Talk:Instant-runoff voting/Archive 4

message: I expanded the Robert's Rules mention under usage to much more fully quote what is in that book about the topic; I consider this essential for balance; in the past I tried to summarize and it was consistently removed by POV editors apparently trying to maintain the cachet of a Robert's Rules "recommendation," as it was originally worded. I've had conversations with a person familiar with the Robert's Rules editing process, and Robert's Rules is constrained from recommending or even describing methods that are not in actual use; however, it's clear that the editors were being quite careful to point out the problems of "preferential voting," and, in particular, the form that they described. Not all forms of preferential voting have the particular problems they describe. (As one example from actual usage in the past, Bucklin voting is a form of preference voting (and that's what it was called). Bucklin does not eliminate candidates and is, in fact, an "instant runoff" system; if there is no majority in the first round where only first preference votes are cast, votes from the second round are added in -- as with Approval voting, and if there is still no majority, then the third round votes are considered. In the Duluth Bucklin form, only one candidate selection was allowed in each of the first two ranks, but as many candidates as the voter desired to vote for were allowed in the third round. Note that, however, few voters would use such a freedom. In any case, Bucklin would ordinarily find a compromise winner, one of the concerns of Robert's Rules, as would Approval voting.
I also explained in detail the situation with APSA. The pro-IRV editors consistently battled this point as well, removing true information as "unnecessary." It's pretty clear that the reason they wanted APSA mentioned is the supposed cachet of being "adopted" by an organization of political scientists. I have been unable to find when the method was introduced to the APSA constitution (preferential voting was the rage in the early twentieth century, and APSA was founded in 1903), nor have I seen records of APSA elections before 2003; I was informed, however, that IRV has never actually been used. Given that the procedures produce a single nominee for President from the Nominating Committee, and a nomination by petition would be relatively cumbersome and not terribly likely to succeed -- something that political scientists should understand! --, and none have presented in the years I've looked at, it would be *quite* unusual that the Presidential election would have three candidates, which is what it takes to trigger an IRV election. In today's world, as well, repeated balloting is quite feasible and practical: APSA conducts elections by internet now. Remarkably, they do not use STV of any form for the Council elections, I think it is standard vote for N plurality, for N seats. With those elections, there have been a few nominations by petition, and some such nominees have succeeded. As to the idea that APSA would be some sort of model for the future, and sophisticated about election methods, I'll just note that the definition of "majority" in the APSA constitution is incorrect. It has "fifty-percent-plus-one," a fairly common error. The actual definition (at least from Robert's Rules) is "more than fifty percent." The former can be one vote too high , i.e., if there were 101 votes, the threshold for victory would be 50.5 plus 1 or 51.5 votes, thus, unless half-votes are allowed, it is really 52, whereas the correct threshold for the standard definition would be 51, which is more than 50.5.
One would think that they could find a better example than APSA, from the point of view of being able to point to actual usage, but this situation (theoretical adoptions not actually being used) is pretty common with the "adoptions" of IRV that are noted in the article. Again, until I started adding details, all these looked like big successes for IRV. However, the Berkeley adoption, I just looked at it today, as an example, is full of conditions that must be satisfied before the method can actually be used; no timetable exists, apparently, for such elections to actually start. One funny adoption is Takoma Park, Maryland. Mostly unopposed elections. Could the fact that FairVote staff live in Takoma Park -- it's a very small town, a suburb of Washington, DC -- have anything to do with that adoption? I do wonder if it is truly notable. But, hey, they work hard, perhaps they are entitled to a few crumbs of success. When I have time, I really want to look more closely at San Francisco, where real IRV elections have been going on, and where there are rumors and rumblings of problems. Contrary to what some might think, I favor experimentation with IRV; I'd just like to see some experimentation as well with the much, much simpler, cheaper, and (arguably) theoretically more sound Approval Voting as well, and that might happen in Colorado, there is process under way there with the Voter Choice Task Force.
So, FairVote-affiliated editors, how about doing something useful? Find and edit in some better examples of the *actual* usage of IRV in nongovernmental organizations, if they exist, I'd be surprised if they do not.
--Abd 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert's Rules *Again* and APSA IRV election information 

