Hi
On 7/28/25 16:15, Larry Garfield wrote:
How about this, as a following paragraph:
As an STV example, a secondary vote using STV and having 5 "Foo", 4 "Bar", 8 "Baz", and 9 "Abstain" first-choice votes
has no majority, so will go to a second round. "Bar" will be eliminated and those votes redistributed to second-choice options. If for example the
second round result is 6 "Foo", 9 "Baz", and 11 "Abstain", then Baz will have won as it has a clear majority of non-Abstain votes
cast.
That is quite verbose and requires two assumptions to be made, making it
hard to follow when not already knowing how STV works. I think it will
confuse more than it helps.
It's 3 sentences, and less than 4 lines wrapped. I'd hardly call that verbose.
Compared to the rest of the policies I'd still call it verbose. The
bigger issue to me is that it doesn't really explain much when you are
not already familiar with STV. Wikipedia is in a much better position to
explain this than the policy document. I also expect STV votes to be
fairly rare, most RFCs do not even come with secondary votes in the
first place, because details are decided in the discussion.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
