and other alphabetically sorted names. Keeping the genders the same would make this change relatively easy.
- The system of keeping track of votes using A, B, C etc is confusing.
- It's not adequately explained why you don't have to go beyond the first two choices in each vote.
|
| | | Subject: A87709666 - STV - the Single Transferable Vote
Posted Mar 22, 2012 by KB
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
3
| | - What you really need to mention in the introductory paragraph is that STV means voting 1, 2, 3, and so on, in order of your preference. Leave any mention of FPP until later in the Entry, and then make the comparison by all means.
- "The STV system moves votes from their original candidates" - This makes it sound like there's ballot-rigging going on.  It would work much more clearly if you used the phrase "first preference candidates", but that relies on changing the introduction as above.
- I'd be inclined to leave out the bit about the rain on Thursdays and so on. It seems a bit like trying too hard to be funny, and gets in the way of clarity for someone who doesn't understand STV, but wants to.
|
|  |
| | | Subject: A87709666 - STV - the Single Transferable Vote
Posted Jun 13, 2012 by  SashaQ - nanowrimoed and procrastinating
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
4
| |
I made some suggestions about how to improve the keeping track of votes in the other Peer Review thread just before the Entry was selected, so I'll copy them here for completeness, in case the suggestions are useful:
"I think it would be helpful if you stated after the heading "The Election is Here!" that you have 5 candidates competing for 3 positions and 27 people voting, and maybe even calculate the Droop Quota as well, to set the scene before you draw the table.
I presume "Groups" A, B, C etc just mean the voters who voted for a particular combination of candidates as 1st and 2nd choices, so you could draw your first table as:
Group | 1st Choice | 2nd Choice | Number voting for these choices
A | Taff | Aunt Lil | 5
etc
I like your bullet points - they could perhaps come next after the table.
You could perhaps set your second table out more clearly by writing Taff - 8 votes (5A, 3B), or something similar (all those repeated letters didn't display very well on my computer...). Alternatively, it might work better in words: -
3rd round
Aunt Lil - eliminated
Taff - 8 votes (5 from A, 3 from B)
etc, I don't know.
I'm intrigued why only the first two choices for each voter are all that is needed - is it because there are 5 candidates and 3 places, so 2 rounds are needed to eliminate 2 people?"
|
| |
| | | Subject: A87709666 - STV - the Single Transferable Vote
Posted Feb 6, 2013 by Bluebottle
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
9
| | I think it's come on too far to just be abandoned - it was accepted initially after all before returned to Peer Review.
Up above they've said 'the main problems are in the "The Election is Here" section', so let's see if we can improve that bit.
The first point raised to address is 'Giving the names of actual h2g2 Researchers in this section confuses things'
That's easy to sort out. You could use alphabetically sorted names like Aunty Ann, Big Ben, Captain Charles and Dancing Donna - probably a good idea to avoid using real names and famous fictional ones too.
As the editors said 'Keeping the genders the same would make this change relatively easy'.
The next point was 'The system of keeping track of votes using A, B, C etc is confusing'
sashaQ has made a good suggestion about this
This entry very almost made it, so it would be tragic for it to stall and be abandoned now!
<BB<
|
| |
|