message: "In Australia, the only nation with a long record of using IRV for the election of legislative bodies, IRV produces representation very similar to those produced by the plurality system, with a two party system in parliament similar to those found in many countries that use plurality.".  - This is uncited (after I removed an off-topic reference) and, I would suggest, wrong. IPV has allowed a third party - National Party of Australia - to thrive.  Peter Ballard 11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Thriving," in the sense of being able to remain active, is not the same as winning more than a rare election. Further, preference voting can allow party blocks that really are more like wings of a single party. The claim that IRV fosters and maintains two-party systems is pretty common, I should dig up some other references. Note that some consider this an argument *for* IRV, others consider it an argument *against.* Depends on their POV! I should look at the National Party situation in detail so I can understand better what is happening there. --Abd 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I looked. As I'd been told, and from the Wikipedia page, which I presume is sourced, the National Party is indeed a minor party that has survived a long time. It is a "traditional" coalition minor party with a major party, though in a few strongholds, at times, it's been the major partner in the same coalition. Is it "thriving"? From a peak of over 15% of the vote in 1937, it has fallen to 5.5% in 2007. Nevertheless, IRV clearly allows such a party to participate; with Plurality it probably would have disappeared. The point of the claim in this article is that IRV has not overturned the two-party system, and I think that is roughly true; but it is also true that it allows third parties, still, some existence and even some seats. With 5.5% of the vote, this party has 10 out of 150 seats, or 6.6%. It has more seats than its vote percentage! -- but the difference is small.
"Survive" would be more accurate than "thrive."
--Abd 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I disagree. It is not a two party system, there are quite plainly 3 significant parties in the lower house, and the 3rd party has survived in the Lower House due to IPV. Even if you call it two party, IMHO that is due to single member electorates (in its Lower House) rather than the method of counting, i.e. in a country like Australia, single member electorates will inevitably favour two major parties, because it is almost impossible for a 3rd party to build up a supporter base to win Lower House seats (just ask the Australian Democrats or Australian Greens). In short, for the claim to remain in the article, it needs a proper source; and even then it needs to be reworded to account for the existence of a 3rd party. Peter Ballard 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Australia 

message: An anonymous editor removed most of the external links, claiming that this article had become a WP:LINKFARM or was on its way to this. While I agree that there might be too many links, the set of links which remain or which are later added should be a matter of consensus, since POV bias can be introduced, maintained, or flipped through selection of links. I originally thought, as I began the edit, that I would keep some of the original links out, but I'd rather do that piecemeal, one link at a time, in order to allow other editors to reverse any deletions simply and easily. I can't speak for others, but I can say that I would not complain about any reverts of edits I make removing links at this point, and I would defend any editor against WP:3RR charges for doing this, nor I would not include any such edits in any 3RR complaint. This is an example where reverting can and should be liberally used. Deletion of links, at this point, should be a matter of consensus of the editors, unless there is first thorough discussion and a link is shown to be contrary to WP:EL -- or is blatantly so at the outset. The practice we currently have of segregating links by POV is, in my opinion, a good one; it allows us to continue to link to POV sites that otherwise might be questionable, like FairVote or RangeVoting.org.
--Abd 13:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored full set of external links. 

message: Another editor just removed many links at once, and made some edits to the links section (other than probably too many deletions, some good edits). Because linking is sensitive, imbalance in links can be a form of POV imbalance, I greatly prefer that changes to this section, other than isolated edits which can then be dealt with individually, be a matter of discussion here. So I reverted it.
We should all be satisfied that the links section is appropriately complete; if a few of us think it's become a linkfarm -- I happen to agree with that, the links could be winnowed -- that is less important. Too much, if necessary for balance and completeness, is better than too little, especially if the links are classified and helpfully described. Just as a comment, on another topic very important in my personal life, I found the best on-line source on the topic through a link on the Wikipedia article. That link was later removed as part of an edit war that was resolved, I'd say prematurely, by an administrator applying policy without fully understanding the context and application, one of the hazards of Wikipedia. I could put it back, but ... so many articles, so little time.
Please *improve* the links section in a way not likely to cause contention, work with *all* the editors on this, don't just hack away. (The anonymous editor before seriously hacked, this one clearly did some hard work, and I think we should consider at least some of the changes made, shown in my undo: (diff)
I certainly will not object if anyone deletes individual links or small sets, which can then be considered individually. But it may be more efficient if we discuss the overall balance and presentation first.
--Abd (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Again

message: The article has a POV tag. Aside from active edit disputes, one editor, though a sock, has claimed that the article is POV (basically blaming me) without giving examples. What difficulties remain with the article that justify maintaining the POV tag?
I have not myself reviewed the article in detail looking for this, lately, so I'm asking myself this question as well. If we can identify remaining issues, we can then fix them. If not, we can remove the tag.
I'm going to include the active disputes as well, so we have a complete list here.
--Abd 13:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expecting a deafening silence on any affirmative answers besides Abd, I'll ALSO express my view as disagree - I believe the process described in Robert's rules for election by mail is exactly the IRV process, even if there's some minor differences - i.e. whether a winner can be determined on a plurality of ballots if there's insufficient rankings. Tom Ruen 20:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag on article 

message: Since you continue to refer to me pejoratively as a "sock" then I am sure since you admit you are here primarily because of your support of approval voting, then you won't have a problem if others refer to you as a "POV-pusher," will you?
My primary objection at this point is that you refuse to allow the article to say that Robert's Rules "suggests" IRV even though it states "preferential voting is especially useful and fair in an election by mail" and gives IRV as an example.  I believe that the article should say that RR suggests IRV, and it should say it in the intro, where you found it before you started on your extraordinarily verbose anti-IRV crusade here.  Until that problem, among others, is corrected, I will object to the removal of the POV tag. I'd like to see if there are any other editors who agree with your interpretation that RR does not "suggest" IRV.  Nothing so formal as an RFC is needed.  If there are any, they should just say so here. MilesAgain 18:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expecting a deafening silence on any affirmative answers besides Abd, I'll ALSO express my view as disagree - I believe the process described in Robert's rules for election by mail is exactly the IRV process, even if there's some minor differences - i.e. whether a winner can be determined on a plurality of ballots if there's insufficient rankings. Tom Ruen 20:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone agree with Abd that Robert's Rules does not "suggest" IRV? 

message: An anonymous editor made spread-out changes to the article, some acceptable, some not. I reverted the first edit, and this editor then reverted me. I've reverted back. Some of the language in the current article represents compromises made to NPOV text, removal of pieces of it can remove balance. Adding allegedly true fact without source may create POV bias, which might exist even if the alleged fact is true. Presentation of facts selectively can easily create bias.
If changes are made to one section at a time, they may be discussed here to find consensus. I encourage the anonymous editor to work with the other editors toward this; the process will be facilitated, I'd suggest, if this editor will register, if not already registered, and log in before editing, to take responsibility for edits. Making controversial edits anonymously is not recommended. Please discuss changes here. Of course, for minor edits, of no POV significance, this isn't necessary; however, even then, whole-article edits become much more difficult to review. Many or even most of the changes made by this editor, if made without linkage to possibly imbalanced edits, would have been fine. If I have time, I may review the edit and restore some of the changes, but I'd appreciate it if this editor would make them *one section at a time*. It will save everyone's time.
--Abd (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted whole-article edit by anonymous editor. 

