Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting systems

message: I am really impressed with the Tennessee voting example Rob added on Condorcet's method.  It's brilliant in so many ways, in providing a (visible!) rationale for the different groups of voters to have their preferences, and most importantly in providing different outcomes for different systems.  I would like to transition all the single-winner systems pages away from the Andrea-Brad-Carter-Delilah examples to the Tennesee example.  Are there any objections?
DanKeshet 19:46 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:::I disagree.  I think the Tennessee example draws away from the essential concepts of each voting system.  I think a simple Candidate A, Candidate B, and Candidate C model would better explain each individual voting system.  Reading the Tennessee model for Instant-Runoff Voting I thought had too much tangential content to explain IRV to a newbie. --Leep4life 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Example

message: Slowly, but surely, I feel like this area of wikipedia has started to become very useful.  I believe that it is currently the second-best all-around resource on voting systems on the web, behind the ACE Project, which is quite excellent.  (And, of coure, there are tons of pages on individual systems or criteria that are much better.)  Google searching finds that outside people are starting to link to Voting system as well as Duverger's Law and Condorcet's method, especially on Usenet, but also on the WWW.  
So, I'd like to suggest two quick campaigns to improve the project:
*Images!  I think the :Image:Sample-nz-ballot-small.jpg complements the written explanation very well.  If anybody has pictures of real ballots of different kinds of elections, I think that would be a really great addition.
*A thorough review of 142's contributions. Particularly: disapproval voting,  tolerances versus preferences and the many links to these two in other articles.  I have previously had these pages deleted, because I believed they were incomprehensible, though seeded with facts.  (142 then rewrote them.)  It's mentally grueling to be in an edit war on this alone, so I would feel much better if a few of us got together and either edited them or decided they were unworthy of editing and agreed to delete them and keep them deleted.  
DanKeshet
I don't think they should be deleted.  Pages with those titles should exist, and they are probably not the worst pages on wikipedia.  Besides, deleting them would just be picking a fight.  Rewrites would be cool, but I don't care enough about those two topics to try and help there (I'm more of a maintainer than a creator of wikipedia content, coming up with lots of new words in a row is hard work).  I agree about the exessive inbound links, and have moved or removed a couple of them.
pm67nz
Images! You are so right, Dan. I hope it doesn't break local laws to take pictures of ballot papers! :) I'll see what I can find.
Regards 142 - I'll take a look at the two articles you mention for starters, certainly. If I recall, they're biased, but just about better than nothing at all - so hopefully we can tweak rather than delete. Martin 18:23, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise and suggestions

message: Articles about voting systems should also mention their time and space complexities. -- Dissident 03:22, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some basic computational complexity information to the Smith criterion and Schwartz set articles. CRGreathouse 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complexities

message: As you are more familiar with voting pages structure, I suggest you take look and merge/move/list those pages where it is appopriate:
Vote Simple Majority Voting Qualified Majority Voting
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjustment suggestion

message: While adding an article on City Commission government, I noticed that at-large is a red link. I've been trying to figure out if this is already described in an article somewhere or, if not, which article would be most appropriate to include this in. Any suggestions? (cross-posted to Wikipedia:Reference desk#At-large voting). older≠wiser 19:27, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
* You are looking for bloc voting.  I have updated the link in question.  Scott Ritchie 08:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  At-large voting 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on voting systems?  I know of Single Transferable Vote and Voting system as FAs, are there others? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 04:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, certainly those two are worthy of inclusion on paper.  I'll begin looking for others, and tagging them with  Scott Ritchie 07:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: Just a quick punt for Instant Runoff Voting.  A lot of work has been done to this article since it was first listed here in the "articles which are a real mess" section, and I think it is now in its final stages.  A few more man-hours work and we should have a featured article on our hands, so any support or contributions would be very helpful.  Happy-melon 10:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IRV

message: Hi.  Currently the NZ collab of the fortnight is Referendums in New Zealand.  Any body care to have a look at it and see if they can add anything?  Cheers --Midnighttonight 08:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Referendums in New Zealand]] 

message: Can people have a look at Talk:Additional Member System? --Midnighttonight 00:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Additional Member System]] 

message: Single Transferable Vote is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality.  Sandy 22:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Single Transferable Vote]]

