Talk:CPO-STV

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]