Talk:Main Page

From electowiki

Old discussion about Electowiki itself has moved to Project:The caucus, which is where discussion about the site should go. Discussion about the Main Page itself goes here.

STAR et al

STAR Voting should be in the short list on the home page. The question went on the ballot at least once. - Frankie1969 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It has more active campaigns than other things listed. --Dr. Edmonds (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ranked systems are not necessarily proportional

Under movements, I think ranking systems should be moved out of the Proportional representation bullet. IRV/RCV is a winner-take-all method and is what most people think of when they think of ranked ballots. Also, the most common uses of ProRep around the world today use list systems that do not have a ranked ballot. - PerfectlyGoodInk (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, PerfectlyGoodInk. I modified the page to separate the single-winner systems (currently at "Single-member district") and multi-member systems. Thanks for the suggestion! -- RobLa (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Would also suggest adding 3 bullets under multi-member systems for party-list, MMP, and STV. Much appreciated! PerfectlyGoodInk (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit

@Robla is there something you'd like to discuss? I thought my last edit to the main page made it more consistent. Not sure if there's something you disliked about it. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves: Per my email to you, we really shouldn't be removing instant-runoff voting from the home page (as you did in oldid=18210), since there are many people who prefer that system to many of the others on this wiki. I stopped liking IRV before it was called "IRV", but it's worth acknowledging the system has gotten traction in many parts of the world (even where I live). We want people searching for all forms of election method reform to find useful information here. Per Electowiki:EPOV, we should "err on the side of neutrality" and have "fairness to other points of view". (p.s. you may want to learn how to use Template:Ping in your comments; both here and on Wikipedia) -- RobLa (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@RobLa: I take it you didn't like the reference to two-round systems? I figured that should be fine, since even IRV is a straight-up Pareto improvement on two-round. —Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves: It might not be. I don't really consider rangevoting to be a reliable source; I'm just pointing out that even the cardinal guys are unsure. Kristomun (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
That's surprising, but it seems possible they've since changed their minds? Papua New Guinea has a multi-party system, whereas California and Louisiana haven't developed much political diversity. TTR and IRV seem similar enough that I'd expect them to produce similar results. From a theoretical perspective (in terms of effective party count) I'd expect something like FPP < TTR < IRV < Condorcet < FBC-compliant. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)