Talk:Plurality voting/Archive 2

One Person, One Vote

I think this section being listed as an advantage needs to either be clarified properly or removed outright. The "one person, one vote principle as cited by the Supreme Court of the United States" with regards to the assertion that "...each voter is only able to cast one vote in a given election, where that vote can only go to one candidate," does not exist. The modern crux of the concept of "one person, one vote" comes from the Baker v. Carr(1962) decision, which led to the Reynolds v. Sims(1964) and Wesberry v. Sanders(1964) decisions. None of these decisions have anything to do with the aforementioned assertion, but with apportionment (or reapportionment), which in summary means that all voting districts must have an approximately equal number of people. So considering this a valid advantage of plurality voting has no basis in fact, despite being a widely held belief.

If it were not for this being a widely held belief (even though erroneous), I would propose it be deleted with no alternative. SouthStExit (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Being a "widely held belief" does not justify this remarkably misleading section. If there were a "myths" section, then it might be worth including a statement that some erroneously believe the Constitution requires voters to only be permitted to cast one vote for one candidate, when in fact what it requires is something like equality of voting power, which is accommodated by all sorts of voting methods. There is no myths section, though, nor am I convinced that there should be one. I'm deleting this part of the article. Banyan (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yay/Nay System

I'm looking for information on the Yay/Nay Voting System, but Wikipedia does not appear to have anything on this. Can I request someone write this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.37.44 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased Viewpoint

This article spends most of it's time criticizing FPTP even during the advantages section. It requires a complete rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.27.78 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Balance means a balance of the evidence, not an equal weight for yes and no. Almost all people who've studied the issue, and are not drawing a salary by manipulating the foibles of plurality, conclude that there are better options. Let me Godwin this: would you want the Holocaust to have a "balanced" advantages section? Homunq (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Almost all people who've studied the issue, and are not drawing a salary by manipulating the foibles of plurality, conclude that there are better options." As a political scientist, I disagree with this assertion. That comment is almost certainly biased. I agree that this article could use some work. Glaucon3 (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

IM new to this, but "Ensures a strong government" is something that is wrong with the topic. The are corrupt nations that use the plurality voting system. We should remove/refine that section has I thought you can't put an opinion on wikipedia. Plurality voting is a good basic system, but it doesn't necessarily spell out no corruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.233.157 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of 'FPTP' and terminology

This article uses the term FPTP a lot. This is incorrect, as FPTP is a colloquialism, even if everyone understand what it means. The correct term should be a 'majoritarian system', or a 'plurality-based system', as the title itself suggests.

• I suggest that incidences of 'FPTP' are kept to the bare minimum, and that 'plural', 'plurality' or 'majoritarian' are used instead. As a politics student, I would be penalised for referring to FPTP. (RM21 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

"majoritarian system" is much broader than FPTP, as is "plurality-based system". Most systems (other than Borda and a few others) are majoritarian, including FPTP. Plurality-based systems aren't that common beyond this one, but they exist nonetheless. Just calling this article Plurality works---it isn't the best name for the system, but at least it's understood. CRGreathouse 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

FPTP is just a colloquialism for Single-Member Plurality (SMP) — VikingViolinist | Talk 02:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know when the term First Past the Post was coined? It would be interesting to know how old the term is. 69.134.178.235 (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The term single member district plurality can replace FPTP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommo 87 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence whatsoever that the term "first-past-the-post" is a colloquialism, as someone suggested above. The term "first-past-the-post" is certainly used by researchers in the UK, and is virtually the sole term used by the BBC and other media. It is also used by the British Academy in a recent paper ( http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/choosing-electoral-system.cfm ). It really is the standard term in the UK. I cannot speak for the US. 86.164.31.148 (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Another reason that terms such as "plurality voting" don't often find favour in the UK is that this use of the word "plurality" is an Americanism. According to the 2004 edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, for instance, the term "plurality" means "the fact or state of being plural" or "a large number of people or things". Other meanings such as "...receives more than any other but not... an absolute majority" are marked as being specifically American usages. Traditional British usage would insist that the winner of an FPTP election has a majority even if it's not an "absolute" majority (i.e. even if it's a figure less than 50%): one of the definitions of "majority" in the COD is "the number by which the votes cast for one party or candidate exceed the next" (whereas another definition "the number by which votes for one candidate are more than those for all other candidates together" is marked as being American usage). 86.164.31.148 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC).

