Talk:Vote splitting

Merge
Vote-splitting and spoiler effect could probably be merged, but I consider them to be different scenarios, so ideally they'd be listed as separate things and explain what's similar and different about them. — Psephomancy (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Please, keep them separated. Vote splitting is a separate concept, and the cause of spoiler effects. They should not be confused to one another. lucasvb (talk} 12:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * User:lucasvb Well we don't even have a spoiler effect article, so... — Psephomancy (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not yet! :) lucasvb (talk} 20:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, though I don't want people wasting effort duplicating things that could be hosted on Wikipedia. — Psephomancy (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Strategic nomination
Removed "Vote-splitting is a special case of strategic nomination" because I don't see how that's true. — Psephomancy (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes
User:Dr. Edmonds, I'm not sure how I feel about your changes to the intro. I think of vote-splitting as "there are multiple similar candidates, so if voters can only express support for one at a time, their votes are split between those candidates" which is a little different from your "single voter supports multiple candidates but cannot split support between them"

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "Vote splitting is often conflated with Proportional Representation". Those are totally different concepts? — Psephomancy (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Psephomancy, I think of vote splitting as something that happens on an individual level. It can aggregate up to cause effects which influence whole elections but the fundamental issue is that it causes issues to a person like favourite betrayal, wasted votes or problems with clones. I am happy for you to edit it. I think we understand eachother. Just make sure that you make sure it is clearly different than Vote Management. I will get David (Marylander) to update that on the free riding page.


 * As for the relation to Proportional Representation. Yes they are totally differ but that was my whole point and I say that. When I was working on the BC referendum I would very often have to correct people on this so I thought it would be useful to make the distinction clear. Their logic goes like this "FPTP has vote splitting. Here is an example where vote splitting causes low PR. MMP cannot have Low PR. Therefore, MMP cannot have vote splitting" There is an obvious flaw in the logic but it was still enough to convince people in propaganda that MMP has no vote splitting even though both votes are done with a mark one style ballot. Even the inventor of dual member proportional thought his system did not have vote splitting until I gave him an example. Anyway, if it is used in propaganda and election scientist make the mistake I figured it is worth clarifying. My stance is that the more content the better in general. --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)