Talk:Electoral reform in the United States

message: It seems like a google tossup as to which is the more popular term. The main article here is electoral reform, so I guess we'll go with that. Captain Zyrain 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Election reform" vs. "electoral reform"

message: *National Committee on Federal Election Reform
*The Constitution Project - Election Reform Initiative
*AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project
*Commission on Presidential Debates
*Citizens' Debate Commission
*Open Ballot voting (aka fusion voting)
*Open primary elections exist in a number of states, allowing voters to vote in primaries without formally joining a party.
Captain Zyrain 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Sorry, I don't understand the first sentence of this article. I'm not a native speaker of English, could someone explain the grammar to me? Thanks. --91.89.23.145 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was grammatically incorrect.  Hopefully I've made it clearer. VoteFair (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  meaning of the first sentence? 

message: Over the past 3 days, I've substantially rewritten the introduction and made substantive additions to the article, including, I think, fixing the POV problem -- or at least a substantial portion thereof.  
Before I began this effort on June 15, 2012, the article seemed to be a sales pitch for Instant-runoff voting (IRV).  The introduction read in part, "Every ten years, after a census, the two major parties have a redistricting fight to determine the boundaries of these districts, and to protect the seats of incumbents. As a result, turnover in the House is low. Democratic representation is also quite low, because under a two-party system with single member districts elected with winner-take-all, any outside challenger would become a spoiler."  I have not yet touched the section on "Advocates for electoral reform".  That looks like an ad for FairVote.  I plan to study the article as it currently stands and then revise that section.  As I do that, I plan to remove the POV flag.  I haven't seen any discussion of the POV flag on this talk page, which means I don't have any guidance on what was considered POV other than the obvious things I've just described.  209.204.153.104 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I should further remove the section on "Advocates for electoral reform", mentioning FairVote and Michael E. Arth with the discussion of IRV but not giving as much detail.  Previously, the article was primarily about IRV, and this section seemed appropriate.  However, the title of the article is much broader than IRV, and with the material I've added, the section on "Advocates for electoral reform" no longer seems appropriate, in my opinion.  Accordingly, I plan to remove it ... possibly as early as tomorrow.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing POV flag 

message: I noticed a discrepancy between the citizens united section and the citizens united main page. One says the ruling happened in 2013 the other says 2010. I believe the main page is right so this one should be fixed.
I hope I did this right, this is my first time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.167.129 (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: citizens united date ussue

message: The others have arguments against them as well. 
:Sure.  So add appropriate mention of those other sides.  You've made over 61,000 edits in 7 years with Wikipedia.  I've made over 1,300 in 3 years.  You clearly know this system better than I do.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Other sides

message: The template title should be changed, as well. Student7 (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "template"?  The table with section heading "Organizations supporting specific reforms"?  What do you want?  "Organizations supporting specific changes"?  I prefer the current section heading.  However, if you want to change it, please do so.  I won't revert it.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the change to an npov title was accepted, the title of Template:U.S. political divisions electoral reform (at the bottom of the page) would be affected, as well. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Template title

message: User:Ben.kaspar recently added a section on "approval voting".  Could someone please add a citation or at least a link to another source that contains citations?  
This addition could be useful.  However, without a reference, it might get reverted as a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:  Wikipedia's NPOV policy says, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."  
Without an appropriate citation, how can anyone claim that "approval voting" represents a "significant view that has been published by a reliable source"?  DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval Voting? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Electoral reform in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427063444/http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773857 to http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773857
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified