Talk:Electoral system/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Oh no, not again

I continue to believe that this article should be split. I'll quickly explain how I envision the split working, then briefly list the arguments that I think show that this argument is not a dead horse, then link to those arguments which I think get too much into personal dynamics and expound on those which relate to content.

Here's the split I envision:

• "electoral system":

• This would cover things like first past the post aka single-member districts, PR, runoff systems, primary/general systems, etc.; including discussions of things like IRV or plurality as used in human political elections;
• The large majority of the current content here would still fit under the topic, excepting only those methods which are/were not actually used in any current or past polity
• However, some parts of the article would probably be rewritten in summary style.

• "voting method" (or "voting rule" or other similar title)

• This would cover the methods/functions/algorithms in only the abstract/theoretical sense. Multiple election rounds, districting and apportionment, franchise issues, conditions for holding an election, the role of partisan labels/nominations in elections, and implementation issues would be out of scope.

I realize that in order for this split to gain consensus, it has to pass at least two separate hurdles. First, it must not be just a matter of re-litigating something that was already resolved by the RM. Related to that, it would have to be something that is not just my personal hobbyhorse, but seen as worthwhile by a larger group of editors. And separately, second, it would have to be well-justified on the merits — WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CFORK, and the like.

On the questions of whether it's legit for me to even be talking about this... there's a bit of a paradox. If it's not legit, and I'm just wasting everyone's time, then arguing the point is only wasting more time. And anyway, this is only tangentially related to the actual content of this page. So I'll make those arguments in my own userspace, and just link them from here... ...no, I decided that defensively responding to every little thing is not worth anyone's time. There's just one bottom line that I will say here: if a neutral, uninvolved editor or editors (including TonyBallioni) comes here (without obvious violations of WP:CANVASS) and tells me that I'm being disruptive, I will drop this issue.

On the question of whether the split I envision is a good idea from the point of view of WP policy, I have several points to make:

• This is not just a sneaky way to move this article to another name and thus circumvent the outcome of the RM. I'll talk more about this in the arguments I'll link above, but if you compare the scope of the article as it currently exists, it is clearly closer to that of the "electoral system" article I envision than to that of the "voting method" article.
• These terms are used with distinct meanings by various reliable sources. The best way to check this is probably to search for uses of both ideas together, in searches such as "electoral system" "voting rule" or "electoral system" "voting method". When you do that, you find one of three things:

• Cases where one or both of the terms are used peripherally and/or informally enough that the two can't be distinguished. I'd estimate that this is about 1/3 of the cases.
• Cases where the two are used to refer to more or less the same subject matter, but in different contexts; "electoral system" when the context is "outward" to actual elections in some specific polity, and "voting method/rule" when the context is "inward" to the theory or practice of counting the votes. I'd estimate that this is about 1/2 of the cases. (Note that this context-dependent usage is, in my experience, commonly applicable even when only one of the terms is used.)
• Cases where the two are used and the distinction is more-or-less clear. I'd estimate that that this is about 1/6 of the cases. One example is 2003 REPORT ON ELECTORAL SYSTEMS OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE SOLUTIONS AND SELECTION CRITERIA Adopted by the Venice Commission; here are some relevant quotes:

'The definition of electoral systems as “the set of procedural rules governing the expression of votes cast in a given election and their conversion into seats”, (cited to GARRONE, Pierre, L’élection populaire en Suisse. Etude...) enables us in the first place to classify those features in two main categories: the first consists of all those factors relating to the organisation, the conduct and the process of the election; the second consists of the rules relating to the counting of votes and the distribution of seats.'

'electoral systems have to provide a response to five questions, and several responses are possible: 1.... 2.... 3.... 4. What method of voting is to be available to electors?... 5...'

As you can see, a clear distinction is being made, in which "voting methods" is a subset of the topic of "electoral systems". Such topical subsets are exactly the correct use case for sub-articles on wikipedia.

...I could go on but that's the basic argument right there. Homunq (࿓) 00:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick addition: I do not believe that the close of the RM was a consensus against a related article elsewhere, just a consensus for an article on this general topic here. Homunq (࿓) 03:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No need for this kind of split; things like proportional representation and seat apportionment are indelibly linked and shouldn't be separated. There does appear to be agreement that the comparison of systems is probably what should be split off though. Also, you really need to get your head around concepts like WP:TLDR, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DROPTHESTICK if you are going to convince anyone. Simply repeating what you want to do again and again and at increasing length isn't working, it's actively antagonising everyone else. Number 57 13:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I realize you (and BrownHairedGirl) feel that way. As I said, if you want me to listen, you only have to find somebody else to tell me. For instance, you could start an RfC, or alert the people who commented on the RM, or get poor TonyBallioni back here. If others agree with you, I will shut up. I hope that goes both ways. Homunq (࿓) 10:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support The move to Electoral Systems was positive, but given the size and diversity of the article, more needs to be done, as discussed before the move was done. Thank you for doing yet more research and clarifying the way the terms are used in reliable sources, which matches the way they're used in my experience in the standards-setting groups like . EAC/NIST Working group on Voting Methods Models and the League of Women Voters ★NealMcB★ (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned in the section above, I'm currently in the middle of a complete suggested rewrite of the article that will cut down its size and make it readable to people without an academic-level understanding of the subject (you can see it here; comments are more than welcome). There does need to be a split, but this is definitely not the way to do it. Number 57 19:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That looks great, @Number 57:; pretty much exactly the kind of thing I'd envisioned for this article. However, it does leave out the more theoretical stuff pretty much entirely; I think that stuff needs a home. Homunq (࿓) 19:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'theoretical stuff'? Number 57 19:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Look at the things that are in the current article but not in your version. If you want, you can ignore any statements, and simply look at links. Many of them, probably a majority, have to do with social choice theory. That stuff.

It doesn't seem controversial to me that if you're removing significant material, and there's one or more WP:COMMONNAMEs that would unite the material you're removing, creating an article by one of those names is in order. Homunq (࿓) 21:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is my feedback about Number57's "rewrite" (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Number_57/Electoral_system): The section "Evaluating electoral systems using criteria" needs to be moved to a comparison article. The rewrite excludes it. This comparison info should be moved to its own page before revising this page. As for other changes, it's difficult to evaluate the rewrite because, unlike normal Wikipedia edits, the changes are being made all at once instead of a piece at a time. If that new article is used, I suggest replacing one section at a time so that we can more easily digest what has been changed. Otherwise it would be too easy to lose valuable content that has been carefully developed here using normal Wikipedia editing conventions. VoteFair (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The rewrite is nowhere near complete yet; it is going to have section on Evaluation (currently the heading is there but I haven't written the section) with a brief summary and then a split to a separate article as suggested in the section above. Number 57 10:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your rewrite is not complete. I think you're doing a good job. But there's no question that the focus of your rewritten article is more on, well, electoral systems — that is, the systems actually used for political elections — than the current article, which has more about the abstract things which are studied by social choice theory. Changing it like that is a good idea! The article is now called "electoral systems", so that's the right focus for it! But in order to focus on certain things more, you're focusing on other things less, and those other things need a new home, an article which focuses on them directly. As far as I can tell, there is a consensus that the correct name for that new article is either "voting method" or "voting rule".

