Talk:Plurality (voting)

message: Should this be a Wiktionary entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.94.87 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: no, it's a concept that could be explained with examples. this article is a stub though. 135.214.66.240 17:31, 21 November 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that this should be a wiktionary entry.  "Plurality" is a word.  Things like "Plurality voting system" should have wikipedia entries but to have all this explanation and talking about Borda voting systems in an article titled "plurality" doesn't make sense. 69.3.98.104 14:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plurality should be a disambig page; it has lots of other meanings. Fixed. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be a Wiktionary entry?

message: OK, I've de-stubbed.  I'm slightly concerned that what I've written may be FPTP-specific rather than plurality-specific; I'd appreciate feedback on this article.  TSP 11:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too FPTP-specific?

message: Let's be careful not to be too duplicitous of content that belongs in plurality voting system. Scott Ritchie 18:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't duplicate [[plurality voting system]]

message: I have suggested that Plurality voting system be merged into Plurality.  Plurality voting system has better content, but Plurality is a better name for the article.  In addition to explaining plurality elections, Plurality will allow us to explain the concept as it occurs outside the context of voting.  Squideshi 14:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The 'Plurality' or 'First Past The Post' voting system is a voting system employing pluralities.  It is not the only possible one (Borda count and approval voting are others).  The main problem is that this article, most of which I wrote one afternoon very early in my Wikipedia career, is too specific to the Plurality voting system, not to pluraities in general.  It should be a general article which can be referenced by all other articles mentioning pluralities; not specific to that one voting system.  TSP 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that we actually agree but are just misunderstanding one another.  I am suggesting that this article cover pluralities in general, only one of which is a plurality voting system.  I suggested the merge because Plurality voting system implies there is only one type of plurality.  Plurality should be the main article.  Squideshi 01:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But 'Plurality voting system' currently describes one particular voting system which happens to employ pluralities; the one known in the UK as 'First Past The Post'.  I don't think that the article describing that voting system should be at 'Plurality'; it should be at 'Plurality voting system' or at 'First Past The Post voting system'.  The article there is not about pluralities; it is about a particular voting system that uses them; so should not be at 'Plurality'.  If the current title is confusing, it could be moved back to 'First Past The Post voting system', which I find less ambiguous.  The article currently at 'Plurality' is the nearest thing we have to an article about Pluralities, so should stay here; but it should be rewritten to be more general.  I think there are two distinct articles here, and neither should be merged into the other. TSP 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No merge Instead, I vote that the plurality article remove all reference to first past the post (except a link to this article), and be left as a general article. Is it too late to suggest that Plurality voting system be renamed back to its original name; the rename happened without consensus and in violation of Wikipedia's guidlines for national varieties of English? Notinasnaid 12:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand the matter, it is never too late to reconsider a move, especially if the move was done on the assumption that it was non-controversial.  Is the term "Plurality voting" not used in the UK at all?  The only time I have seen, "First Past the Post" used in the U.S. was for a completely different voting system (majority required with published totals and vote-changing).  I would prefer a title that will be understood by all educated speakers of English rather than slavishly following a rule on national varieties of English. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've never heard 'plurality voting' used - though Google shows a few hits from the UK, just as there are a few hits from the US for 'first past the post'.  'First past the post' also seems to me to be prevalent in Canadian, Australian and New Zealand English, as well as in articles from places such as India; though it's hard to establish this for sure. TSP 19:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never heard "plurality" used in the UK. It is used by all parties, both those for and against it. The discussion page suggested it was a pejorative term; well, maybe in the US. However, I can only offer a lay opinion; my library is rather thin on political books and none of them mention this. Notinasnaid 09:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Supplement: original discussion of move, Talk:Plurality_voting_system/archive1#FPTP not NPOV. Notinasnaid 09:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge plurality voting system into plurality 

message: I had a little alarm go off in my head while reading this article when I realized I "agreed" with it. I found the information and perspective to be generally accurate, but then I realized that I myself (having more or less minority political opinions) have quite skewed viewpoints regarding the issue. 
The section near the end of the article suggests the problem with "tactical" (or as it's always been known to me, "strategic") voting - namely, that it doesn't alwyas reflect one's true voting intentions. This indeed is often the case; or so it seems to me. Regardless, it suggests that it IS often the case, and indeed this entire page seems to be written from a perspective similar to my own. Because I, of course, believe quite strongly, and because I want my own beliefs, based on logic or otherwise, should be prevented fairly, I think this page needs to be looked at so far as neutrality and justification are concerned. --Jammoe 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The current text, in context, seems to suggest that "simple majority" is used to mean "plurality" in American usage, but with absences and abstentions not considered. I don't think that's the intent of the passage -- I think it wants to say that a simple majority in American usages is more than half of all votes actually cast (as opposed to an absolute majority, which I take it would be "more than half of those having the right to vote"). The text should be clarified -- maybe someone who's more sure of the distinction between "simple" and "absolute" in American usage should do this. (I wouldn't have made that distinction myself -- I would just have said that a simple majority is more than half of votes cast, as opposed to a supermajority, which might be 60% or 2/3 or 3/4 or something.) --Trovatore 00:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing treatment of "simple majority" in American usage 