message: I think we have some garbage in above, leading to some garbage out. The article currently has, as Ask10Questions noted, "Records of the San Francisco Department of Elections show that before IRV, a runoff round was required far more often than not in that city, where in 2000, 9 out of 10 contested races went to runoffs." First of all, that source does not contain that statement. If it is true, the reader must do the analysis. This claim is not properly sourced by Wikipedia standards. But I'm not, myself, averse to a little original research. I don't attempt to remove claims from the article that I consider true and balanced, placed there by someone else, merely because it is not properly sourced. Others may. So can I confirm it?
The runoff results for the December 12 election show two-candidate runoffs in Supervisor districts 1, 3-6, 7-9, and 11. Out of 11 districts, there were runoffs in 9. One district was not contested, district 2.
These were the election results by district. The first number is the total vote. The rest of the numbers are vote percentages for candidates on the ballot. Write-ins in the contested elections were a small percentage. The ultimate winner is shown in bold.
  1. 24211   22%    3%   28%    9%   38%
  2. 27070   92% (uncontested)
  3. 20714   15%   13%   11%   11%    3%   11%   37%
  4. 24617   17%    2%   44%   15%   16%    3%    3%
  5. 30125    4%    2%   42%   12%    3%    0%    4%   29%    2%    1%    1%
  6. 18738    1%    4%    2%   14%    3%    3%    3%    2%   12%   16%    1%    3%   32%    0%    1%    1%    3%
  7. 30229   44%   11%    2%   22%    9%   12%
  8. 34178    6%   50%   34%    3%    4%    4%
  9. 20972    5%    6%   14%   68%    7%
 10. 19764    3%    9%    4%   33%    5%    2%   21%    4%    8%    9%    2%    1%
 11. 21409   10%   29%    4%    2%   19%    4%    2%   27%    2%
There is a discrepancy in the report of election data. The candidates shown as for District 10 on the first election are given in the runoffs as District 9 (which did not have a runoff).
I find these numbers extraordinary. Yes, there were seventeen candidates on the ballot in District 6. The reason why there are so many runoffs is that a very unusual number of candidates are running, the vote is being heavily split. Top-two runoff (and IRV, as well as other reforms beyond Plurality) encourage additional candidates to run. Thus a majority failure problem that might be rare with Plurality becomes the norm with Top-two, at least in this environment. What do we see with other elections on that ballot?
U.S. Senator:
  307853	0%	72%	0%	1%	0%	15%	11%
U.S. Rep, District 8:
  274162	9%	2%	66%	1%
U.S. Rep, District 12:
   58547	2%	78%	3%	16%
State Senate, District 3:
  146335	14%	6%	80%
State Assembly District 12:
  128469	18%	82%
State Assembly District 13:
  146892	6%	78%	15%
BART District 7:
   31166	27%	53%	10%	10%	1%
BART District 9:
  100221	76%	23%
(I have not reported results for two multiwinner elections.)
Is the statistic true that in 2000, 9 out of 10 contested elections went to runoff? What elections? The report is obviously considering only Supervisor elections. I don't know if a majority is required for the other city elections on the ballot (The two BART districts, though those aren't actually city elections, I think.). I'd guess not. There were 11 supervisor elections, with extraordinary fields of candidates. That's what top-two runoff can do, likewise IRV, and other preferential voting systems and Approval could do the same, particularly with non-partisan elections. However, the Plurality elections (definitely the Federal and State elections would be that) are uniformly generating majority victories in 2000. Looks to me like top-two runoff is creating a need for IRV or other such reform in San Francisco.
Why did they have top-two runoff? Likely because it is considered desirable to have a majority winner; however, almost certainly, they would usually have a majority winner with Plurality. (That is, there would be not so many candidates, or minor candidates would not so effectively split the vote.) But for the exceptions, they want runoffs. Now, comes IRV and promises to do this in one election. Sounds good. However, problem is, IRV not only can fail to deliver a majority winner, in fact, but it actually is doing that in San Francisco. I'll get to the fact of that later, but consider the logic: We have top-two runoff because we want a majority winner, but we can save election costs with IRV, thinking we'll get the same result. But we don't. Instead we get Plurality winners, at least some of the time. One of those runoffs in 2000, it can be noticed, had a 50% vote in the first round for the ultimate winner. That is, it was 50% after roundoff (or exactly 50%, not a majority). They held a runoff for the last half percent, at most, to reach a majority. One can see why some jurisdictions have reduced the necessary win to 40%, only holding a runoff below that point.
Notice that the eleven elections, in eight cases, simply reproduced what Plurality would have done; plus we can assume that with top-two runoff, there is greater sincere voting than with Plurality; quite likely with Plurality, most or all of the other three cases would have had the same winner. The argument for Plurality is stronger than many of us might think.
But there is a better and far cheaper way: let people vote for as many as they like, Count All the Votes, candidate with the most votes wins. Or, if one insists on being able to designate a favorite, Bucklin voting. Precinct summable, counts on standard equipment, no voting machine conversion costs. No method guarantees a majority winner, to be sure, except repeated balloting, which sometimes takes a *lot* of ballots.
As to what is in the article, it's misleading. For starters, to figure out what was happening, I had to analyze the results. This was original research and interpretation. The exclusion of the uncontested race from the statistic is arbitrary. More neutral would be a report that nine out of eleven Supervisor races, due to a majority victory requirement, required a runoff. But saying this without pointing out that top-two runoff could be causing an increase in candidates, thus causing increased incidence of majority failure, introduces bias. It's not going to be simple to get unbiased presentation of this information into the article; I suspect that the situation in San Francisco is quite unusual. No wonder they were the first major city to implement IRV! We will need more information, and I have a strong hunch that we won't have reliable source for it.
I'm taking it out, not because it is not true, but because, without better explanation and context, it's reducing a complex question to a simple summary, making IRV look necessary. (Some claim that SF doesn't have IRV at all, and they sure don't call it that; the limited ranks, with large candidate fields, make exhausted ballots and resulting plurality elections much more common. That is, San Francisco's Ranked Choice Voting encourages more candidates to run, but the ranks are limited. Interesting question: why didn't they call it "Instant Runoff Voting."?
And wouldn't STV for the Board of Supervisors do a better job representing the city? Single-winner districts leave huge chunks of the population, often over have the voters, not to mention the population, without chosen representation. Here my own opinion would converge with the goals of FairVote.
--Abd (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the San Francisco 2000 election