You and BrownHairedGirl keep telling me to drop the stick, but it would appear that you are actually the ones in the minority here. One way or another, we need to resolve this issue, and the same people repeating the same arguments is not going to do that.

Would you like to post an RfC? Would you like me to? If not, do you have another plan you think will resolve this? Homunq (࿓) 13:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you give a bullet point list of the topics you foresee being summarised in this 'other' article (preferably in the form of links to the subjects being discussed) because it's still not entirely clear to me what you want to do despite several attempts to explain it. Given that this is still not clear, I also don't see how it's possible for there to have been consensus for it (I certainly can't see any)... Why not just expand social choice theory (which is a very short article), since this seems to be the main target from what I can work out so far.

Part of the reason I'm telling you to drop the stick, at least for now, is that you seem rather too obsessed with this – you haven't done a single thing on Wikipedia except this debate since late February, which doesn't look very healthy. Number 57 13:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not true; I've made a few incidental edits to other things in that time. You're generally right, though, that this has been the large majority of my Wikipedia-related attention. Don't see what's wrong with that. I care about getting this terminology clear, and wikipedia is an important part of establishing that. And anyway, we judge the edits, not the motives. This is not a single-purpose account; I've been involved with getting at least 4 articles in varied topic areas to featured status, including this one (though this one was when FA criteria were weaker).

What would go in this other article: theorems like Arrow's impossibility theorem, Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, Sen's theorem; voting system criteria; strategic voting; Duverger's law; a bit of game theory such as Strong Nash equilibrium; the Condorcet/Borda debate; ranked versus rated ballots, and the respective assumptions and implications... Homunq (࿓) 14:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

So again: @Number 57:, do you want to start an RfC? Want me to? Or do you have another idea? Homunq (࿓) 00:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind giving me till the end of the weekend to finalise a proposed draft and then we can see what's missing? Number 57 09:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. As I said, I think you're doing a good job. Homunq (࿓) 11:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Number57 asks: "Can you give a bullet point list of the topics you foresee being summarised in this 'other' article"? Look in the upper right box where it says "Plurality/majoritarian" and "Plurality" and "Preferential/ranked/ordinal methods" and "Cardinal/graded/rated methods" and "Proportional representation" and "Mixed Member" etc. These topics need a summary/introduction article. Previously that need was served by parts of this "Electoral system" article. The edits being discussed here will kick out that summary/introduction. That info, which Homunq calls "voting method" or "voting rule," and which I would call "electoral method" or "voting method," needs a new home. VoteFair (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about this claim; the article I'm working up covers almost all these and I thought the should have made this quite clear ("Plurality systems", "Majoritarian systems", "Proportional systems" and "Mixed systems"; plurality and majoritarian ranked voting methods are also included under the appropriate headings). Number 57 09:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The only majoritarian systems I can think of are the U.S. Electoral College and Roberts Rules of Order. What you are currently categorizing as "majoritarian" actually belong in a section I would call "Ranked-ballot systems" (or "Ranked-choice systems" if the FairVote folks had not co-opted that name). You are missing the following sections: "Runoff and Primary systems" and "Approval systems". Even if approval voting is not currently used in any governmental elections, it has been used in U.S. cities in the past. Advocates of "score voting" would want a mention of that method, but I don't know how best to handle that case. VoteFair (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What you are referring to as majoritarian systems are not what the common meaning the term refers to, which is a system in which a candidate has to get a majority of the vote, either in two rounds or by ranked voting.(see definitions e.g. here or here). Primary elections is a good call though and I will add approval and range/score voting too. Runoff voting is already covered in the majoritarian systems section. Number 57 17:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Although I don't like that definition of "majoritarian system," I see your point, yet the distinction I'm referring to is not conveyed by your words "Majoritarian voting is a system in which candidates have to receive a majority of the votes to be elected." I'd suggest something more like "... in which the winning candidate must receive a majority of the votes or else rules are followed to identify which candidate is most likely to receive majority support if the voters' secondary preferences are considered." This issue is important because a candidate can win an IRV (instant-runoff voting) election even though a majority of voters prefer a different winner.

I'd suggest that within the "majoritarian system" section you include these or equivalent sub-headings: "ranked voting" and "runoff voting". Both of these are VERY important concepts, and right now they are hidden under what I believe is a misleading term.

Within the "majoritarian" category I'd suggest a third category that covers the U.S. Electoral College -- where there is no legally specified process for deciding which candidates to abandon, and where the rounds of voting (in person) continue until a majority is reached. I think it's worth mentioning that this is the approach that is specified in Roberts Rules of Order. And personally I'd include a mention that this approach is sometimes needed because the candidate with the fewest single-choice votes is not necessarily the least popular.

When you cover primary elections please be sure to convey the fact that they are used to avoid vote splitting. And it's worth clarifying that this effect increases the likelihood of winning for a popular political party that offers just one candidate in an election where other political parties offer multiple candidates.

Thank you for the work you're putting into these edits. Aside from what I'm criticizing, I like what you are creating. VoteFair (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have near enough completed a proposed draft at User:Number 57/Electoral system. I think I have covered pretty much everything that is linked on the current article, but have focused it more on electoral systems. Most of the article is a rewrite from scratch, although the history section is an edited version of the existing one (largely to cut out parts that I didn't feel were addressing the historical development of electoral systems but more about the study of systems). I still feel this section needs some work as it is very Anglocentric, particularly when discussing modern electoral reform (there is a good basis for getting material that would give us a less systematically biased approach in Category:Electoral reform referendums). There is also far less on comparing systems, but as discussed above, there seems to be general agreement that the text currently under the heading Evaluating electoral systems using criteria should be split out, and I think that article would be better titled as Comparison of electoral systems.

In reference to VoteFair's specific comments above, I have tried to incorporate all the changes they have suggested, with the exception of adding ranked voting and runoff voting subheadings under the majoritarian section – this was because I am concerned it could make readers think that ranked voting only takes place in majoritarian systems. Anyway, thoughts please. Number 57 14:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is 95% of the way there to what this article should be, and it is better-focused on the subject matter of "electoral systems". I also think it leaves a gap in terms of the subject matter of "voting methods" (or similar title) which would be a natural home for the comparison material and more theoretical discussion. I think that the current article at voting methods is a good article, but is at the wrong title; perhaps "voting modalities"? (That's just an off-the-cuff idea for the title of that article; I'm sure that with discussion we could do better).