• The term is both widely used (in the UK at least) and technically incorrect since, almost uniquely amongst voting systems, plurality voting is the one that has no "post" or level of support needed to actually get elected. MapReader (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Poland fights for FPTP

You may be interested that Poland is trying to import FTPT. If you think that FPTP is "dishonest", then you can check what far more importand problems Poles have with PR lists here, on Polish FPTP civic movement site. For example following, which in Britain never occur:

• 4 years of minority governments during last 8 years
• 11 Prime Ministers during 15 years
• 2, 3, and even 4 party coalitions
• no reforms, because each coalition party has different view on everything, they throw off responsibility for fails on each other
• corruption (party bosses are arranging party lists with their stupid soldiers as they want, no one knows those people, how they are selected, "politician" is synonym for "thief", there is surely no constituency link with an MP, "party" is synonym for "mafia", etc.)
• etc.

--"PR lists", open or closed lists??

Mrm, for a country with FPTP and a long ongoing stretch of minority governments, check out Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_minority_governments_in_Canada Human fella (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is videoclip promoting JOW in Poland: [1]. "FPTP" is in polish called "JOW". I hope you will stay with FPTP. In my opinion FPTP is source of british strength. When you defeated Nazis Germans wanted FPTP as they system. Adenauer (German statesman) was insisting on it very hard. But allies did'nt want strong Germany, so they enforced PR lists. The same was in Itally and Japan (they was fighting for FPTP recently, they now have 75% and 66% of FPTP). In France de Gaulle incorporated almost pure british FPTP. You sure dont want PR lists, its system for young - and weak democracies like whole "new Europa" or for example Spain.

Although myself a fan of SMP (it's SMP, not SMDP) it has its shortcomings. In 1979 Margaret Thatcher's government won the UK election, but didn't win a single seat in Wales or Scotland. In this sense her government's rule of them was seen by many as illegitimate and even colonial.

not even Poland is going FPTP (EU-hello, Poland!!)

Young, weak and unstable scandinavia uses different variations of PR lists, both open and unluckily also closed ones.

Just to correct the above comment, Thatcher's 1979 election victory included winning seats in both Scotland and Wales. However throughout the 1980s Scotland and Wales repeatedly voted heavily for non-Conservative parties but still had a Conservative administration. It was Thatcher's tone and the view that she was a south east England based politician with no regard for Scotland or Wales that fueled the grievances rather than whether or not the Conservatives had any MPs there.

To be honest all voting systems have this regard. I come from Surrey where the Labour Party has never had an MP - is Labour rule of there "illegitimate" or "colonial"? And many parties in the past have not contested particular seats - at the moment Labour doesn't stand in Northern Ireland and has had to be dragged into even allowing membership there. But this is a problem under any voting system - short of requiring the voters in every part of the country to majority vote the same party it'll always be a mess. Timrollpickering 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I think that showws that most people who oppose proportional representation aren't aware of all the different possible systems. In most systems (STV, open lists) the voters can choose which members of a party they wish to be elected. In Poland the problems of unstable coalitions would not be fixed by forcing everyone into two parties.

Incidentally who is Poland supposedly fighting against for this? I'm not an expert on the Polish consitution but as I understand it Poland doesn't need permission from anyone else to adopt FPTP, unless the change was intended to also apply to elections to the European Parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosice1234 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ballot or ballot paper

I was surprised to see ballot paper copy-edited to ballot paper. Although I know that the dictionary definition of both coincides, in the UK, I've only ever heard "ballot paper" used in popular speech. Is this a UK thing? --Notinasnaid 07:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume you meant "ballot paper" becoming "ballot." It must be a UK thing, because as an American, I've never even heard or read the phrase "ballot paper" before in my life (unless someone is talking about the actual physical paper that a ballot is printed on). --Matt Yeager 07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting