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 23:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Hi there! the page on none of the above is bit of a mess and I've suggested splitting the RON section. Various institutions use options on ballots such as NOTA, RON, ABSTAIN and treat them in different ways. should we have separate articles for such options, or should we have a nice unified page about these types of "candidates" on ballots, and a discussion on their effect in the major voting systems? Spuddy345 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a unified article is best, since explaining the differences between them is arguably the most important part. 03:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ballot options

message: Is there a particular reason that this article uses "Voting system" versus "Electoral system?" In my experience, the term Electoral system seems more fitting and much more common. Even the template uses the term "electoral."
--Electiontechnology 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly, my experience is exactly opposite yours: I can't recall ever hearing the term "electoral system" but I frequently read and hear the term "voting system".  Is there any strong reason to prefer one over status quo? CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I trust you if you say it's frequently used on Wikipedia.  I meant that when I read about the subject (which isn't on Wikipedia, of course) I frequently see the term "voting system".  In fact I would say it's the second most common term for the broad field after the less-similar term "social choice theory".  "Electoral system" is so uncommon for me it sounds strange to my ears. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do research in electronic voting, and we consistently use the term voting system to refer to the mechanisms that produce, handle, mark, collect, and count ballots.  "Voting" also has this meaning in the term electronic voting.  On the other side of the issue, the Citizens' Assemblies in British Columbia and Ontario consistently use the terms electoral reform and electoral system to refer to the method of converting votes into elected representatives.  Finally, if we allow "voting system" to mean "translating votes into seats", then there is no other term but "voting system" to mean "casting and counting votes" as well — confusingly, both would then be called "voting systems".  The only way to distinguish the two is to name them "electoral systems" and "voting systems" respectively.  For all these reasons, i support the renaming of the current Voting system page to Electoral system.  --Ka-Ping Yee 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting system\Electoral system

message: Here is a to-do list:
*Electoral reform in the United States by political division
**Alabama - Alaska - Arizona - Arkansas - California - Colorado - Connecticut - Delaware - Florida - Georgia - Hawaii - Idaho - Illinois - Indiana - Iowa - Kansas - Kentucky - Louisiana - Maine - Maryland - Massachusetts - Michigan - Minnesota - Mississippi - Missouri - Montana - Nebraska - Nevada - New Hampshire - New Jersey - New Mexico - New York - North Carolina - North Dakota - Ohio - Oklahoma - Oregon - Pennsylvania - Rhode Island - South Carolina - South Dakota - Tennessee - Texas - Utah - Vermont - Virginia - Washington - West Virginia - Wisconsin - Wyoming - Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) - American Samoa - Guam - Northern Mariana Islands - Puerto Rico - U.S. Virgin Islands Captain Zyrain 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcement of the state-by-state electoral reform series

message: I just wanted to let everyone know about the formation of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure. We hope to cover all the major motions and parliamentary procedure terms. There will probably be a certain amount of overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Voting systems and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda. As mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Parliamentary_Procedure#Voting_methods, voting-related topics are being classified under the headings of:
*voting method – Voice vote, show of hands, rising vote, etc.
*voting system – Majority, plurality, preferential voting, etc.
*voting basis – Majority, two-thirds, majority of entire membership, etc.
There is a bit of overlap between voting system and voting basis, of course. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure|WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure]] has been formed

message: I would like to request that an anybody who is an expert on the subject please review Instant-runoff voting controversies for compliance with WP:NPOV and then post their comments (on whether it is NPOV, or is a POV fork) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination).  69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be appreciated. The subject article was started as a way for detail on the arguments being made about IRV to be explored; the claim (and real problem) with the main article was that finding NPOV was running into conflict with a desire of some to keep the article brief. And brief presentation of arguments, *designed* to be effective when brief, is POV imbalanced. (In fact, the very name "instant runoff voting" is exactly that, an implication that it is like runoff voting when the resemblance breaks down in practice.) In a controversies article, we believed -- this was a consensus of editors that created this article, and it's been edited and supported by both IRV proponents and opponents -- we could explore the topic in sufficient detail. That article has not perfectly realized the vision, and there is stuff in there that doesn't belong, and missing sources for statements that can be puzzling to those unfamiliar with election systems, but these are normal editorial problems and nobody is maintaining the article as either a hit piece on IRV or promotional fluff. --Abd (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for votes:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination)]] 