If I really were trying to wikilawyer this to death, I would of course be taking a different tack. I realize that once I "admit" that @Number 57:'s version is better for this article, I have no "leverage" to force another article to be created, and the comparison stuff could in principle just be put in a comparison-specific article. But I am out to improve the 'pedia, and I think #57's done a good job.

Note that if we were to split things as I envision, some of the methods that are not actually used in political elections would probably be removed from this article, even though I respect #57's good faith in including them in the draft. Homunq (࿓) 23:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. For love of all that is holy (or unholy, if you aren't into holiness), Homunq ... please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please DROP THE STICK.
  This attempt to make an end run around the RM discussion is feels like about your 500th attempt to do so. I get that you still prefer that route, but please respect the consensus decision. It is a very long time since I seen such a severe and recurring case WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have already warned Homunq that is getting close to a trip to one of the places that offers enforcement, and if there is any recurrence I will seek sanctions without further warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I have repeatedly said that I will drop this if told to do so by neutral parties. Frankly, neither one of us believes that the other party here is being rational; it looks likely that third parties will be necessary. (Note that though I disagree with Number 57 on some points, I think that on the whole they have conducted themself well; the preceding sentence applies only to BHG.)

This discussion does not directly relate to this article, so I am taking it to BHG's talk page. Number 57, I will ping you from there. Any other concerned parties, you can also check it out there. Homunq (࿓) 13:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request relating to this article.

This message is to let people know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion relating to this article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Homunq (࿓) 11:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"Hidden" draft version of replacement article is being written

For those who don't know, user Number_57 is creating a replacement for this current article. It is posted at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Number_57/Electoral_system

I'm adding a new heading on this talk page to call attention to what otherwise is going on in the background -- because I'm sure other election-method experts who have not followed this "talk" page will want to make lots of corrections to that version.

I suspect that other election-method experts will agree with Homunq that some important information may be getting removed. Please, let's do this in public, with input from more than just the four of us communicating on this talk page.

Suggestion: To make it easier to see what's getting lost -- if anything -- can we first move the "comparison" info to a new article (before we switch to a new version)? We seem to agree on that change, and that is one of the most important -- and carefully crafted by many people -- portions of this article. Let's separate it from this major rewrite, before it gets mangled during edits of this article.

I also see some sentence-level fixes that are needed in the draft version, but I'm reluctant to spend time describing those here because they are easier to fix using the standard Wikipedia approach -- namely by editing the actual article.

The one high-level change (to the draft version) that I recommend is to put the history section AFTER the section "Types of electoral systems." The short intro DOES NOT CLARIFY EXACTLY what the article covers, especially to those of us who understand the vast landscape of election systems and voting methods. From the perspective of a beginner, the subject itself currently follows the history section, but the history of something only becomes of interest after someone learns at least a few things about the subject. VoteFair (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have split the comparison section to Comparison of electoral systems. The only changes I have made are a few tweaks to the opening sentences to make it appropriate for the start of an article – nothing has been removed or lost.

I have come round to agreeing with you about the location of the history section, so I have moved that. Also, please feel free to make any corrections to the spelling/grammar of the draft article. Are there any other suggested improvements or information that is missing? Number 57 15:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for splitting off the comparison info. After waiting for a day or two (to allow watchers to see these as separate changes) I suggest that you next insert your new history section into this article. That should be less controversial, and allows us to see the specific differences. As a future change I think we should create an article that covers the "majoritarian" methods in more detail. VoteFair (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Number 57 for their hard work on this. The new draft and split off comparison bits look good. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Number_57, you ask for other corrections. Some of what you have in the "other systems" section belongs in earlier sections. In particular, most or all ranked methods are "majoritarian" methods. And you have a mention of proportional representation that belongs in the PR section. In your mind you might be thinking that these methods are not yet used in governments, but at least some of them are used by non-government organizations to elect officers, so they are "electoral systems." Also I think that approval voting has been used in governmental elections in the U.S., so that method -- possibly in conjunction with "range" voting -- deserves its own section. These changes should eliminate the need for an "other systems" section. Regarding your history section, please restore mention of the Ontario referendum, and ensure that other important history facts are not being lost. Thanks! VoteFair (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

With regards to the "other systems", would it be better named "proposed systems", stating that these systems are proposed and that whilst some have been adopted by certain organisations, none have been used to elect public officials? If not, I can merge them into the other sections as you suggest.

With regards to the Ontario referendum, the reason I took it out is because the section is heavily biased towards the Anglosphere, particularly North America. As I stated in the section above, there are numerous examples of other electoral reform referendums in non-Anglosphere countries, and I think one of them should be used instead – do you have any preference? Having had a quick look, some of them show reform going in the other way (i.e. away from proportional systems), so I think this should be reflected. Number 57 12:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about "elections" and elections include voting by political-party members to nominate a candidate (for public office), and include elections by shareholders of corporate board members, and include elections of "non-public" officers in a small organization, and more .... The Wikipedia article titled "elections" states that they only apply to electing to "public office," and your intro implies that your version only applies to elections to "public office," but for the purpose of this "electoral systems" article there is no clear dividing line between these different kinds of elections (as conveyed by political-party members voting to nominate a candidate for public office, inasmuch as such voting does use "other" kinds of vote-counting methods). So, I suggest that in your intro you clarify that the article is especially -- but not exclusively -- about electing to public office, and that you mention such other kinds of elections. With this change you can rename the "other" section to something like "elections to non-public office" to cover the "non-public" elections. I'm not sure if yet another section needs to be added to cover voting methods used to nominate candidates for public office; hopefully not because figuring out which voting methods are used (and where) would become difficult to keep up-to-date.

Regarding reform, I suggest that you insert a "main article" link that clarifies that you are just summarizing content in the fuller article. As I recall there are several places in your rewrite where this kind of link is needed. That would resolve the issue of not including the Ontario referendum. Also, somewhere you should include the category link to electoral reform referendums, which I had not previously encountered.

Thank you for your great work on this ambitious rewrite! VoteFair (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have reworded the intro to make it clear that electoral systems cover elections in politics, business and other organisations. I have also renamed the "Other" section "Systems used outside of politics" and taken the couple of systems that were proposed or used in the past to the other sections. I've also added the main article link in the history section. I don't believe Wikipedia guidelines allow a link to a category in prose, but I have made reference to many other referendums in the section. Diff here. If there are no serious objections, I'll take forward your suggestion of copying across the new history section to this article tomorrow. Cheers, Number 57 20:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, great work. I do see the need for some wording refinements, but I'll wait for your draft content to appear here before making those edits. I look forward to seeing the "diff" on the history section. VoteFair (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've done it (diff). Number 57 19:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl has threatened to "seek sanctions" against me "without further warning", and has refused to engage with my attempts to find a mutually-acceptable forum or person for mediating our disagreement. I believe that I can help find, and join in, a consensus on this article and related sub-articles, but in view of this clear-cut WP:INTIMIDATION from BrownHairedGirl, I'm going to wait until the dispute resolution process moves along somewhat. Generally speaking, I like what Number 57 is doing with this article, but I think that the "comparison" article should be renamed to something like "voting method" and expanded slightly accordingly. But for the moment I won't be actively participating here. I trust others to do a good job in the mean time. Homunq (࿓) 16:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(Added later) BrownHairedGirl has made it clear that she has nothing to discuss with me, and no interest in mediation; and that she will continue to threaten me with ANI. Though to me this behavior is clearly in violation of WP:THREATEN, I still feel she could be acting in good faith, and so I won't entirely discount her criticisms; as a statistician, I know that even a biased estimator can carry useful information. But I won't base my actions on threats.

So if any other editors come to feel that I am clearly being counterproductive by discussing issues that I feel were not resolved by the RM, I will respect that. But as long as that doesn't happen, I think it's a valid point of discussion, and I won't hold back on BHG's account. For now, the most useful thing to do is to get this article in the best shape, so that's what I'll be doing. But I do expect to come back to this. Homunq (࿓) 22:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wise choice. I agree that renaming the "comparison" article makes sense, but it's not something that needs to happen right now. The revised "voting system" page, assuming it is not rejected by others, will help this article naming issue (I think). After these changes I think it will make sense to add a "majoritarian voting (methods)" article, and perhaps other articles that focus on what we call "voting methods" or "election methods." I don't have time to get involved in conflict distractions beyond what I posted on the dispute page; yet if needed I can answer specific questions posed by mediators. VoteFair (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't get the suggestion to rename the comparison article "voting method". The contents of the article are different ways of comparing electoral systems. However, I do agree that a detailed article on majoriritarian systems is perhaps a good idea, as perhaps might be one that covers seat assignment methods like D'Hondt, Sainte-Laguë etc; currently they are split between articles on largest remainder and highest average, but I think having one in one place would be good. Number 57 19:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, in my opinion, a better name for the "comparison" article would be "Comparison of vote-counting methods," but the name "vote-counting method(s)" is not (as far as I know) used in academic articles. This brings up the complication that academic articles refer to vote-counting methods by name, and by mathematical references, without explicitly naming the ballot type. Yet from the perspective of a novice the separation of ballot type and counting method provides useful clarity. The reason for disliking the word "system" is that it is defined (in Wikipedia!) as "a set of interacting or interdependent component parts forming a complex or intricate whole," and the vote-counting method is just one piece of that whole. VoteFair (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bravo to Number_57 for cleaning up the "history" section of this article! Thanks! I don't (yet) see anything worth correcting. VoteFair (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Arrow's theorem and Duverger's law were dropped. I realize that these are dealt with elsewhere in the article, but they are also significant signposts in terms of historical context, at least from a theoretical point of view. (Of course, as you all know, I would be fine with this article having a non-theoretical bent, as long as there's another article to be a home for the theoretical stuff. I think that other article could reasonably have the current "comparison" article as its largest subsection.) Homunq (࿓) 22:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I dropped them because I don't think they're particularly appropriate in the history section, which is about the development of systems themselves. The theoretical stuff already has a home – Social choice theory. Number 57 23:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

By that logic, we wouldn't need to discuss entomology in the insect article. The fact is, Arrow's impossibility theorem has influenced the development of new voting rules, and would clearly be appropriate in the history section of such an article. I'm less confident that it's influenced the history of electoral systems - that is, voting rules as actually used in political elections, along with the rules for when such elections take place and who can participate in what roles. So I understand your logic in cutting it, but the loss strengthens the case for a theoretical article under another another name. Homunq (࿓) 13:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for not having more time to contribute to a major overhaul of the article. Here are some comments and questions I hope are helpful:
(1) Encapsulation of "Comparison of Systems"
Appears largely successful because clear references are made and I think makes the subject more approachable, while allowing proper focus and attention in a dedicated article.
(2) Top-level Organization of Article
57's rewrite uses the Encyclopedia Britannica taxonomy of "Plurality" "Majoritarian" "Proportional". I believe this is generally useful (albeit in some cases an over-simplification). I wonder if we can make it clearer the role of constituencies (divisions within the electorate), their size and [|number of members in each]- i.e. the fundamental tradeoff between local and proportional representation (that seems to be the top level question, to me). I wonder if we can find a source that provides a diagram that illustrates this trade-off.
Similarly we might add clarifying text in certain sections, e.g. for "majoritarian legislative systems" the "polity/electorate is divided into single-member districts".
(3) Definition of terms, components of an electoral system
I notice the new article proceeds without defining ballot (vote), electorate, constituency, or the scope of the representative body in question. Would descriptions or at least linking to the basic components involved in the subject matter help improve the article? (see also #4 below)
(4) Definition of electoral system
In new article "An electoral system is the system that determines how elections and referendums take place and how their results are arrived at." Does this mean whether elections are conducted online or in polling places, does it mean whether voters use paper or electronic ballots? Do we need to be more specific than "take place"? Here is a fairly reasonable definition: [rules that translate citizens votes into political offices] Does it require an "electorate", a region, a polling i.e. voting mechanism, a representative body of a certain size?
(5) Borda Under Plurality?
Borda and ranking is mentioned under the Plurality voting section. Is that correct?
(6) Content of "Comparison of Electoral Systems"
If the primary types of systems are "plurality" "majoritarian" and "proportional" then isn't the first level of comparison proportional vs local representation - i.e. advantages and disadvantages? Do the voting criteria apply to proportional systems, or do we need to narrow the focus of the comparison table?
Filingpro (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

See the "2003 report" I linked above for a useful RS definition of "electoral system". (eta: 2003 REPORT) Homunq (࿓) 17:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Filingpro. I am grateful that someone else is entering this discussion.

I agree with Homunq that Arrow's impossibility theorem should be mentioned (although not explained) in the history section. It provides mathematical proof of the general observation that different single-winner vote-counting methods have both advantages and disadvantages, without a clear "best" vote-counting method being easy to identify. Interestingly this ties in with the recent development in Canada where there is plenty of support for abandoning first-past-the-post, but no agreement as to what to replace it with.

Number_57, please indicate when you have integrated Filingpro's feedback and I'll look at the draft again. And to repeat, bravo to you for taking on this ambitious rewriting task.

I suggest that the next section to consider moving from the draft to this actual article is the "comparison" section (which refers to the full comparison article). However, currently the draft version excludes some important concepts that are now in the current version. After those omissions are remedied I think it will be ready to move into the main article -- although it's likely that a few edits (including inserting at least one paragraph break) will be needed.

One more thing: I looked at the "voting" article and I see that the interactions between it and this article will require some fixing, although the specifics depend on what this article ends up covering. VoteFair (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To respond to Filingpro's comments one-by-one (where a response is needed)

2) I wonder whether the role of constituencies is something better placed in the comparison article? I have made a note that majoritarian systems are primarily used in single-member constituencies (there are a small number of examples of its use in multi-member constituencies).

3) I have linked ballot and electorate. Constituency was already linked to.

5) As far as I'm aware, yes. Candidates don't have to get a majority to be elected.

6) This is probably now a discussion to take place at Talk:Comparison of electoral systems.

For the other comments:

• Happy to include Arrow's impossibility theorem in the history section if someone can produce a reference to show how it has influenced the development/history of sections.
• The comparison section in the draft is exactly the same as already in the article; this was done when the article was split off.

If people are happy, it might be better for me to just move my draft into this article, and people can work on it as they see fit? Number 57 18:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now copied across the rest of the draft article. Number 57 18:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Starting a draft of Voting rule.

I'm starting a draft here: User:Homunq/voting_rule. So far, I've only done the intro section. I think an article like this one could encompass the "comparison" material and provide a healthy counterpoint to Number 57's good work on making this article more practical.Homunq (࿓) 17:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that, even though this is in my own userspace, I'd welcome collaborative edits (including BRD). Number 57: do you feel the same about your draft? (I wouldn't touch the terminology issue, because I think that it's healthier to lay out my vision cleanly in my draft before working towards a "messier" compromise; but there are various things that have nothing to do with that). Homunq (࿓) 17:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate it's in the very early stages, but it seems to be a duplicate of this article, just organised in a different way and written in a more academic language. Number 57 18:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

One obvious way that it wouldn't be a duplicate is that the comparison material would fit there. As for the rest, better to keep working than to argue here. Homunq (࿓) 15:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

But we already have an article on the comparison material: Comparison of electoral systems... Number 57 15:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

But that's a horrible title for that article. Look at the citations there: AFAICT, not one of them uses "electoral system", while both "election rule" and "voting method" are common; reflecting the fact that when discussing these things at this level, they are not generally called "electoral systems". So moving that material to one of those titles would kill two birds with one stone. (As for the other bird, give me time to flesh out the article; I hope the distinction from this one will be clear.) Homunq (࿓) 17:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We have decided that the best name for electoral systems is electoral systems, hence why the article is here. Subsidiary articles – such as the comparisons one – have to follow the same title. Your comments make it look as if you are back to attempting to engineer a way to avoid the outcome of the aforementioned RM. Given the threat of sanctions against you from BrownHairedGirl, I would seriously reconsider going down this route. Number 57 18:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The best name for electoral systems is "electoral systems". That is something I agree with. The scope of electoral systems is the scope of your article; I also agree with that. That is: "the system that determines how elections and referendums take place and how their results are arrived at.... In addition to the specific method of electing candidates, electoral systems are also characterised by their wider rules and regulations, which are usually set out in a country's constitution or electoral law." (emphasis added) Yet these wider rules and regulations are not at all at issue in the comparison article, suggesting that the things being compared are not precisely electoral systems. Or, as your own article puts it, "The study of formally defined voting methods is called social choice theory or voting theory, a subfield of political science, economics, or mathematics" (emphasis added).

meta-discussion of inter-editor issues

As for BrownHairedGirl's allegations and threats: she is, to some degree, right that I was too insistent in the RM. I'm sorry about that. Analyzing exactly to what degree she is right would be a waste of time; her mind is made up, and the remedy when I'm accused of posting walls of text is not another wall of text arguing that the earlier ones had doors and windows and were part of a useful building.

But from then on, her patience with me seemed utterly exhausted; she seem to feel (in good faith) that any consideration of splitting the article to another name is no more than an end run around the RM resolution. As I've said many times now, I disagree with her on this; I've cited the RM closer's statements and the number of editors who seem to support my views.

Since we disagree, and since neither of us are likely to be convinced by the other, the only way this will get resolved is if a neutral third party is involved. Her taking me to ANI would be one way that could happen; while it's obviously not something I want, at least it would resolve this issue. While I recognize that there's a chance it would get me sanctioned I honestly believe there's also a significant chance that the consensus of neutral admins would be that there's nothing wrong with me (and others) arguing that the comparison article should follow the 2003 REPORT's distinction between "election system" and "method of voting", and that the comparisons there involve the latter not the former.

I recognize and appreciate that you've been patient with me in a way that she hasn't. I have high confidence in your expertise with regards to electoral systems, and in your good-faith desire to improve this 'pedia as it deals with them. I also recognize that, despite your patience, you may share some of BHG's doubts regarding my motives and/or my willingness/ability to compromise or accept defeat when appropriate. (I do know that you feel I am too fixated on this article, but I don't care about that; I've pretty much always engaged with WP by focusing on one article at a time, and I think I've been a useful contributor in that mode.)

But I hope you also recognize that I have some useful, relevant expertise here; that I'm also here to improve the 'pedia; and that, if a bit stubborn, I'm not entirely closed-minded. If you believe or come to believe, as it seems clear BHG already does, that this there is absolutely no possible productive end to discussing this matter further (and that includes, no way that the wording of this article here could be improved regarding this distinction), then please say so; I won't necessarily agree with you, but I will shut up about this unless it's re-raised by somebody else.

For now, though, I don't consider this matter closed, and the fact that BHG does doesn't cow me.

Homunq (࿓) 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we create a redirect from "voting rule" to the comparison article. That would make it easier for users to find the vote-counting info. I looked at Homunq's new article and although I recognize the intent, much of the content can be added to the comparison article. Also, Homunq, remember that these English-language articles are translated into other languages, and subtle naming issues do not translate well (i.e. some other languages probably lack words for many of the voting concepts that are carefully named in English), and that could lead to the two related articles needing the same name in another language. There continue to be lots of refinements -- not related to naming issues -- needed in this and other voting-related articles, and that's what I prefer to focus on. In short, to Homung, I suggest that you do not add your new article, and instead you focus on refining the comparison article (and continuing to help refine this article), even though the comparison article currently has the "wrong" name. VoteFair (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds entirely reasonable. Last time I tried to do that, BHG reverted my work wholesale, along with some unrelated work by NealMcB and others, because she felt I was trying to subvert the RM. That's why I started a DRM, because that kind of thing is not healthy for the article.

Anyway, I think it's time for #57 to put his draft live. I think the organizational structure of the current article is better in some ways than that draft, but that nevertheless the draft is an overall improvement; I'd rather try to edit the good parts of the current thing into the draft, than vice versa. Once the draft is there, I'll do various edits. I hope that BHG will not see the need for wholesale reversion. Homunq (࿓) 20:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

...This is hard. I'd like to improve the "comparison" article so that its title matches its scope. But I honestly can't do that without facing the "electoral system"/"election rule" issue head-on. As I see it, an "electoral system" includes an "election rule", as well as rules about voter eligibility, candidate eligibility (including related rules for parties), and election timing (including multi-round processes). The comparison article only deals with comparing election rules. So either the scope could be expanded to compare the other things, or the title could be narrowed to cover the existing scope. I realize that I sound like a broken record here, but it's hard for me to see how to clarify things if I'm not allowed to draw certain distinctions. Homunq (࿓) 20:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

So edit the article to expand its scope and stop obsessing about the titles! Number 57 20:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I gave it a start. I think it's reasonable to keep the discussion here for now, but we could move to the talk page there. Either way, let me know if you think I'm on the right track. Homunq (࿓) 01:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Dividing between single- and multi-winner systems

I made an edit to (re-)divide the systems between single- and multi-winner; Number 57 reverted it, suggesting it needed discussion on talk. So, let's discuss.

