h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Had a free hour where i was stuck working (saturday school is evil)



capital letter for Labour -
David Cameron, Grant Shapps

I guess that in ten years time we might still remember who Cameron was, but I have no idea who this Shapps person is? Maybe we should have a footnote here to explain? Both of them, for overseas or those like me who care not a jot about politicians. -
This is due to how

I bet you speak with better grammar than this nbb - I'll let you sort that bit out... - i make no promises on my correction, but

supported by a similar electorate as elected them.
ditto - rephrased and

. . very difficult system to understand. Voters seldom fully understand . .

two uses of the word 'understand' Can you change one of them to comprehend? - as long as i...understand the comment?

decision making capability, ----> decision-making -

preventing majorities being found in parliamentary votes.

do you mean majorities being achievable in parliamentary voting? I'm not sure I follow your meaning here. - i do -

invention of a system of votes being transferable was invented

two instances of 'invent'

How about
The first instance of a system of votes being transferable was brought into being by Thomas . . . -

and following on from that -

later was the system used

change to

Only 34 years later this type of voting was used -

Footnote 5

A very short lived house in the the 1st Danish Parliament.

1st ---> first -

A decade later he used the same system elect the other house in the Danish Parliament, the Landsting.

Either there is a [to] missing between system and elect, or I am misunderstanding you here.

system that bares obvious ---> bears without even seeing the correction to be done

In his system[,] voters would be told

place a comma where indicated [,]

received their final vote.6 In order to more firmly connect voters with their leaders.

Take out the full stop and replace with a comma, remove the capital I on the word In - ermmm done, but wouldnt that mean the footnote has a comma in, when it should be a full stop

large coalitions over the last decade or so

It would be a nice touch here to future-proof your Entry nbb. Maybe you could change this sentence to indicate which decade the coalitions began

eg

resulted in power being held by large coalitions since the 1990s ( or whenever it was) 1977, i hadn't realised it was that long


Government has been reasonably stable ---> which Government?

single party ---> single-party

Malta is a beneficiary of the STV system. --->

Malta benefits directly from the STV system.

Formatting
In the bullet points for Ireland, Malta and the UK I think it would look neater if you had the three examples in bold text followed by a full stop and then the start of a new sentence in each case.

Looks good this !

eg Malta. This little island state

And, I wonder whether you should refer to Ireland as the Republic of Ireland here, or Eire. I leave that with you to ponder

I've plucked for Eire here

Just a thought- you might mention that in US Presidential elections most people almost always vote Republican or Democrat because a third party vote is considered wasted. There are third party candidates on the US ballot however and going to an STV system there might give a third party candidate a chance. See the section on possible reform in my article on the Electoral College
A44719798. Perhaps some way could be found to link that article to this one.

Thus far, i have struggled to link to that, though i'm sure if i write a separate paragraph it will fit in nicely. This excluded it would seem that most are happy with the text passages.

The complaints seem to concern the tables, i did them this way because it seemed the simplest way, if someone is good with ordering these tables well please help.

Cheers
Nbb

We seem to on a bit of a run with some new people around PR, who might be able to break the casual deadlock on what the correct appearance of the entry (primarily from its tables) is.

Any ideas or advice?

Entry: STV - the Single Transferable Vote - A58593180
Author: Nosebagbear - U14077177


bumping it for you as well nbb

Nbb, if you are happy with the table, let it stand.

If the sub-editor disagrees then it can be removed


lil x

I think it works as things look, but then I wrote it so i don't need the explanation run through again for me

-I'll leave it to the sub-ed then

Cheers lil

Hello Nosebagbadger

Sorry for arriving in this thread a bit late, but I had a look at your Entry today (including the tables).

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?

Good entry - I learned even more than I did when I studied STV before the elections earlier this year...

Cheers for a long list of helpful, informed advice, I have to go sing now, but should get round to it this evening

Quickly though I'll answer that two rounds are needed because at that stage a candidate wins (they get a majority), even though he/she still has two delegates competeting with them

Cheers
RH

Have returned after the intereditorium

WIll look at this when i get the time

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

he he - we know you are back.

And congratulations nbb It was a long wait wasn't it?

Woo Hoo!!!

Indeed, the longest i've had thus far, now i have to go find something else to write about

Well done!


lil x