Comments on the rewrite    I see theres been quite a lot of work on this article lately but there still seems to be a few problems with it Im not an expert in politics so I cant just fix most of it  some of my understanding of the topic may be incorrect  The lead section does not  but probably should  mention that the PPCP is the percentage usually of votes for each of the two preferred partiescandidates after distribution of preferences Defining it as express a  vote after the distribution of preferences is not sufficient because it doesnt explicitly indicate that the PPCP result tells us not just how much the winner won by but also who the major opponent was  Corollary to the above the lead should briefly mention why the PP is important  The lead paragraph as currently worded implies that PP and CP are synonyms  ie it says the PP or CP  and doesnt mention that they are not always the same Yet the cited reference AEC glossary defines them differently We mention the differences later but the lead paragraph should standalone as an accurate summary and not mislead the reader  The article is explicitly about Australian politics we rely heavily on the Australian Electoral Commission for references and the lead paragraph cites the AEC glossary for definitions of the terms Given that we are using AEC definitions I suggest that we should use the same abbreviations as the AEC glossary ie TCPTPP not CPPP  The AEC glossary explicitly defines the TCP as where preferences have been distributed to the likely final two candidates  where I presume likely is still based on available information such as historic voting patterns Based on this definition we should probably note that TCP may vary in some cases during an election count The nature of the TCP as defined by the AEC Glossary is that it is used as an early indicator of results during counting  not just a static result at the end of the count  The article after the lead section distinguishes between PP and CP stating that they are not always the same and even giving examples but doesnt give any indication of how the PP vote is determined when it not the same as the CP This AEC page just says a notional distribution of preferences to find the result of preference flows to the ALP and Coalition candidates  The article notes that opinion polls always produce a a PP  calculated based on preference flows at the preceding election rather than at the time of polling Its probably worth noting why they do this  We could probably remove some of the commentary in the examples  eg the result being uncertain for over a week By  January   The commissioner rejected a request for a recount etc It doesnt add any value to the illustration of the PPCP methodology or why the final PPCP values are important eg for swings  I suspect that History section is too long and could be trimmed Eg the first paragraph seems to be more the history of fullpreference instantrunoff voting rather than PP Possibly the penultimate paragraph could be moved into a separate section about where PP is and is not used Ill probably fix the more trivial of these eg TPP vs PP unless someone explicitly objects Other points need may need some discussion or pointing out my mistakes or addressing by someone who better understands the issue