Generally, I think that it's productive if there's a certain amount of give and take on the project page. If somebody makes a good-faith edit that you find problematic, instead of reverting it wholesale, it works well if you respond with a compromise edit. That way, the page itself is iteratively improved, and we don't have to spend so many pixels discussing things here on talk. That's certainly the spirit in which I agreed that Number 57's wholesale rewrite should go live relatively early, rather than waiting until we'd gotten consensus on its every aspect. Homunq (࿓) 22:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Number 57 reverted two separate edits I'd made: one to the intro, and the other to the types. Both of my edits included some initial RS support, and at least the type edit was arguably a return towards the pre-rewrite version (that is, arguably already the R stage of BRD) Homunq (࿓) 22:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I will reply in more depth tomorrow, but as a starting point, it's illogical to separate systems into single and multi winner as some systems are used for both types of elections. There are several other concerns I had with those edits and I will detail them tomorrow (am on my phone at the moment). Number 57 23:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That's how the article was organized prior to your rewrite. It does reflect a different focus than the current article. This has to do with the naming issue. As you revert like this, you're making me more and more convinced that there really are two separate but related topics — electoral systems used by actual countries, and abstract election rules/methods/mechanisms/algorithms. For instance, the Electoral system of Australia uses two separate voting methods and mandatory voting (an important part of the system, but not part of either method), while ensemble learning can involve various voting methods but not electoral systems.

Number 57, I strongly respect your expertise regarding electoral systems; but I think that you're being a bit proprietary in ignoring the majority opinions here regarding the distinct concerns around voting methods. Homunq (࿓) 03:00, 18 April 20-17 (UTC)

As I've said before, I am not convinced there is any need for a separate article and I still do not fully understand exactly what this separate article is supposed to contain. If you can actually write this separate article in draft format, it will allow others to see what you are aiming for. However, what you've produced at User:Homunq/voting rule to date just seems to be covering the same information as in this article, just written in a different way. Number 57 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I converted the word "system" to a link to its Wikipedia definition because the definition clarifies that any "system" has many "components." Sometimes those components overlap, yet still we must subdivide the article into sections. The conflict between Number57 and Homunq seems to be at the very beginning of the article, with different views about what the "components" of electoral systems are.

To Number57: Do you understand why the current introduction does not clarify this concept about components? (More about this is below.)

To Homunq: Can you, for now, focus on improving the article without trying to split off your content into a different article? Yes, eventually I too would like to see better terminology, but I think we can still enhance this article, and the comparison article, without introducing extra definitions.

My suggestion for clarifying election-system components is to enumerate some kinds of components. For example, rounds of voting (which include primary elections and runoff elections and single-round methods) is one component of an electoral system. The balloting method -- electronic, paper and pen, punched cards, voting machines, mail-in ballots (which is a component within paper and pen ballots), etc. -- is another component. And there are yet other components that relate to who can and cannot vote, and laws about campaign contributions to candidates, etc., etc.

I view the distinction between single-winner and proportional/multi-winner elections as a sub-category within the larger category of vote-counting methods, yet I can see there are other ways to view this level of categorization. Nevertheless this vote-counting is a general component, so what do you/Number57 propose calling it? And, as Homunq suggests, how do we deal with the clear difference that single-winner vote-counting methods have lots of mathematical criteria for assessing them, while proportional methods lack such mathematical rigor.

BTW, part of the naming problem is that academic articles focus on the names of specific vote-counting methods without naming the general category in election/political terms (only in mathematical terms, which confuse non-mathematical readers). VoteFair (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to focus on improving this article. But the last three or four significant changes I've made have been reverted wholesale. Meanwhile, here on talk, I'm accused of walls of text. Seems like a catch 22 to me. Homunq (࿓) 11:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason I reverted your second set of changes was that it completely changed the article's format. A change as major as that needs proper discussion. Like what I did before, I suggest any potential changes are produced in draft format first for consideration.

Going back to VoteFair's suggestion, I would be happy to include some details about components in the lead – perhaps extending an existing sentence to read:

Countries' electoral systems are usually defined by their constitution or electoral laws, with the holding of elections organised by election commissions. Systems have several components, including the franchise, rules on election campaigns, the voting method and the manner in which the result is calculated based on the number of votes.

Number 57 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Several responses:

1. I think the overall idea of talking about components is good, and I like the organization (if not the terminology) in your proposal.
2. I think your use of the term "voting method" both above and in the article you wrote is highly nonstandard. I can easily find sources using "voting system" for that concept, and I think that a term like "voting format" or "voting modality" would be pretty self-explanatory. But "method" is most widely used for the thing you've called "the manner in which the result is calculated based on the number of votes.".
3. On a related note, as you know, I (and I suspect others) think we should have a clear term to use for "the manner in which the result is calculated based on the number of votes.". Given ngrams, I think that "voting rule" may be the best option there (though I'd be OK with any of the terms compared in that link).

As to the reorganizing edit you reverted:

1. It did not "completely change the article's format". It merely added two umbrella terms to group the first several types.
2. It was a very partial move back towards the organization from before your rewrite; so in that sense, it was already the second step of BRD.

Homunq (࿓) 20:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"Voting method" describes what that article currently covers; I would not expect to find those contents in an article called "voting system" nor would I expect to find your desired contents at voting method. I am open to other ideas, but I haven't managed to find anything that I am really happy with. Number 57 20:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Our metric should be what RSs use, not what you're happy with. Do you find that RSs typically mean what you do when they say "voting method"?

For your "voting method", I've suggested "voting format" or "voting modality". If you really preferred it, I'd even be OK with "voting mechanism" (even though in my experience that is used by RSs to mean varied things, so it's not my favorite).

For my "voting method", I've suggested many options: voting method,voting rule,electoral method,election method,voting algorithm,electoral algorithm,election algorithm,election mechanism,social choice function.

ps. You haven't responded regarding the reorganization edit and your revert. Homunq (࿓) 20:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly electoral method?

I didn't really have much to say about the revert beyond what I said above; trying to split it into single-winner and multi-winner systems simply doesn't work because some systems are used in both. I'm not really sure BRD is an issue as I thought it had been agreed to implement the new layout. Number 57 21:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, how about this:

An electoral system is the system that determines how elections and referendums take place and how their results are determined. Political election systems are organized by governments. Non-political elections can occur in business, non-profit organisations and informal organisations.

