Wikipedia talk:How to hold a consensus vote

message: I'm writing this page after seeing several unrelated attempts at holding a vote to find consensus between many options, all of which devolved into arguments about voting. I think it would help Wikipedia discussions if people have a resource they can look to on what kinds of voting work and what kinds don't, and when it is or isn't appropriate to use a complex voting system.
RSpeer 19:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
:I think the first and only aim should be to achieve consensus. Voting can be a guide to whether there is a consensus (as can comments that come along with votes), but it can be no more. It is not a be-all-and-end-all.
:This in itself means we should shy away from the more complicated voting systems - because it is not the vote that's important - it's whether consensus is achieved. How "votes" and comments are counted really shouldn't matter so far as that's concerned - if there is a consensus it will emerge under all possible ways of counting votes.
:* I don't agree with this. I think that there are many ways of counting votes that will devolve into a fiasco and lead to no consensus, when one could have been achieved. And I've seen these a lot recently. That's my point in writing this article. RSpeer 20:35, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm particularly concerned that the more recent ones are not only experimental, but are also supported by WPians with an outside interest in showing they work. This is not the purpose of WP, and we should not encourage the development of ever more complicated and ever more theoretical voting methods. The other problem is that the raw marks by this voting method will, in part, be dictated by who understands (including who wants to be bothered to understand) the voting method. None of this helps with consensus.
:* I fully agree. Hence my quoting of WP:WIN#Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. RSpeer 20:35, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
:So in summary - aim for consensus. Look at comments as well as "votes" - and keep it simple so everyone can understand! jguk 20:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On your most recent edit - if you have to explain the voting method to someone it proves you haven't done your survey right! jguk 20:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: My point is that we should never have a "condorcet" method. They are too complicated to explain - and, as noted above, the aim should be to achieve consensus: we do not need complicated voting methods to do that. They are also highly experimental. Why should WP choose highly experimental, little-understood voting methods? jguk 21:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed to condorcet voting methods as they do not help us achieve consensus. If anything they hamper it as they will mean one side declaring "victory" in a marginal position, which those on the other side will not understand. In situations such as you describe, it's best not to be counting votes but looking at comments. You cannot force the issue and claim a consensus where there is none - and this sort of voting can only hinder. As I note above, I hope never to have to see it on WP again. Kind regards, jguk 06:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

message: It looks like a "survey", according to Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, is a fairly formal kind of vote. I don't know if there is a good name for the "discussion under the heading you support" format. I stopped calling it a "survey" in the project page. RSpeer 00:48, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
:It's called a strawpoll. Zocky 17:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  darn, they're not called surveys 

message: "None of the above" means "better nothing than other options", not a vote for the status quo. If "none of the above" wins, the practical result will be the same as status quo, but status quo did not win the consensus. Zocky 17:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  None of the above != Status quo 

message: I added this section because Borda count has been successfully used to build consensus.--Fahrenheit451 21:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Borda section 

message: RSpeer is POV-pushing and unilaterally claiming that cycle-breaking methods should never be used in Condorcet polls, and further making his opposition to Condorcet methods plain. There is no problem with him having this position, but his opposition must not be given as some sort of consensus guidance which was ever adopted by anyone. This entire article, in fact, was RSpeer's personal project, and as such he may feel a certain proprietary interest in its contents, but this is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Furthermore, his unilateral deletion of balance in the Condorcet section was made after someone else had declared this article to be a consensus guidance (on what basis I cannot find, either). This is just a giant mess, at the moment, and I don't see a simple solution, I don't want this dispute, but please don't expect that any one person can or should unilaterally dictate who may or may not contribute to an article, especially one as contentious as this. Whig 03:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute