Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 6:
[[STAR Voting]] should be in the short list on the home page. The question went on the ballot at least once. - [[User:Frankie1969|Frankie1969]] ([[User talk:Frankie1969|talk]]) 23:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
: Agreed. It has more active campaigns than other things listed. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:PerfectlyGoodInk|PerfectlyGoodInk]] ([[User talk:PerfectlyGoodInk|talk]]) 18:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:Yeah, you're right, [[User:PerfectlyGoodInk|PerfectlyGoodInk]]. I modified the page to separate the single-winner systems (currently at "[[Single-member district]]") and [[multi-member system]]s. Thanks for the suggestion! -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 04:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
:Thanks! Would also suggest adding 3 bullets under multi-member systems for [[Party-list proportional representation|party-list]], [[Mixed-member proportional|MMP]], and [[Single transferable vote|STV]]. Much appreciated! [[User:PerfectlyGoodInk|PerfectlyGoodInk]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Closed Limelike Curves}} Per my email to you, we really shouldn't be removing [[instant-runoff voting]] from the home page ([https://electowiki.org/wiki/Main_Page?diff=prev&oldid=18210 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) -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 06:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
{{Ping|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. —[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 18:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Closed Limelike Curves}} It might not be. https://rangevoting.org/TTRvIRVstats.html I don't really consider rangevoting to be a reliable source; I'm just pointing out that even the cardinal guys are unsure. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 03:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
| |||