Here you go, here’s an olive branch to the “both sides” people. It sounds like, in Nevada, you are correct.

  • The main difference is STV is used to elect multiple people. In a general presidential election, STV is IRV. Both IRV and STV are types of Ranked Choice Voting.

    It would make sense to use STV for - for example - state representatives and senators. The simplest way to do this would be to get rid of congressional districts, which would also eliminate gerrymandering - a process that excludes the electorate and yet had a significant impact on the outcome of elections. Alternatively, we’d have to changing the sizes of the Senate and house.

    The reason most efforts in states today advocate RCV is because it leaves open both options: IRV for non-proportional elections, like comptroller, governor, or sheriff; and STV for proportional representation offices, like houses, senates, and board members. RCV is what the voter sees on the ballot; IRV and STV is how votes are proportioned.