Talk:Plurality voting/Archive 1

message: I'm commenting as a pure reader, as I don't have any experience about this type of electoral system nor I would know how to add to the matter. 
Anyways, I think this page is totally incomprehensible. I don't have a clue about how the FPTP system works. Sorry if this sounds trollish but I'm sincere and willing to interact...
I haven't understood anything, and the example (choice of a capital city? WTF?) is very badly laid out. Please, could someone review/rewrite the example of FPTP election?
Aside 11:43, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that the example not only illustrates the procedure (which is so simple you may even have missed it); it tries to introduce immediately an illustration of what is wrong with it. There probably needs to be an immediate example. I too found the example confusing at first, and think it could be improved. The fact is that most elections are not to choose a place but a candidate, and I think it would make more immediate sense if the election was for people. Also, the sample election (and any real parliamentary election) has big numbers, which obscure meaning. I have created a much simpler example. Notinasnaid 20:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader confused 

message: Elections in Ancient Greece resembled First Post The Post elections in that there were only two candidates (Yes and No) and the candidate with the greatest number won.
Syd1435 10:20, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
:But didn't that automatically result in a majority every time?  Funnyhat 06:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections in Ancient Greece 

message: A recent edit introduced this sentence:
:Because first-past-the-post is held to produce strong government (see below), it follows that those who prefer weak government (government unable to effectively introduce social change or legislative progress) might support first-past-the-post.
This doesn't make sense to me at all, but I don't know enough to correct it.  Should it say that those who prefer weak government might not support first-past-the-post? Or that first-past-the-post is not held to produce strong government?  Or is the sentence correct for reasons I don't understand—and if so, can someone knowledgeable explain it more clearly for the benefit of readers like me? Thanks—Triskaideka 19:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong vs. weak government 

message: Surely FPTP IS the simplest system.
But that does not mean that it is best. 
Model T Fords are simple, but how many are made or seen today?
Simple, which may mean fewer moving parts, is often associated with low performanace. A jet engine in principle requires only one moving part, but a high performance jet engine has thousands of parts.
FPTP fails in a number of ways.
* does not ensure that the winning post is 51%
* fails voters who happen to be spread too thinly amongst districts.
* benefits voters who happen to be nicely concentrated amonst the districts.
* may tend to ensure strong governments, but may fail to ensure the equally important strong oppositions.
As for costs of elections, many costs are fixed costs, and vary according to the voting system chosen, for example the cost voter registration, printing ballot papers or arranging for postal votes.
Syd1435 03:08, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
Syd1435 03:08, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
:I take it this is a response to my addition of "Simplicity" to Advantages. These points don't seem to relate to the content of that section though. However, if there is a view that simplicity is a disadvantage *in itself* (rather than the cause of other, already cited disadvantages), then there should probably be an entry in Disadvantages too. I found the same thing when adding "Strong government": it's an advantage only if you value strong government. If, on the other hand, you are saying that the points I raised are NOT in general stated as advantages by any commentators, my entry should probably be removed.  I am not an expert on political theory, just trying to add some missing neutrality to what seems an excessively partisan article. Notinasnaid 16:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPTP may be simplest system 

message: I think first past th epost voteing scheme is alot fairer than the single transferable and proportional representation voting schemes.It is alot fairer than the others because it is the same as winning a game or a race for instance, you come first you win, unlike the others this is lot more straight forward and is easier to work out who gets the position.You don't have to split the moddle vote you just have to look at the scores and who ever gets the highest wins.The other voteing schemes share out your votes and then you wouyldn't be putting forward your own vision on who should win, In other words people could be twisting the votes in favour of someone else and to me that is cheating. It could be easily sabataged by someone who would like their choice to win and the person themselves could sabatage it, that's why the people should have that confidence that they are making a difference to the vote instead of not going to someone else. Would you like that to happen. by G Beddis
:Do you think the article gives a fair representation of the views for and against this system? Notinasnaid 13:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough about the issue to comment, but I just moved the "Advantages" section above the "Disadvantages" one.  "Disadvantages" had been listed first, and to me, it seemed a little off-kilter to cite the negatives before the positives.  After all, we say pros and cons, not cons and pros.  Funnyhat 07:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First past the post 

