Talk:CPO-STV
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Software for computing?
[edit]Do you know of any software for computing CPO-STV with Meek's method? Samulili 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Third party sources
[edit]Has this voting method received any attention from third-party sources unrelated to its inventor Nicolaus Tideman? If so, they should be included in the article. At the moment, the only two sources were both written by Tideman. Robofish (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Needs a better example
[edit]The current example is a thinly disguised single-seat election, comparing AV with Condorcet (see below). Can anyone come up with a better example, with at least two places in doubt, and perhaps a Condorcet cycle? Or provide a link to better examples elsewhere?
Explanation: Under any form of STV A and C will be elected, and C has 9 surplus votes to transfer, all with next preferences BD. Hence the competition for the third place is a simple contest for one place between B, D and S, with first preference votes 16, 13 and 21 respectively. D's 2nd preferences split as B (8) and S (5); while all the 2nd preferences of B and S are for D. Then the calculations on the page can be explained from (1) Under Av, D is excluded, and S beat B by 26-24; (2) the other two pairwise comparisons are D beats B by 34-16, and D beats S by 29-21, so D is the Condorcet winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.121.62 (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Names used in the example
[edit]The set of names used in the example has become quite narrow both culturally and gender-wise. Is it okay if I expand that to a wider set? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)