Talk:Center squeeze

IRV images

@Jasavina could you combine the two rounds of IRV into one image? I think a basic .gif that cycles between the two would work, or you could just display them side-by-side. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

(And normalize the values to make them add up to 100%, so we can intuitively understand them?) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

How's that? I don't currently have the skills to make a gif that would be non-trash. Jasavina (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, no worries, I can make it myself then. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Distribution of winning candidates under RCV, showing a bias towards extremes

• ... that in Burlington's second election using ranked-choice voting, independent Bob Kiss was elected despite his opponent being preferred by over half the voters?
  • ALT0a:... that in Burlington's second election by ranked-choice voting, Bob Kiss was elected despite his opponent being preferred by a majority of voters?
• *ALT0b:... that in Alaska's first election by ranked-choice voting, Mary Peltola was elected despite her opponent Nick Begich being preferred by a majority of voters?
• ALT1a:... that candidates can win under ranked-choice voting, even if their opponent is preferred by more than half of all voters?
  • ALT1b:... that a candidate can win under ranked-choice voting even if their opponent is preferred by more than half of all voters?
• ALT2a:... that ranked-choice voting tends to favor extremists over consensus picks?
• ALT3a:...that the image to the right depicts how ranked-choice voting tends to favor extremist candidates, not a black hole?
• ALT4a:... that center squeeze has been blamed for costing Gary Johnson and Bernie Sanders the 2016 US election?

• • Reviewed:

Created by Closed Limelike Curves (talk) and Jasavina (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC).

• This is more of a comment than a review for now, but I have some reservations about the hook. For instance, the subject of the hook is Center squeeze, but the article is more about Burlington's second election. Unless you want to make it a double hook, I'm not sure if the current hook as written is appropriate or at least meets WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE regarding hooks being primarily about the subject. My suggestion would be to write a hook that's specifically about Center squeeze itself (perhaps something about its spoiler effect?), as opposed to a specific example. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Hmm, maybe? I'm a bit torn, since I feel like concrete examples make it easier to understand the topic. I've added some possible alternatives, though.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    • ALT1a might have potential, but it's currently a WP:SEAOFBLUE and so may need to be fixed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Fixed as best I could in Alt1b. I also added Alt0a, because I think an example of center squeeze is closely related (enough to satisfy the DYK guideline). I've also suggested the example of the AK special election, since I think it gets brought up in the lead of the article.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've done some formatting to the hooks which may or may not rectify your concerns.--Launchballer 12:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, the new hooks should work. Given how the hooks based on examples are not only specific but may require specialist knowledge, I've struck them. The nom is ready for a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves: There are huge amounts of unsourced content in this! Please fix them. When you've done that, I will give this a proper review.--Launchballer 11:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Fixed. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I still see unsourced content.--Launchballer 07:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify where/how? I can't see any, apart from the fictional example. That one doesn't have citations because I thought examples of basic computations didn't require sources; I've seen similar examples on other math pages.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