The component parts of an election system typically include rules about: when an election occurs, who can vote (franchise), how ballots are marked and cast (voting method), how the ballots are counted (electoral rule??? or vote-counting rule???), and limits on election-campaign funding and behaviour. A single election system can include multiple rounds of voting, such as a primary election before the general election, or a runoff election that follows the general election if no candidate receives a majority of votes. In some cases, such as U.S. presidential elections, citizens elect electors who then cast ballots that determine who wins.

Governmental election systems are defined by electoral laws and possibly the government's constitution, and such elections are organized by election commissions. Election systems used in business and other organisations make use of more varied kinds of ballots and ballot-counting methods.

Some election systems elect a single winner to a single position such as: prime minister, president, secretary, treasurer, governor, or mayor. Some election systems elect multiple winners to multiple equivalent positions such as: members of parliament, city-council members, or a corporation's board of directors. Some election systems involve interactions between single-winner positions and additional positions in order to meet goals of proportional representation.

The study of formally defined vote-counting methods is called social choice theory or voting theory, and this study can occur within the field of political science, economics, or mathematics. When each voter supplies more than just a single choice, multiple vote-counting methods can be used to determine the winner, and each such method offers advantages and disadvantages, which are typically analyzed using mathematical voting criteria.

I agree with Homunq that the current intro is not OK, yet I also see that his edits were not quite what the article needs. Above I have tried to find a compromise. I too am reluctant to edit the intro in this dramatic fashion because that requires doing lots of linking that I don't have time to do. So, what do folks think about something like what I've written here? VoteFair (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

To #57: Electoral method is OK. If you look at the ngram I linked above, it's not the most common term today, but it is the oldest, which is something I guess. On the other hand, I still think that your "voting method" is wrong, and that that article should move to something like "voting format" or even "voting technology". (Marbles are a technology. Even raising hands to signify agreement is a technology.)

To VoteFair: that definitely needs some work to make the language more encyclopedic, but I still agree it's a step in the right direction. So, here, I'm starting a section below to work on it: Homunq (࿓) 03:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new intro section.

Please edit the below as if it were in article-space:

An electoral system is the set of rules that determines how elections and referendums take place and how their results are determined. Political electoral systems are organized by governments. Non-political elections can occur in business, non-profit organisations and informal organisations.

An electoral system follows rules that govern all aspects of the voting process: when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted (electoral method), limits on campaign spending, and other factors that can affect the outcome. Political electoral systems are defined by electoral laws and/or constitutions, are typically conducted by election commissions, and can use multiple types of elections for different offices.

Some electoral systems elect a single winner to a unique position, such as prime minister, president or governor, while others elect multiple winners, such as members of parliament or boards of directors. Common systems include first-past-the-post, the two-round (runoff) system, proportional representation and ranked or preferential voting. Some electoral systems, such as mixed systems, attempt to combine the benefits of non-proportional and proportional systems.

The study of formally defined electoral methods is called social choice theory or voting theory, and this study can occur within the field of political science, economics, or mathematics, and specifically within the subfields of game theory and mechanism design. Alternatives to first past the post have been proposed to handle elections in which none of the candidates receives a majority of plurality votes, but impossibility proofs such as Arrow's impossibility theorem demonstrate that it is impossible to design a "perfect" electoral method, so academic comparisons of proposed methods typically involve mathematical voting criteria.

Comments on the above

Place for discussion.

I don't think this is an improvement on the current intro. Several issues:

1. It's split into too many short paragraphs and seems to largely be a more long-winded way of saying what is already there, with the exception of the components part.
2. The phrases and "how the ballots are counted" "vote-counting methods" suggests (in my mind at least) the actual method used to count the votes (e.g. here in the UK we count them by hand)
3. I'm also concerned that it starts to drift back into the systematic bias that the article had previously by a focus on elections in English-speaking countries by specifically referencing American elections. Using the phrase "general election" in the way it's mentioned above doesn't really fit its usage in most countries.

I propose we keep the current intro, but just add a sentence or two about the components. Number 57 19:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have worked as a professional writer (specializing in documenting especially complex technology) and I have learned that the subject-matter itself determines whether a paragraph should be long or short. What's important is that each paragraph should be a separate concept, and the existing paragraphs violate this rule. This is what I meant when I said earlier that some paragraph breaks would be needed. (Note that none of "my" paragraphs consist of just a single sentence because I know that some expert writers dislike them.)

Yes, let's please use a universal term for what we in the U.S. call "general elections." What are they called? I'm familiar with Canadian terminology (which has voting at nominating conventions instead of primary elections), but I'm not familiar with (for example) what a "main" election is called when runoff elections are involved.

Please feel free to change the reference about the U.S. electoral college to a reference about MPs (members of parliament) electing a prime minister, or some other example of elected people voting in another round of voting for the next-higher level. I agree that making the article less U.S. centric is desirable.

No, the current version of the introduction is not acceptable. Topic-wise, it jumps around in odd ways, and totally misses clarifying the most important concept, which are the "components" (of any system).

I agree that the name for what I've called vote-counting is a challenging issue, and I can see that this term can is ambiguous. Inasmuch as there is already a redirect named "electoral rule" we could use this term in this article and expand that "redirect" into an actual article that clarifies the rules about making the transition from ballots to winner(s). I'm open to other alternative ways to refer to this concept, which I thought was clear by including lots of question marks. VoteFair (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the above. I still think it needs further work but it is a good start and we should keep going. #57, if you have concerns: edit, don't just criticize. Homunq (࿓) 18:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've also made some changes. Number 57 19:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've done edits that fix grammar, clarity, and sentence-flow issues. Let's move it to the main article! Thanks to both Number57 and Homunq for your willingness to work toward an intro that clarifies what electoral systems really are. VoteFair (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

ref for last sentence: http://www.lse.ac.uk/website-archive/newsAndMedia/newsArchives/2011/04/VotingSystems.aspx Homunq (࿓) 12:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A few more tweaks from me. I think it's undue weight to single out any particular system as being unjust in the introduction. Number 57 12:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's the second-most-common system for legislatures, and also second-most-common for presidents. And I realize you're opposed to anglocentrism, but in English wikipedia, I don't think it's irrelevant that it's the most-common system in anglophone countries. The reliable source I gave absolutely singles it out in the headline, even though it was only one of many methods polled. It was also the only method that was unanimously rejected, so singling it out as the worst is justified. (The source is admittedly anglocentric, but I'd estimate that the experts in attendance for that poll were over 25% non-native English-speakers; and the rejection of plurality was unanimous).