Alright, in response to the recent "edit conflict"... I don't really care about sub-heads one way or the other. If they're that important to you, keep them in. I just didn't see how they were necesary (the article seemed to flow just fine w/o them, but whatever.) Next time someone makes a lot of positive changes to an article, along with one big negative one, please refrain from a sheer revert of the page and just change it back manually (as you did this most recent time). Thank you. --Matt Yeager 07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did not consider that there were any positive changes in that edit. Of course, people tend to be more attached to their own words than others, so I invited you to open a discussion. Instead, you reinstated your edits. As I wrote in the history, Copyediting is good, but I don't think this improved the accessibility of the example, added because people did not understand. Especially removing sub-heads. Revert. Can we discuss on talk page.. I think it would have been better to have that discussion, rather than for my reversion to be immediately undone. That's how revert wars start.

This example was specifically created because of comments in the discussion that people didn't understand the previous example. I think it's a terrible thing if people can't understand their own democratic processes, so I took pains to make this very accessible. Short sentences. Subheadings to emphasise that two processes take place in any such election. I wrote Notice that there were a total of 11 + 16 + 13 = 40 votes because I think people some people genuinely are confused by introducing new numbers, rather than immediately deducing that the 40 is the sum of the numbers mentioned in the last sentence, and so on. Some changes I saw as neutral, and hence I reverted it.

Anyway, I will not get into a revert war, but I do not consider this to be any improvement. Here is the history, so anyone else interested can judge for themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plurality_electoral_system&diff=24961307&oldid=24952319. I have observed, however, that this page isn't so much governed by consensus as by people just doing stuff, like the name change it had a while back. --Notinasnaid 16:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I apparantly have a higher opinion of the intelligence of Wikipedians than you do. For instance, I assumed that when the numbers 11, 16, and 13 are listed, followed by "Notice that there were a total of 40 votes cast", that our readers are smart enough to see "total" and realize that there was some addition going on.

Let's go on, because I'm willing to talk this out. Tell me how this sounds.

"There are three candidates, Amy, Brian and Chloe. Each class member gets a ballot paper, with these three names on it. The class member must put an "X" against one of the names.

"After the election finishes, the papers are sorted into three piles. One pile contains all the papers where there is an "X" against Amy (that is, votes for Amy). The other two piles contain votes for Brian and for Chloe.

"The largest pile decides the winner. For instance, if Amy's pile has 11 votes, Brian's pile has 16 votes, and Chloe's pile has 13 votes, then the winner is Brian."

I mean, is it just me, or is that unbelievably wordy? Saying that they "put an 'X' against" a name? I actually can't fathom the use of this wording. It seems horrifically un-intuitive (which you--or the author, whoever--acknowledged when you/whoever later said "papers where there is an 'X' against Amy (that is, votes for Amy)". But if you're going to use an original, unintuitive phrase followed by an simple, easy equivalent anyway, why not just use the equivalent in the first place?).

It goes on. In the third paragraph of the above quotation, "For instance" is redundant and confusing (because you're not introducing a new example, you're just continuing in the same one).

Let's continue, shall we?

"Notice that there were a total of 11 + 16 + 13 = 40 votes, and the winner had only 16 of them; only 40%. But that is only the result for this one class."

What in the world is the purpose of that second sentence? This is instantly confusing, and there is no possible use. Since, in our little hypothetical class election, we've as of yet only introduced one class, it's very confusing (or at the least, redundant) to say "but that's only the result for this one class".

I'm not going to bother defending my removal of the subheads (or any other undefended edits); I've made my case that there were positive edits in there and it should not have been blindly reverted. (This is probably going overboard, and I apologize for any offense... please remember that you did ask for it when you said that there weren't any positive changes in my edit.) --Matt Yeager 04:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC).

Maximizing the weight of a single vote

Does anyone have a link to that (famous) pro-FPTP article used in the US 1970s hearings on Voting Rights?? That is, it made the fairly simple (math) argument that "just a few votes" can (unproportionally) change the outcome of a FPTP, two-party, single-seat, winner-takes-all election.

I believe you're thinking of the argument in favor of the electoral college. --Scott Ritchie 04:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

very probably not, this was a very "ancient" academic paper already in the 1970s. Basically noticing that in a two-party system only some few votes can have a maximum of unproportional weight on the final outcome.(including the formation of a government,etc, but that was not really analysed for anything but a 2-party system where the largest number of votes "takes-it-all")

IIRC, I once read a paper originally published in the 70s in favor of the electoral college over a nationwide popular vote because it "maximized the chance that an individual's vote would change the outcome." Does that sound like what you're intimating? Scott Ritchie 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Plurality voting system

Thanks to whoever moved the page here! I was wondering why we needed to call this an "electoral system" and not a voting system. I think we should avoid saying "electoral system" on Wikipedia because it's been used to mean too many different things. rspeer 06:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be me. Do you think this would be a good article to target next for cleanup? --Scott Ritchie 08:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, though it seems like a daunting task. --rspeer 16:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How about moving it back to its original name, First past the post.... any views on this? The move seems to have been done last time without consensus. Or I missed one. Notinasnaid 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Very much opposed to that, since the term is both slang and, worse, restricted to British English. Scott Ritchie 11:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm American, but I've really only ever heard it referred to as FPTP. "Plurality" is a broad class of methods to me, not just this particular method. CRGreathouse 06:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Use may be more widespread in the UK, where it is the only common term, used by those who both support and oppose it. It is not slang, but standard English, appearing in dictionaries. Even if it is a largely UK term, changing to a US term might be interpreted as a violation of the Wikipedia principle of the first national variation of English chosen defines the variation used for the article in future. Notinasnaid 17:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, however, perhaps first past the post voting system might have an advantage, as first past the post is unambiguous (whereas there are several "plurality" methods, such as bloc voting (though I have heard it described as "first past the post bloc voting" too) Scott Ritchie 23:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"First past the post" may be its common name, but the system actually is a "plurality voting system". Besides, the name "First Past The Post" is a really, really crummy name for this system. "Farthest from the start" is more like it. As the name doesn't even make sense, I'd suggest keeping the article here. Matt Yeager 04:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple of other reasons to keep it here:

• Plurality is referenced in a lot of other articles, and "plurality" is easier to say than "first past the post".
• If we were titling every system by its common name, then IRV and STV would both have to be described at preferential voting. There's nothing wrong with more formal names that are more precise.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

the funnier pseudo-democratic aspects of FPTP systems

gerrymandering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illinois_District_4_2004.png

US FPTP

I'm not sure it is correct to say that FPP is the system in use in the US. In congressional elctions for both houses of congress it is not the case that the person with a plurality or relative majority wins and all others loose. If nobody makes the clear majority (50% +1 vote), in a congressional race with three or four candidates for example, then a runoff election is held between the 1st and second place candidates (or however many are tied for those two positions) until somebody gets the clear majority. The electoral college in presidential elections does allow for a president to be elected with the minority of the popular vote, however s/he has still gotten the clear majority of the electoral vote. If nobody gets that, as has happened at least once, then the house of Representatives elects the president. Again, it is not a plurality system. I have removed the statement in the opening that says it is.

This isn't true - only the state of Louisiana holds runoff elections for cognressional seats. To be more precise, the US uses first past the post alongside primaries, however it's still FPTP. As for Presidential elections, the electoral college is a unique voting system in and of itself, however each slate of electors per state (except for two states) is elected using FPTP. Scott Ritchie 01:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. does not use first past the post for congressional elections; the states, with the exclusion of Louisiana, do. According to the wording, the United States should not be on this list as the country itself does not. It is the decision of the states to do this and most do, although if they wanted to pass a state amendment that gave it to the person closest to 4.3% of the vote, then they could. It is the state's decision. The U.S. should be removed from the list of countries that use FPTP for the lower/only house. Bsd987 04:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You raise a fine technical point: by your reasoning, the only national election in the United States has a total electorate of 538 persons. Senators, Representatives and Electors for President and Vice President are chosen by 50 (51 in the case of Electors) distinct elections, run under an equal number of distinct sets of rules. While there are national rules establishing voting rights (the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 27th Amendments, etc.) the means of casting, counting and recording votes is left entirely up to the states (Bush v. Gore notwithstanding). There is, however, a fair practical uniformity as to rules and methods, and insisting on the technicality is likely to render the article less informative, not more. The point can be raised in a footnote. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the article says the US uses a single member plurality system but that's not true because the winner of the US election has to have a clear majority in order to win. It's not first past the post for the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.186.129 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

More Strengths

-Democracy is inherently FPP almost all of the time, regardless of the system. If 55% want something, the other 45% get 0%, the 55% get 100%, as is the case with majority rule. As such, in parliamentary system, getting a majority of the seats puts you "first past the post", and any party not cooperating in Government has no real power. (In fact, many things are FPP. Games, for instance, are often "Win" or "Lose", you don't get a 40% win for getting 40% of the score). So a party could win 10% of the seats for decades and never operate in Government, despite the fact it should proportionally run 10% of them.

Thus, until we have a system of democracy where a number of seats truly equals power, points about "equal representation" are deceiving. In proportional representation, a party could halve its seats but now hold the balance of power and have considerably more say in policy, which is hardly proportional. Therefore, a FPP system may represent the population better, a tyranny of the plurality at least, rather than the minority (who happens to hold the balance of power).

- Coalitions may not represent a majority, despite holding a majority of the seats. Just like FPP can have a plurality elect a majority of the seats, proportional representation systems may elect Governments that do ommand a majority of the vote, but that does not mean the coalition Government may be favoured by that many.

To illustrate this point, an election on ingredients of a dessert. 36% of people voted for ice cream. 25% voted for chocolates. 20% voted for strawberries. 12% voted for honey. 7% of people voted for carrots. A coaltion of ice cream, honey and carrots was formed, and the dessert was a combination of all. The vast majority disliked this strange concoction, despite the fact that 55% had voted for one of the ingredients.

-Nichlemn 05:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What is your purpose in posting this? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The talk page should be for discussions of the content of the article, not debates about its topic. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the article contains a list of strengths and weaknesses of FPP. I was adding more possibilities. - Nichlemn 08:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that under such a scenario, ice cream would be much more likely to form a coalition with chocolate and strawberries. You could also have an instant runoff election, in which the second choices of voters would be tallied until one food reached 50%. -- Mwalcoff 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I live in Slovakia, a country with proportional representation. Before the last election Prime Minister Dzurinda was on TV and said, "My party would most like to continue in coalition with KDH, ANO and SMK. We would also consider HZDS however our coalition partners KDH will not go into government with them. We would not consider a coalition with SMER or SNS. Therefore the only possible coalitions are the right wing parties SDKU-KDH-SMK-ANO or alternatively SMER-HZDS-SNS". The second of those two possibilities got the most of the votes and therefore formed the government with the power towards the moderate end of that spectrum. In FPTP it isn't required that a party has even 50% of the votes in an individual seat let alone the whole country to wield 100% power as you describe it.

Also, polticians don't have a free choice of who they go into coalition with as voters won't vote for parties that say "wait and see" or make bizarre choices and it would anyway be impossible to agree policies with the other very different parties.

Nobody has practiced it as far as I know, but if a country had full separation of powers then it would make sense to have the legislature elected by PR and the executive elected by the de Condorcet method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosice1234 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Simple example"

Reviewing the history of this article, I observe that in December someone deleted the "simple example" without discussion and under the general title "deleted junk"; despite considerable discussion already having happened on this section in this talk page. In fact they just leftg a subtitle "more complex example", which seems slapdash. Later it was only partially reinstated. I see this as removing what was making the article accessible and leaving it less accessible, so I am going to reinstate the entire example. Please let's discuss it further here if required. Notinasnaid 14:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Single-winner voting systems

I just made Single-winner voting systems, mostly by copying from here. I think that the material I copied (advantages and disadvantages) should be removed from here (except for wasted votes, which needs minor editing on both sides to separate the issues) and linked (twice, once for advantages and once for disadvantages). Please discuss here. Since there's nothing that links there yet, I humbly request that you don't nominate that page for deletion until September, to allow the discussion here to mature a bit. --Homunq 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Move or delete "Each representative must be a winner" (advantages) section to another article?

