This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Single transferable vote#History and current use|began use in the 1850s]] The anchor (#History and current use) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
There's plenty of accountability, e.g. this talk page. Regardless, there's a lot of criticism of IRV in the social choice literature, and until very recently (when I started incorporating more academic discussion), this has been almost completely absent. Most of the discussion of IRV in social choice has centered on major issues with it, like perverse response, eliminating majority-preferred candidates, spoiler effects, and center squeeze. It definitely is unusual how little attention this has received, and after reviewing the page history, it seems clear to me that in many cases this was because of clear COI editors like @RRichie and @Tbouricius editing the article to remove this information. So far I've been busy with other things, but I do think there's a need to substantially clarify the scientific consensus on this issue. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments3 people in discussion
@David Eppstein when you said this isn't unique to the US, did you mean conflating ranked voting and IRV isn't unique to the US? Or that the term "Ranked-choice voting" in particular is common in Australia? I was under the impression that the term "Ranked-choice voting" for IRV was limited to North America, with Australians making the similar mistake of calling it "preferential voting". Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Despite using it? The proper use of the terminology is: ranked choice voting = how you fill in your ballot. IRV = how the winner gets determined from the ballots. The issue we are discussing, though, is that many sources don't make a distinction between those two stages (regardless of what they call them). I think the main term used in Australia is "preferential voting"? But I'm less sure which of those two stages should be the main meaning for that term. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Neither of you have answered whether "preferential voting" means ranked-choice balloting or instant-runoff winner selection. And the geographic distribution of the use of the term "ranked-choice voting" is not particularly relevant to this article except as it concerns the more specific issue of who is likely to confuse RCV and IRV, to which the correct answer is probably "everyone". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply