Talk:Instant-runoff voting/Archive 1

message: In Australia, IRV, Ranked Choice Ballots, and Single Transferable Votes go by the name of "Preferential Voting". And there is some terminology to go with it.
* First preference - the candidate given the number "1".
* Second preference - the candidate given the number "2".
* First preferences - number of first preference votes that a candidate recieves.
* Distribute preferences - distribute votes of the least popular candidates to the next preference.
* Eliminate - the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, and the votes transfered according to the next ranked preferences.
* After preferences. The number of voters a candidate gets after lower ranked candidate have their references redistributed.
* Two-party preferred vote - the number of votes received by the two leading candidates after distribution of preferences.
* Two-candidate preferred vote - a variation of the previous term if either of the candidates do not come from the big two parties/coalitions.
* Exhausted vote - where the voter does not number all the boxes, and a preference distribution is unable too proceed futher.
* First Past the Post - some know this term.
* How to vote card (HTVC) - a brochure handed out by parties at the entrance to polling booths advising supporters of some of their policies, and how best to fill out the ballot paper(s) to support that parties.
* Preference deals - since even the candidate with the least vote can influence the result, the recommendations on the HTVCs are subject to negotiation with other parties, presumably on a quid quo pro basis. Voters can of course allocate their preferences as they see fit, since all HTVCs are advisory only.
Unknown terms.
Except from what might be known by observing foreign elections in newspapers or on TV, the following terms are not generally known or used.
* Runoff
* 2nd Round
* Primary
* IRV
* Instant Runoff Voting
Other Factors
* Candidates need not reside in seats, there all seats are contested.
* Since no Preference Vote is a wasted vote, (unlike FPTP) there are unually 3 or 4 local independents in each seat, who take satisfaction if they garner a reasonable number of votes.
* Since candidates need no reside in the seats, safe seats are often contested by young members of the opposing big party as a "blooding" exercise.
* Preference voting takes longer to count than FPTP, and this makes Election Night much more interesting, as votes seep in.
*There is a 2 or 3 hour time difference between the eastern and western states, and the Western State does not like the result to be all over before they finish voting.
211.30.76.7 07:47, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferential Voting in AU - terminology. 

message: This comes across as having quite strong POV in favour of Condorcet variants against IRV - and I speak as someone who shares that POV.  I've tried not to reinforce that in my edits, but maybe only an IRV supporter can really eliminate that. ciphergoth 15:17, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
: We don't need to "eliminate POV", at least not in that sense.  If anything, we might want to balance the scales by adding POV on the IRV side; we should never try to remove POV on the Condorcet side just to make things NPOV.  An encylopedia which steers clear of stating anyone's viewpoints on an issue is useless - a good encyclopedia just presents both sides of the issue.  So we need someone to add some supporting articles of IRV, not delete supporting articles of Condorcet. - McCart42 (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Hermitage 08:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I've just reverted most of Fahrenheit451's changes, which I think are inaccurate and POV. First of all, a quick bit of research would've confirmed the information about IRV in student elections. Also, IRV does not meet "none" of the formal voting systems criterion: as I understand the Arrow theorem, IRV conforms to both unrestricted domain and non-imposition.
Then it should be specified that irv only meets two criteria.  Few is inaccurate. I will amend the article accordingly.--Fahrenheit451 18:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, such protest votes have an unpredictable effect on an election outcome as IRV fails to comply with any established election method criteria.
In addition to the election method criteria, the accuracy of this statement is highly dubious. It's true that IRV can result in some wacky results under certain mathematically possible situations, but in practice (where there are very few major candidates, and frequently only two), the result is fairly predictable -- protest votes for minor candidates cease to have an impact on the ultimate result.
RadicalSubversiv E 01:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication ..." (WP:NOR, emphasis added). Please supply a citation to a "reputable publication." There is absolutely no guarantee that the names listed for voting systems in Wikipedia articles are exhaustive. RadicalSubversiv E 04:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fahrenheit's changes 

message: I propose that the IRV article be consolidated into the STV article with a IRV redirect page.  Both terms are often used interchangabily, but irv is specifically the single winner version of STV.  I request comments to this change.--Fahrenheit451 21:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to consolidate STV and IRV articles 

message: I feel the need to add an npov tag. This article really does have a blatant anti-IRV slant. 
I personally have plenty of doubts about IRV, in that I doubt that it can deliver what some of its supporters promise. I do think that it is important for strong critiques of IRV to be available, and for more people to be aware of the alternatives...
But this seems excessive. Critiques should be identified as critiques, and phrased in a more objective manner when they deal with value judgements and make conclusions that cannot be proven, e.g. "some argue that...", etc. I'd like to restore neutrality myself, but it looks like it will take more time than I'd like to spend at the moment.
Hermitage 00:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV #3 

message: It should be noted here that IRV standardly would fail condorcet loser as it allows a voter-truncated ballot. That is pretty easy to see in that the condorcet loser and be unanimously approved and voted for, whilst the other candidates may or may not be voted for as alternates.  Thus, there may not be enough candidates marked on ballots to receive transferred votes from the cl, so the cl can win. The only country that does not allow voter truncated irv is australia. --Fahrenheit451 18:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condorcet loser and IRV 

message: I revert changes, and comment below:
Under:
  Special cases of IRV eliminations
    Consider multicandidate elimination of weak candidates as the first step: 
ADDED PARAGRAPH
* Condorcet method to break tie: Eliminate all other candidates and do a pairwise 
comparison between the two. The winner of this head to head race would advance. This is the most democratic method and is recommended by many. 
COMMENT: This section doesn't deal with ties. Even if it is moved to the next section (Tie-breaking rules:) Condorcet-based elimination fails to meet a runoff expectation that each voter only has one vote each round.
ADDED JUDGEMENT bold
* CANDIDATE COUNT: Define a maximum number of candidates that can survive the first round. This method is the least favorable as it limits who can win. If you have many candidates remaining, and a tie between the bottom two, those candidates should only be eliminated if there is no possibility they could win. 
COMMENT: This section lists options that are used. The argument of "least favorable" and "should only" are POV that don't belong here.
For these reasons I completed reverted changes by IP207.59.125.242
Tom Ruen 12:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP207.59.125.242 changes on 11/5/05