message: The other day I updated the Minneapolis section about IRV usage to indicate that a lawsuit had been filed Dec 20, 2007 to block implementation of IRV. (No one else had added anything about the lawsuit to this section before me.)  I noticed today that it had been changed somewhat. The description I had used was straight from the news article. Isn't it important to know the nature of the lawsuit? I have seen ample discussion about the Minnesota lawsuit on this discussion page.
Today I re-did that section on Minneapolis - 
"A citizens group filed a lawsuit on December 20, 2007 challenging the constitutionality of the system and to block its implementation.[9]" 
Next, I changed the external link to a better extrenal link that does not require wikipedia users to have to register to view that link.
This is the new and more accessible link:  
--Ask10questions (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I linked in the website of the organization creating the lawsuit, seemed helpful, but admittingly confusing as I did it. I don't care of someone wants to remove the second link or make it more clear. Okay, I'll try making it more clear. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States - Minnesota lawsuit 

message: Earlier today, I realized that a section of the introduction was problematic, and I deleted it. My edit summary was "Unsourced analysis, see Talk"
However, responsibilities for my children arose and I was unable to discuss the edit as I had planned. It was reverted by Tbouricius, with the comment: "Such general and BASIC concepts are inappropriate to source in an introduction. It's like sourcing the fact that a cat is a vertebrate mammal."
Here is the text involved, and, note well, this is in the brief introduction to the article.
:The term "instant runoff" is used because IRV simulates a series of run-off elections, counting a vote on each ballot for the highest ranked candidate who has not been eliminated. Although voters can mark multiple candidates in preference order, the elimination process results in only a single vote cast for each seat, which differentiates IRV from a number of other preference voting systems such as the Borda Count and the Condorcet Method.
Some of this language was recently introduced. This particular section was designed to maintain reference to a "single vote" cast for each seat. As Tbouricius should know, this is an interpretation, one which is actually legally controversial at this time. But there are other problems with this paragraph. That this "single vote" differentiates IRV from other systems is an interpretation. It is not allowed, strictly, to interpret sources, much less to make up analysis that is controversial. Condorcet methods are likewise one-person, one-vote systems. Borda Count is really in a different class, it's "preferential voting" only because it uses a preferential ballot.
These problems are fatal to that language being in the introduction unless reliably sourced *and* balanced. It is not required that the source be actually referenced in the introduction; facts in the introduction will presumably be referenced later in the article. Those claims were not.
But what actually struck me most strongly with the reason given why the term "instant runoff" is used. IRV is *not* a simulation of a series of Runoff voting elections, except for a very particular kind, the kind called Exhaustive ballot. (But there is a form of "IRV" which is, in fact, a simulation of top-two runoff, so there is, indeed, that, but this is not what is promoted, generally, as "IRV.") Why was the word used? It was used as a political invention, quite recently, to promote single-winner STV in the United States. By using "runoff voting," advocates could play on the familiarity of Runoff voting, making it seem familiar and creating a particular impression. If we are going to say why the term is used, I'd want to see actual history reported. It exists. We have information about who coined the term, and in what context. Reliable source on that? I don't know. I think repeating the promoted "explanation" of this political neologism is promoting IRV. On the other hand, it can be reported in an NPOV manner, which requires attribution. *Who* claims that IRV is that? And this should not be in the introduction. The method is the method, and readers will understand it with a simple explanation of how it works, and the briefest summary of the most notable applications.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  meaning of name "instant runoff" 