message: The article, Asset voting is being considered for deletion. Comments may be made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting. --Abd (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up for deletion again. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting]] 

message: nominated Voting system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.)  Feinoha  Talk, My master 06:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting System FAR 

message: I've been surfing around the Template:Electoral systems, but I haven't found any article describing one particular version of the largest remainder method: take the Hare quota and decrease it slowly until all seats are allocated. Does this method exist, or should we call it the NaBUrean quota? :P --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gives identical results to D'Hondt. 187.143.7.74 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this method exist? 

message: People here may wish to indicate which voting system should be used for Arbcom elections. Feel free to compare and make your choices.Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting system used in Arbcom elections: decision being made now! 

message: Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's Comparative Politics. (talk) --Thomas Simpson (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Saylor.org%27s_Comparative_Politics Comparative Politics Textbook] 

message: The Digital divide in the United States page thus far has lots of good statistical data on indicators for a digital divide in the United States so far.  However, some characteristics described are not well defined if at all, such as the the term "Digital Society" (which especially applies to this WikiProject) and "Digital Literacy".  I am aiming to develop definitions for these terms based from publications related to these topics and possibly developing other sections further with more recent data and constructing sentences to create paragraphs using the existing data to develop a way to read the article as an article and not just a list of bullet points.  I will start looking at the following pages for helpful information and if anyone here can help, please do. Thanks.
Internet in the United States
Publications on Internet and Technology - Pew Research Center
Mobile Access 2010 - Pew Research Center 
Technology - whitehouse.gov
Internet use in the contemporary media environment - Human Communication Research 2001
Interaction between States and Citizens in the Age of the Internet: "e-Government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union - Governance 2003
narrowing the digital divide in low-income, urban communities - New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2004
Is There an Information Literacy Skills Gap to Be Bridged? An Examination of Faculty Perceptions and Activities Relating to Information Literacy in the United States and England - College & Research Libraries 2010
The need for a digital rights management framework for the next generation of e-government services - Electronic Government, an International Journal 2004
E‐government and developing countries: an overview - International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 2004
Internet adoption and usage patterns are different: Implications for the digital divide - Information Economics Policy 2008
Internet Usage Statistic: How We Spend Out Time Online (INFOGRAPHIC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrpibgal (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Definition

message: You are invited to comment. Homunq (࿓) 13:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Homunq/WP_voting_systems|Essay on voting on wikipedia]] 

message: The favorite betrayal criterion page has been deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy; that deletion is now undergoing a review. Your comments are welcome. Homunq (࿓) 14:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review on [[Favorite betrayal criterion]] 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: Created :Category:Voting user templates because they were getting lost among the myriad other political 'boxes out there. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  user template cat 

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: There's a discussion that may interest folks over on Talk:Copeland's method.  In short, I'm proposing the following:
#. Rename the current Copeland's method article to Pairwise voting methods - this would clear up the confusion about whether pairwise voting methods should be called "Llull's method", "Condorcet's method" or "Copeland's method"
#. Transform this article into a history article - since Ramon Llull came up with the idea of using pairwise comparisons, we can have sections for #Ramon_Llull, Copeland's method#Marquis_de_Condorcert, and Copeland's method#Arthur Herbert Copeland (and possibly merge the "Arthur Herbert Copeland" article into this one).
#. Create a new Copeland's method article - that version could be based on oldid=1000095080 of the "Copeland's method" article.
At the end of this process, we could then clear up the confusion about the various Condorcet articles. See User:RobLa/Condorcet to see some of the articles I'm referring to.  Thoughts?  -- RobLa (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit confused. Are these the same thing? I thought Copeland specifically referred to the win-loss ratio. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copeland versus Condorcet 

message: 2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning @RobLa, @KVenzke, @Robert Loring, @Rspeer, @CRGreathouse, and @MarkusSchulze as semi-active contributors to voting systems Wikipedia. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: First question has been resolved, second still hasn't and requires comments. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election]] has an [[Wikipedia:RFC|RfC]]