message: :"First Past the Post" should not be the title of the article for the good and sufficient reason that it's not NPOV: it's a pejorative term used by those who onsider the method obsolete and think that discussing alternatives is a sensible thing to do. The article needs to be renamed "Plurality voting", with FPTP becoming a redirect. -- Anonymous, 02:00 June 15 (UTC).
From my comments above, you can tell that I agree, though I never thought of it being POV - my complaint so far was only that FPTP makes no sense as a name.
Anyway, are there any objections to moving the page to Plurality voting? RSpeer 05:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Object. I think it is far more commonly used outside policical theory. Also, I do not see it being used pejoratively in the UK; it is always discussed publicly, so far as I've seen, by those for and against, using that term (e.g. the British Conservative Party, who are firmly in favour: ).  Notinasnaid 08:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also object, though I think the misunderstanding may be a British/American one.  I've seen a lot of British writing refer to "first past the post" as "first past the post".  In the U.S., it seems only academics and reformers use "first past the post".  "Winner take all" or "plurality" would be more common.  Regardless, it seems fine if the British way of referring to it prevails.  If this conversation is to persist, someone will have to explain why FPTP is "pejorative". -- RobLa 22:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Move (and redirect) to Single-Member District Plurality, the formal name of the voting system.  First-past-the-post, despite being more common outside of poli-sci circles, is a nickname and a description, not the formal name.Bizud 12:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPTP not NPOV 

message: In order to avoid getting into a revert war, I will instead here, object to changes which have been repeatedly applied, which infer a point of view and also destroy the meaning - even the sentence structure.
The change was:
When this system is in use at all levels of politics it usually results in a true two-party system, based on single seat district voting systems. However, the system of forming a governing government is also crucial; it is very common in former British colonies and is the single most commonly used system for election of parliaments [] based on FPTP voting districts. A thorough list is given below.
to:
When this system is in use at all levels of politics it may result in a two-party system, based on single seat district voting systems. However, the system of forming a government is also crucial. It is used in some former British colonies but is only used in 43 of the 191 countries in the United Nations. The system can elect a candidate who is opposed by a majority of voters. 
 based on FPTP voting districts. A thorough list is given below. 
Overall, the author seems to have a very strong negative view of FPTP, and this reflects the choice of presentation of facts. The reason I watch this article in the first place is that it seemed to have been written by people who thought it was a lousy system, so I am alert to signs of this bias coming back.
Comment:
Sentence 1 ("When this..."): probably improved.
Sentence 2 ("However..."): 
(a) changed "very common" to "it is used".  Both points may be true, but it is much softened. Is it "very common"? If so, it should probably say so, or better still say "used in XXX% of...".
(b) changed "single most commonly used system for election of parliaments" to "only used in 43 of the 191 countries in the United Nations".  How about combining these: "the single most commonly used system for election of parliaments, used by 43 of the 191 countries in the United Nations". This allows the reader to form their own view.
(c) added a completely new sentence "The system can elect a candidate who is opposed by a majority of voters." bang in the middle of this sentence, so it is no longer correct English. This at least should be fixed. In addition, why add this particular point? It is covered by "disadvantages".  The selective presentation of facts is Point of View too: why not bring in advantages too if we're at it? "The system tends to produce stable and strong government but can elect a candidate who is opposed by a majority of voters." I don't see any need for this, as it is covered later. 
Sentence 3 ("A thorough"): was isolated from the previous sentence, on which it depends for context.
Agree on the whole and will make appropriate changes, execpt how can it be the most common if it is only used by 43 nations? Mccready 06:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your reply suggests that you do indeed think FPTP is a very bad idea. If you have very strong opinions on a subject, especially controversial ones (I think it's fair to say that anything that excludes countries that use FPTP from the list of democratic nations is at least slightly controversial) you should take very great care in writing about it, as your opinions may make it hard to maintain neutral presentation.  Though you may well have good things to add to "disadvantages". Anyway, I think it's time for someone else to pick this up, though in my view it was a better article before this started.. Notinasnaid 10:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph