Talk:First Past the Post electoral system

Possible norm for Wikipedia content on Electowiki
I nuked a large chunk of content, since I don't think it's valuable for us to spend a lot of time copyediting articles that were copied from Wikipedia to Electowiki back in 2005 or 2006. When there's already a sufficient article over on Wikipedia, we should just link to it summary style. I may note this later over on Electowiki:The caucus or on Electowiki:Policy -- RobLa (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with deleting this sort of duplicated content (as long as we check and make sure that each paragraphs/concepts really are duplicated in both places). — Psephomancy (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Ranked ballots
"FPTP can be done either with a choose-one ballot, or with a ranked ballot (by only looking at a voter's 1st choice candidate"

There is no reason to ever do this, so why mention it? — Psephomancy (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * So that people are aware of the relationship between a vote for a candidate being support for their 1st choice? Furthermore, it clearly establishes that FPTP ignores most of a voter's preferences. Also, it's good to point out that a lot of the times, even though we complain about the result that one voting reform or the other gives, we can always console ourselves by remembering to check how bad the FPTP winner is in that same example.
 * Finally, it sort of establishes that in many situations, the honest FPTP vote (for your 1st choice) is not really the strategic FPTP vote (which is voting for the most viable candidate you ranked above the most viable candidate you prefer less). The main revelation I'm trying to communicate is that using other ballot types like ranking or rating 1) strictly increases information under honesty (when there are enough ranks) and 2) things like runoff voting can be computed from ranked ballots using the plurality and pairwise information. I can move that sentence further down if you want. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Psephomancy. That sentence looks like anti-ranked ballot propoganda.  Let's not make this wiki an anti-ranked-ballot wiki.  -- RobLa (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that's the case, but I'll rewrite the sentence to make it clearer that plurality information can be captured from a ranked or rated ballot, though it need not be. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's sometimes done in ranked voting articles to compare FPTP's criterion compliance to that of (other) ranked methods. If I recall correctly, Woodall did this in one of his impossibility result papers. Compare to e.g. Antiplurality, which also can be done with a mark-one ballot (mark your most hated candidate). Kristomun (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)