People can just abstain by not voting anyway - I really don't see what adding this would give us.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 at 14:45, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote: > On 27 July 2025 14:09:50 BST, "Tim Düsterhus" <t...@bastelstu.be> wrote: > >Hi > > > >On 7/24/25 15:42, Larry Garfield wrote: > >> Just to clarify here, Single Transferable Vote and Ranked Choice Voting > are the same thing. I think it's just another Ameircan-vs-British English > question. :-) > > > >My understanding is that “Ranked Choice Voting” is a generic term of > which “Single Transferable Vote” is a specific implementation. I > specifically do not want to allow any other implementations than the one > the PHP project is already comfortable with using. > > That's my understanding too, and I also agree we shouldn't make it more > complicated. > > >> 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. > > Please don't add abstention to STV votes. If you select fewer options than > you can, that is already an abstention. > > STV is really only used for secondaries (and release managers) anyway, so > I would rather see this not get more complicated. > > cheers > Derick > -- http://about.me/kenguest/