message: This section (#U.S. usage) has no citations and is probably not supportable with accurate citations.  In United States usage and quite possibly throughout the English speaking world, to borrow from Gertrude Stein, a majority is a majority is a majority is a majority.  It simply means "more than half".   The question then needs to be asked, "more than half" of what?  In voting for a candidate or proposition the default meaning for majority is more than half of the votes cast. (One could cite a reference here from the voting section of any major book on parliamentary procedure.)
However, sometimes a different voting percentage is needed/required/ordered.  This could be two-thirds, four-fifths, etc.  It has become more commonplace to call any percentage requirement over majority, a "super-majority."  Not really a useful term in my view, but one can't argue against the coining of new words once they become popular.  ["Super Tuesday", "Super-Size"]  Another aspect of determining majority is of what basis.  The term "absolute majority" has been coined to mean a majority of all those that could vote (in an organized society or legislature this is the total count of members.)  This is a higher requirement than majority. (One could also call "absolute majority" a type of "super-majority", but most people don't think of it in this way, so let's not confuse the issue by pointing out the impreciseness of evolving language.)
Once use of the term "absolute majority" began to be established, which was done to distinguished it from "majority", language did its thing again, and people were no longer content to understand "majority" as "majority", so human nature being what it is, many started to use the term "simple majority" as a replacement for "majority" because they felt it was important that both concepts have the same number of adjectives.  Humans have an innate need for symmetry.
Where was I? I was making a point here, I think.  Yes, regarding the sentence below.  Majority and simple majority are pretty much the same thing, certainly in American (or US usage), the difference is that there are more citations defining "majority" than there are defining "simple majority."  ... also, the use of "strict" is perhaps the wrong term, a "higher requirement" in terms of votes might be more appropriate.
I have not put all this on the web page because (a) I don't have time at the moment to find the citations (and some of this is clearly opinion) and (b) this article is about plurality, not majority (or various forms of majority.)  So I moved it here for the time being. ~ Parlirules (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. usage (CUT FROM THE ARTICLE) 

message: Ok, I've tidied the article up a little, based on reading the whole Talk page.  I don't think that what I've done steps on anyone's toes, and I hope it gives the article a little more clarity.  I now have a request - can anyone clearly and concisely sum up what the main thrust of this article is supposed to be, and how it's supposed to be distinct from the plurality voting system article.  I realise there's been conversations about this before, but the article probably needs a really clear vision if we're going to improve it beyond what it is now. Petemyers (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've tidied up, and have a request 

message: When I read this, I was struck by the redundancy of the second paragraph. The first part of the first sentence in the paragraph is exactly the same as a sentence a few lines before in the first paragraph, and most of the rest is about the same.  There is, however, some new information about English usage at the end.  Perhaps that part should be merged with one of the other paragraphs and the rest of the paragraph should be deleted?  The Grand Rans (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: ... A few days later it occurs to me that the biggest problem here is the focus entirely on elections (of legislators, primarily).
This article, and siblings such as majority (voting), should begin with the basic instance of voting, which is the resolution of binary questions such as whether to approve some proposition. Voters may have more than two options such as {Aye, Nay, abstain} and some eligible voters may be absent. 
* "We all continued the discussion at The Local Brewpub because a plurality [/majority/relative majority/simple majority/absolute majority] voted to do so."
May one say that in British, Welsh, North American, Canadian, and U.S. usage (now or formerly mentioned in the article regard to elections)? What does it mean? --P64 (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting and elections 

message: (quote) where 100 votes are cast for three candidates, with Alice polling 40 votes, Bob 31, and Carol 29. A Briton might say "Alice won with a majority of 9" while a Canadian might say "Alice won with a plurality."
This USAmerican would say Alice won with a plurality of 40 votes or 40%. In some contexts I would say "40% of votes cast" and the like. I would not call 9 votes, or 9%, etc, the plurality or the majority or any adjective majority; only the "margin", the "difference", etc.
This is a tertiary issue, however. Quantification such as "majority of 9 votes" and "51% majority" should be covered separately from the voting outcomes that constitute plurality, majority, etc.
First: voting in binary decision making (see "Voting and elections" just above).
Second: regarding elections, when do the Briton and Canadian (and perhaps others) agree and when disagree that "Alice polled a majority"? or garnered a plurality?
Third: when Alice polls a majority in the British sense, how do the Britons quantify it? And so on for the Canadian, the plurality, etc. --P64 (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantification should be relegated 

message: There have been disruptive edits by an IP address "216.16.241.140" deleting the word "plurality" on this page, and other WP articles. This user seems to think that the word "plurality" is a synonym for "diversity". The following is the definition of "plurality" according to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Plurality system, electoral process in which the candidate who polls more votes than any other candidate is elected. It is distinguished from the majority system, in which, to win, a candidate must receive more votes than all other candidates combined. Election by a plurality is the most common method of selecting candidates for public office".Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of the word "plurality"