Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>RobLa (Breaking up into sections) |
No edit summary |
||
| (31 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''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.'' |
|||
== Logo and theme == |
|||
* [[Talk:Main Page/Archive 1]] - comment from 2006 |
|||
'''FWIW & IMHO''' - I am neither enamored with the '''Electorama!''' name nor the yellow and red logo. For my tastes it is too quasi-commercial and lacking in sufficient "professional" weight. Quibble 2, "Electowiki" comes out of the mouth as a mumble or worse. "Electoralwiki" would get my vote in a single-winner two choice contest. |
|||
== STAR et al == |
|||
For the record, while I have been here a scant 20 minutes, I am very excited for this project. [[User:Wegerje|Wegerje]] 11:12, 31 Jan 2005 (PST) |
|||
[[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 == |
|||
:Great to see you here, Jeff! The logo was copied from electorama.com. I don't really care much about logos one way or another, but if you can do better, why don't you upload it and post it at [[Project:logo]] and if people like it, I can upload it onto the server directly. [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 11:30, 31 Jan 2005 (PST) |
|||
::I'll give it a crack. It will say ElectoWiki or some such. (Though see added quibble 2 above.)[[User:Wegerje|Wegerje]] |
|||
@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) |
|||
:Regarding the name: that's precisely the reason I use these "Project" namespace links. So that we can change the name of that namespace without too much trouble. With Rob's permission, we could change the title to simply: Electorama. |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
::Feel free to call this the Electorama Wiki or any other name. I'd caution against getting too wrapped up in gravitas, though. We're going to be at this a very long time, so we might as well have some fun along the way. For what it's worth [http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/browse_frm/thread/f80b26ea8a5eb75a/3e36bcd744d73a9f#3e36bcd744d73a9f this isn't the first group with grave concerns about the gravitas of their logo]. |
|||
{{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) |
|||
::The goal behind naming the main Electorama site was to avoid going down the same rathole that most electoral reform pages go down. They either use the old red, white, and blue cliche, or some other textbook metaphor for serious stuff. The problem is that these sites often pronounce how boring and ponderous they will be before someone ever gets a good read. I specifically wanted Electorama to be accessible, and chose the theme accordingly. |
|||
: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) |
|||
::So, this Wiki doesn't necessarily have to use the same theme as the main Electorama site. What's more, if there's a better theme for the main Electorama site, I'm happy to adopt it there, too. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] 22:28, 1 Feb 2005 (PST) |
|||
== Content contradictions == |
|||
Research thrives in lots of content - the kitchen sink theory - whereas activist "propaganda" thrives in less content - the less is more theory. It will behoove us to craft short, concise, clear activist pages that may point to the dense research pages as needed, but only point and never get bogged down with. [[User:Wegerje|Wegerje]] 11:41, 31 Jan 2005 (PST) |
|||
:I'm not very worried about this until or unless it becomes a problem, but a custom namespace could always distinguish fact from editorial. [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 14:57, 31 Jan 2005 (PST) |
|||
== Our "Village Pump"? == |
|||
We should probably have some sort of "Village Pump" type page here. Naming this is always traditionally different on a per Wiki basis, based on the flavor of the Wiki. My proposal would be for "[[Project:Smoke-filled room]]" or perhaps "[[Project:The caucus]]", but regardless, this page should probably be reserved for discussion of the [[Main Page]]. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] 16:02, 6 Feb 2005 (PST) |
|||
Latest revision as of 03:58, 27 April 2024
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.
- Talk:Main Page/Archive 1 - comment from 2006
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. 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. 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)