Finally, I think that ending the intro on Arrow's theorem is unduly pessimistic. Impossibility theorems show that no perfect system is possible, but we do not want to leave readers with the impression that this means that voting methods are equally bad. In this sense, some specific comparison with "better" and "worse" is useful; and if we're going to single out any comparison, plurality/FPTP is far and away the obvious one to look at. Homunq (࿓) 13:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The sentence under debate, which I'd put at the end: "Still, most theorists agree that plurality / first past the post — one of the most commonly-used methods — is inferior to many other methods." Homunq (࿓) 13:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

...And I notice you also removed the sentence about multiple voting rounds. I agree that a compound sentence may be more than is needed, but I think we should mention multiple voting rounds somehow. Homunq (࿓) 13:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue is the weight given to criticism – singling out a single electoral system in the introduction doesn't seem appropriate, and also I don't see why it's even necessary? With regards to the multiple rounds, I inserted mention of the two-round system in its place; I don't think a whole separate sentence is needed, particularly as there doesn't seem to be a good way of wording it. I have also changed "members of parliament, legislators" to "members of parliament or local government bodies" as MPs and legislators are the same thing. Number 57 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It is rare that political scientists are unanimous about anything. The fact that, as my reference above shows, those focusing on social choice unanimously reject plurality is absolutely sufficiently notable for the intro here, and not undue weight.

As to multi-rounds, I edited your wording very slightly; overall, I think your solution is good.Homunq (࿓) 15:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I just edited the ending of the last paragraph to make that portion clearer, and I've included another reference for the obvious unfairness of plurality voting. I recommend that we move this intro to the actual article, keeping mind that we can continue to refine this last portion, or anything else that needs further refinement. VoteFair (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: I also just removed the words "or local government bodies" because that sentence was really awkward. VoteFair (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with what we have with the exception of the reference to the unfairness of plurality voting. I really feel it is highly inappropriate for any particular system to be highlighted in the lead in this article, especially when it's cited to an opinion piece. Mentioning it may well be appropriate in the Comparison of electoral systems article, but this is a wide overview article and focusing on one form of election seems completely out of place with the wide view given to the subject in the rest of the introduction. Number 57 18:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

VoteFair: I think your link/reference was too parochial and WP:DATED. I edited that sentence. I agree that it's now ready to go live. #57 or VoteFair, if you'd like to do the honors of putting it in the article?

To #57: got edit conflict with you; I think I resolved it but if not apologies. As to your comment: I feel strongly that it IS appropriate to include the most basic practical consensus of social choice theorists in the intro. I've edited VoteFair's version; can you accept my new version? Homunq (࿓) 18:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate to single out any systems in an introduction to a very broad article, specially one in which comparison of the systems is a very minor part. By all means mention it in the introduction of the comparison article, but it can't be done here without compromising the integrity of the introduction – it just makes it look one-sided. Number 57 18:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Reality is sometimes one-sided. People come to wikipedia to learn about the subject. The fact about theoretical consensus is well-sourced (if you wanted me to come up with more sources, I could, but I doubt that's the issue) and it's of practical import to a majority of the people who will be reading this article (and not only to those who live in major Anglophone countries, although of course it's especially relevant to them.) We should not hold to a false balance, any more than a geography article should avoid taking sides in the round/flat earth "debate". Homunq (࿓) 18:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Even so, there is no need to mention which system is deemed to be better/worse than any other at that point in the article. It makes the article look as if it were written by someone desperate to make that point, rather than being able to wait until the issue is discussed in proper depth and context to do so. Number 57 19:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The context is Arrow's Theorem, that there is no "perfect" system. A naive reader could see that and believe that social choice theory is basically useless, that no system is better or worse than any other. A concrete example of how that is not true is appropriate to the article; and if a concrete example is to be put forth, there is no doubt whatsoever that the consensus against plurality voting is stronger than any other such comparative consensus in the field (as my source shows, and as more sources would further show if that's an issue). Homunq (࿓) 19:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning Arrow's theorem saying there is no perfect system is fine, but then to flag up on particular system as being bad is not. There is a big difference between the two. Number 57 19:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems we disagree, and does not seem likely we will change each other's minds. So now what? In the discussion so far, it's 2 against 1; and both sides believe their side accords better with WP:UNDUE. Perhaps we need to bring in others to comment? Starting with the wikiproject? Homunq (࿓) 19:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've done another edit that is an attempt at a compromise. And please, Homunq, do not assume that you would know how I would "vote" when there is a disagreement. VoteFair (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I said "so far", but even so you're right. Homunq (࿓) 19:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

As to your proposal, I'm not sure what it resolves. It still singles out FPTP (and furthermore, specifically calls out one of its flaws, something I hadn't done), but then it is less clear about the academic consensus against it. So it's weaker from my point of view, without (as far as I can see) being stronger for the kind of "neutrality" that Number 57 wants. Homunq (࿓) 19:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've requested further input at WP:E&R. Number 57 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. For editors who haven't been following all the versions, my latest proposal for the last sentence is: "Most voting theorists agree that certain methods, such as plurality voting / first past the post, are inferior to others; yet impossibility proofs such as Arrow's impossibility theorem demonstrate that it is impossible to design a "perfect" electoral method that always meets all the mathematical voting criteria that voters might expect." Homunq (࿓) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

For further clarification, my latest version, which accommodates the request from Number57, and which I wrote after the latest conflict arose, is: "Alternatives to first past the post have been proposed to handle elections in which none of the candidates receives a majority of plurality votes, but impossibility proofs such as Arrow's impossibility theorem demonstrate that it is impossible to design a "perfect" electoral method, so academic comparisons of proposed methods typically involve mathematical voting criteria." The majority issue is clearly significant because the article categorizes voting methods into "majoritarian" and "non-majoritarian" categories.

Also please note that we are discussing the draft that appears above on this talk page, not the current introduction in the main article. Also note we agree on everything in the draft except the last sentence. I still think we should move at least the other paragraphs and the first sentence of the last paragraph (of the new introduction) to the actual article page -- to prevent confusion with the current article's introduction (which was written entirely by Number57). VoteFair (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the intro, minus the bit under debate. Number 57 11:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The invitation for additional opinions has not yielded any change, so I suggest that Number57 insert Homunq's sentence into the first-past-the-post voting section, and insert the following what-happens-when-no-majority sentence into the end of the introduction:

"Alternatives to marking only a single candidate in each contest have been proposed to handle elections in which none of the candidates receives a majority of plurality (single-mark?) votes, but impossibility proofs such as Arrow's impossibility theorem demonstrate that it is impossible to design a "perfect" electoral method, so academic comparisons of proposed methods typically involve mathematical voting criteria."

I agree with Homunq that his point deserves to be in the article, yet I agree with Number57 that singling out FPTP in the introduction (without also making reference to the unfairness of other methods, such as using single-mark ballots in PR systems) is not encyclopedic. Later, if others express support for moving Homunq's sentence into the introduction, then that move can be done later. In the meantime I'd like to move on, and start working on improving later sections of the article. VoteFair (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)