My gut says the Alphabet example, First past-the-post and Ranked choice runoff sections shouldn't be there, although I'm not sure on what policy grounds. (Maybe WP:DUE?) The sentence beginning "In the 2009 election" needs a cite that isn't Wikipedia and there are two WP:MEDIUM sources - what makes them reliable?--Launchballer 07:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the 2009 election is cited now. The Medium posts are written by a published expert in the field, and their claims are backed up by other sources I've added (but the blog posts have a more in-depth discussion).– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Closed Limelike Curves and Launchballer: There is less than a week to go before the nomination times out, so any issues will need to be addressed before the 28th. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  There are multiple passages in the "Examples" section where the source is unclear, or not listed. Flibirigit (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves: implied above that the Alphabet example came under WP:CALC, although I would argue that it probably isn't necessary when you have two further examples to illustrate the point and so I've cut the section. As for a review, this is long enough and new enough, with no QPQ needed. Earwig flags similarity with [1], but the article attributes this so this should be fine. If source #23 says what I think it says, then ALT4: ... that the center squeeze has been blamed for costing Gary Johnson the 2016 US election? is more interesting than all of the above hooks but probably should be added to the article.--Launchballer 18:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Oooh, I like that one. Done. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: There are just over two days left until timeout, is this ready to go? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves and Narutolovehinata5: No, because I can't approve my own hook, and it isn't in the article anyway. Also, there can only be one winner, and so it will only have cost one of them the win.--Launchballer 00:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Well time is running out, so if this is to still run, all remaining issues have to be addressed ASAP. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added it to the article, so that's good to go. (I think @Launchballer: is saying he'd approve ALT4a, which is also my favorite, if it wasn't his own.)– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer ALT4, but I'll let an independent reviewer such as @Narutolovehinata5: decide.--Launchballer 05:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I do think ALT4 is fine. My only concern, and this is a minor one, is that it might need slight reliance on knowing who Gary Johnson is or the circumstances of his presidential run. However, the main point works well enough that I think even someone who doesn't know him would find the hook intriguing enough. I'm probably not the best person to approve the hook, but I'd endorse ALT4 as the choice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It helps, but I don't think it's necessary. Without it, the hook says 'the US election would otherwise have been won by someone else'.--Launchballer 00:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: ALT4 is definitely the best of the choices. Not big on the image, as the concept doesn't lend itself well to a 100x100 depiction. I can see this potentially getting an "American centric" tag, especially since the source cited for Sanders/Johnson mentions that the phenomenon was noted extensively in French elections (and Australian elections being ranked choice suggests that examples from there could be found). As such, I'd recommend adding a few more global examples. That being said, the tag doesn't exist on the article now, so it meets the criteria as I understand them.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

One could argue that the possibility of it being US-centric could make the article fail WP:DYKCOMPLETE, although that criterion can be rather subjective, so I guess the best decider in this case would be the promoter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability of the term center squeeze?

Hi,

I am not sure the term "center squeeze" is that common in academic social choice research. Are there any notable pointers for it appearing somewhere? @Closed Limelike Curves Jannikp97 (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Example here and another here. I think the exact phrase "center squeeze" is fairly new, but the phenomenon has been studied for a loooooong time, going back to Black's original papers. The citations mostly call it a "squeezing effect" or talk about candidates being "squeezed out", though I think one or two actually use the term "center squeeze."

BTW, on self-published sources, the WP:SPS policy is they're generally not preferred, but can be included on a case-by-case basis. IIRC personal blog posts by experts in the field are mentioned as an explicit exception. I generally try to use SPS only as "supplementary" sources when I already have another citation; that way, readers interested in learning more can go through these themselves. Often that's because the backup source makes the same point as a different citation, but more explicitly or in greater detail.

I assume you deleted the Handbook of Approval Voting reference because you couldn't find what it was referring to; sorry about forgetting to include the page number! Generally the best tag for that is {{page number needed}}. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

(Oh, one last thing; MOS:LEADCITE allows for skipping citations in the lead if they're just repeating or summarizing information in the body. I've added citations to the parts you tagged, though.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPS policy isn't that they're "generally not preferred", it's explicitly that most self-published sources are "largely not acceptable as sources". It says that some self-published sources "may be considered reliable", but only if they satisfy certain specific criteria.

In other words, what that WP:SPS policy actually says is DO NOT use self-published sources unless they can satisfy those specific criteria. 203.56.128.23 (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Alphabet example

@Launchballer could you explain further what you think needs to be cited in the alphabet example? The results with the hypothetical example fall under WP:CALC, but I can see why the commentary might kinda skirt the line. The idea with the alphabet example is to walk the reader through the mechanics of a center squeeze using a nonpartisan example, before moving into a real-life situation, where someone might have more of an emotional stake in the outcome. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Per my comments at the DYK nom, I don't think the Alphabet example is necessary when the other two satisfactorily illustrate the point without it.--Launchballer 00:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The other two are good examples for illustrating the point, but unlike the first example, they aren't a complete round-by-round explanation. I'm concerned that without anything like this, readers will find it difficult to understand how or why center-squeezes happen. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Citation quality

Many of the citations in this article either do not support the claim or statement they're attached to, or are of low quality, often self-published material.

Firstly, many of the cited sources either do not support or do not relate to the specific claim or statement they are cited to support. Either revise the statement to reflect the source, or remove the citation. The statement that a proposition has been "confirmed empirically by studies" cannot be supported by sources that do not address or relate to the proposition, or which argue against it. Either make a more specific claim that reflects what the source actually says, or remove the citation.

Secondly, many of the cited sources are low-quality, often self-published material, typically blog posts. Relevant here is that WP:SPS explicitly describes these kinds of sources as "largely not acceptable as sources". There are very limited and specific cases in which WP:SPS says these kinds of sources "may be considered reliable", namely that they are by established subject matter experts with prior published work in the field. If you can't demonstrate this, WP:SPS says don't use the self-published source. Even when self-published sources "may be considered reliable", there's a limit to the kinds of statements they can support. The statement that a proposition has been "confirmed empirically by studies" cannot be supported by sources that are not empirical studies, for example, opinion pieces, overviews of research, and self-published preliminary analysis of research. 203.56.128.23 (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I've changed confirmed empirically by studies to seen in elections, and added a few tags in that section, but please do ping me with {{ping|Alpha3031}} if you spot any other issues (and get reverted again), and I'll try and either tag or resolve them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The SPS I've cited are due to Marcus Ogren, who seems to meet the bar (I've found at least 2 published papers by him). However, I've been careful to ensure none of the claims in the article rely on SPSs—I include citations to them as additional clarification and support, rather than being entirely dependent. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Those papers by Marcus Ogren are essentially SPS. he has absolutely zero credentials as an academic researcher, and has never worked in a professional setting on social choice research. Affinepplan (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just blunt. pretty much anybody could publish whatever they wanted in a journal like that. Affinepplan (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Paper can be found here. It looks like Electoral Studies is a fairly well-established journal with its own Wikipedia article, and I see no evidence it's a predatory publisher or similar. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I will not go on to critique the paper, I however do not think that it meets the bar to declare him a "subject matter expert". Jannikp97 (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Median voter theorem

@Jannikp97: do you object to including mention of Black's median voter theorem here at all? I've tried to qualify the statement a bit; let me know if this is good enough.

I'm still surprised at it being removed—I don't think any discussion of center squeeze is really complete if we don't discuss the median voter theorem. Clearly no electorate ever has perfectly single-peaked preferences, but 1-d models still capture most of the variation in political beliefs, and they're a key part of any intro to social choice class. All models are wrong, but some models are useful. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if they weren't useful models, 1-d models would still be notable and the surprising results about them would still be relevant here. McYeee (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

> but 1-d models still capture most of the variation in political beliefs,

do they now. Affinepplan (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup, this is a basic finding in political science dating back to the 1970s. Ramseyer and Rasmusen's 2016 paper will do a good job walking you through the basics of factor analysis; they find one principal component explains 71% of the variance in issue positions. This leaves the other 29% unaccounted for, of course, but it's still pretty good, and does a decent job of explaining why cyclic preferences are so rare in practice. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"PC1 accounts for 71% of variance in issue positions" is an extremely different statement than "voters' preferences over candidates are mostly single-peaked" Affinepplan (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, it's quite a bit stronger (and also what you asked me about—you asked me if 1-d models capture most variation in political beliefs, not whether voters' preferences are mostly single-peaked). One-dimensional preferences over social choice are sufficient, but not necessary, for single-peaked ballot profiles. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding both the two results quite thoroughly. Affinepplan (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should/could be discussed. However, the fact that it only applies to the very restricted case of single-peaked preferences should not be hidden, but very "bluntly" discussed and its relevance to real world elections should not be overstated. Jannikp97 (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Lucas critique

^Ditto but for mentioning the Lucas critique-like observation that center-squeeze (the diverging/polarizing effect) can occur even if center-squeezes (the spoiled elections) are apparently rare, because the incentives have an indirect effect (candidates avoid the center to make sure they can't get squeezed). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)