I think, that FT STV counting methods leaves too much place for people, that are seen by Community, as "least wanted", especially, that most times, we have very abd ratio of candidates/positions (low amount of candidates for positions, not even two runners for one position...).

This way, IMO, many times people with least approval from Community - i.e. last in order of preference - end up taking positions only because we have low amount of candidates.

Lack of candidates for positions isn't case of most government elections,, so it kinda defeats your argumentation. Everyone, who understand mechanism behind FT STV (I still think, that most people doesn't/doesn't care), know that low amount of candidates is main weakness of FT STV.

Honestly, I'm not very surprised, that you're defending it's usage - after all, during last Council election, you and Niel were approved for Council only, due to FT STV usage (mixed with messed up statute) - using optimal voting mechanism (for such low number of candidates), we would end up with 3 people Council, as both of you were "least preferred" ones.

Warning - no offense meant in what I've written above. It's just example, that everyone can check on it's own, and get own opinion (looking on how much votes each candidate got during first two rounds of counting votes, and, despite that, who ended up in Council).
---

That said, I'm also quite sure, that no one will care for changing voting mechanism - it's too abstract for most people to even care, so we're probably getting stuck with FT STV.

Well, Community decides.

/Estel