message: See this diff,  look at the edit summary. Deceived by that summary, I just looked at the top ... and overlooked the massive edits MilesAgain had made to the article, restoring old POV language. I'm going to undo my own edits to get back to this and undo it. Under cover of "seeking compromise..." It's too much.
There may be some legitimate edits in there, but making a huge number of edits all through the article, rather than one section at a time, makes it difficult and tedious to deal with them. This technique could be inadvertent for a new editor. MilesAgain is not a new editor, and, as I recall, this problem has been pointed out to him before. If it happens that other editors then edit after such a massive edit, it becomes a huge amount of work to undo it without removing later edits as well, because undo conflicts will be created. I had to undo my own edits to get back to his. I did continue back one more edit to remove Tbouricius' revert of my last previous edit...., which I had done previously.
--Abd (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how that happened. I thought I was editing just the intro.  I must have clicked on some prior version.  Those other edits were NOT intentional. MilesAgain (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Apology accepted. Actually, I could have saved myself some work by doing the same. For some reason, never thought of that. Thanks. Hope I don't have to do that! --Abd (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  outrageous editing by MilesAgain 

message: Yesterday I added a section under Practical Considerations: 
Access for Disabled Voters:  According to a poll collected by Disability Scotland   an organization advocating for the rights of the disabled, 36% stated that STV (their name for Instant Runoff Voting) made it more difficult to vote, in comparison to 16% who stated that it made it easier to vote. 
Here we have someone removing a poll of disabled voters. Why?
For the record, Disability Scotland does not express a position on IRV, unlike what is seen with the usual press releases accompanying IRV "exit poll" results. 
What is the rationalization for removing this entry?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask10questions (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask10questions, look at the Article History to see the list of edits and edit summaries. The edit was reverted by User:Tbouricius, and he stated the reason in the edit summary: "(This poll dealt with a different voting method (proportioanl representation with multiple winners, not IRV. Also the percentages inserted masked the fact that 64% said it was no harder or easier.)" U don't think he was correct that this was PR, but he is welcome to show that I'm wrong. These appear to be single-winner parliamentary elections. The method called IRV in the U.S. is called STV in Ireland (that's in the article) and I think this is so in Scotland too. In any case, the ballot is the same. As to the percentages not shown, I thought it was obvious that the dregs were "no difference" or "no answer," but I've made that explicit. I actually thought it would have been 48% no difference, I forgot to think of "no answer." I'm not entirely sure what this poll means, but, then again, I'm not entirely sure what all the IRV polls in the U.S. mean either, there is some argument for removing all of them. --Abd (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access for Disabled Removed from Practical Considerations 

message: I find this talk page impossibly long to read or follow any active discussion for so many long sections. Can someone archive something here? (Or MOVE active sections into subpages, like Talk:Instant-runoff voting/RRNR maybe? Tom Ruen (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Subpages might be a good idea, actually. It's okay with me. Certain issues have been discussed over and over. The standard archives make things hard to find, but this Talk page has definitely gotten too long. --Abd (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's still unacceptable long, but I moved about 35% to Talk:Instant-runoff voting/archive3. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we archive/subpage any talk content?