The section "Each representative must be a winner" does not appear to be directly relevant to the topic of "plurality voting system". Instead it identifies supposed advantages of certain systems of parliamentary representation (namely, those based around the UK model). It is quite common to confuse systems of voting (e.g. FPTP vs IRV) and methods of representation (e.g. US Senate vs Congress, UK Prime Minister vs US President). It is entirely possible to keep all the "advantages" of the Canadian system described in the example here whilst still adoping a different voting method. Thus it seems that this section is not relevant to the topic at hand and should be deleted or moved to another article. I would go ahead and do this but I wanted to make sure other people agree / do not violently disagree first.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plurality_voting_system&diff=77756318&oldid=71465672 >.

Please do sign that.

hopiakuta 07:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I provisionally disagree. The advantages don't have to be unique to first past the post, but only (perceived and reported) advantages over some widely reported alternative. Perhaps mentioning prime minister confuses matters, since indeed the leader of government is not always drawn from those elected (indeed, constitutionally in England it doesn't have to be the case, I think). The advantages and disadvantages are not so very many that they don't fit in the article, especially as they are the core of almost all debate; people should be informed of these points. However, where there is a wealth of material on a subject it is sometimes worth generating an article and leaving a linked summary in the main article: but a living, working summary, not just a link. I would strongly oppose removing the mention completely, that could easily be interpreted as whittling away at the advantages/disadvantages list, and is likely to mean a future editor simply fills the gap. Notinasnaid 08:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

jumble

plurality_voting_system

plurality

simple_majority

absolute_majority

supermajority

"supermajoritarian", from the "absolute_majority" article.

It is my impression that this labyrinth has become a complex jumble. Is there some way that this could be otherwise improved?

hopiakuta 07:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Same as instant-runoff voting?

"In some countries such as France a similar system is used, but there are two rounds: the "two-round" or "two-ballot" plurality system. The two highest-voted candidates of the first round compete in a two-candidate second round."

Isn't that exactly what the Instant-runoff voting article talks about? User:2 of 8

Not exactly, but ideally the same effect. These elections are called two round systems. However IRV uses ranked preference ballots so voters only vote once and the second round (or more) are counted from the same ballots - by eliminating choices and counting a vote for the highest candidate on a ballot who is not eliminated. Tom Ruen 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Simple majority voting

A merge tag has been placed in this article by User:Yellowbeard. As with another merge he just proposed, it's an error. Plurality voting and simple majority voting do coincide in a special case; however, that special case is not the norm in elections.

If there is a plurality voting system in place, and there are only two choices possible, as with a referendum, where the referendum will either pass or fail, plurality is, in this case, identical to simple majority voting, with the added assumption that blanks are not counted toward determining the majority. Simple majority is a basic democratic concept, and the most common example of simple majority voting is -- as with the referendum example -- voting on a motion which either passes or fails. The Simple majority voting article definitely needs work, though.

Perhaps if User:Yellowbeard would actually put work in to improving articles, instead of merely running about deleting the work of others, these articles could be improved, or merged in a way that would not lose the work that someone put into them.) (He first proposed the article be deleted, then blanked it himself and redirected it to this article, effectively making the article invisible to anyone who doesn't look at contribution history, so recovering the content for an actual merge -- instead of the mere deletion of information he apparently does not want on Wikipedia -- would be problematic for many users.

See Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard to look at the history of this user. He's an obvious sock puppet, and SPA account (not one article, but one *class* of articles, and an anti-Range voting intention was apparent from his first activities; indeed, the day he registered, he proposed for deletion Schentrup method, a totally obscure article. Why? Well, besides being a ready target -- the article did not belong on Wikipedia at all, completely non-notable, original research -- the "Schentrup method" is named after Clay Shentrup who dreamed it up one day and probably created the article. Clay Shentrup is a prominent and very outspoken Range Voting advocate and activist against Instant Runoff Voting. Yes, he mispelled his own name. Then, realizing nobody was watching, Yellowbeard AfD'd Center for Range Voting, misrepresenting what it was, and likewise Bayesian reget, an economics concept that is part of the theoretical underpinning for Range Voting. He also continued to successfully AfD many voting systems articles, creating quite a bit of wreckage such as broken links, some of which he did fix. --Abd (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In elections is useful to distinguish between a plurality and a majority. First Past the Post is fundamentally a plurality voting system. A majority in the sense that most people and democracies understand it - 50% plus one - is not needed. Just a plurality. The article as stands is informative and I wouldn't merge it. Gpbury (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge. The largest minority vote isn't necessarily a simple majority. The plurality voting system article should remain separate. The Transhumanist 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there's no consensus, I'm going to remove the merge tag. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Moderation - not

The assertions made in the Moderation section may have intuitive appeal, but they are contradicted by some heavy-duty statistical analyzes by Ka-Ping Yee. His article (and my short summary) clearly shows that of five commonly studied voting methods, plurality is the most hostile to centrist candidates and, by the way, Borda is the most friendly. In his section titled "Squeezed Out," Yee even gives a case where the centrist candidate is actually squeezed out by the plurality voting method itself.

And then there's Duverger's law, which states that plurality voting tends to favor two-party systems. In turn, two party systems are often associated with the kind of polarization recently seen in the United States Senate. I do not see how a system that is associated with death-knell polarization can fairly be said to favor moderation.

The argument that political parties tend to put up moderate candidates may be correct, but it is an argument about how people use plurality, not about plurality itself. In fact, the incentive to win by putting up moderate candidates is common to almost all methods of voting.

If anyone actually has real evidence that plurality favors moderation, I would like to hear about it. In any case, I recommend that the Moderation section be replaced with evidence-based material. Page Notes (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've revised the section, but my version is dangerously WP:WEASELly. The only way to get rid of the weasel is to find some actual empirical evidence. Simulations, such as the Yee data mentioned above, are very suggestive, and I'm convinced in many cases, but they all rely on assumptions about voter strategy that may or may not be borne out in real life. The only evidence which is incontrovertible is empirical. Homunq (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gerrymandering

I inserted a note and links on this, as it is obviously a major flaw in X-voting. I was surprised that it was not already there, as it is a notorious abuse in many of the countries listed as users of the system - including the USA. Why stuff the voting boxes when you can get the same effect by a simple gerrymander? Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed subsection "Ensures strong government"

Entire subsection was a single sentence containing no cited source, with a 'Dubious' tag from February of 2010. As any majoritarian system, it ensures strong government. Mtiffany71 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition. Please.

This article does not define plurality voting. If anyone who knows what it is would be so kind as to add that it would be appreciated.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a correct redirect?

I made Majority representation system redirect to Plurality voting system based on this article. Did I get it right? In general and related to the content in that article? I is not an expert on voting systems... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 08:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge

So this merge template to merge with First-past-the-post voting has been up there since September 2010. I'm not very familiar with the subjects but is there a major difference between Plurality voting system and First-past-the-post voting. Devourer09 (t·c) 01:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are major differences between the First-past-the-post voting system and Plurality voting system. A plurality voting system is any single-winner voting system that requires the winner to get more votes than any other competitor; this includes systems like First-past-the-post and the Alternative Vote, for example. First-past-the-post is a type of plurality voting, but the two concepts are not equivalent. The two should not be merged and the merge tag should be taken down. Moreover, this article links directly to the French article for First-past-the-post voting on the "Francais" translation link in the sidebar, which is not correct: it should link to the French article for Plurality voting instead, again, because Fist-past-the-post is not equivalent to Plurality voting. User:Ahblair —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC).

The major difference is there in the opening paragraph - Plurality voting includes a number of different systems including first past th epost, such as second ballot run-offs, most famously used for voting the host cities for the Olympics. Perhaps the opening paragraph does not make this clear enough - I'll edit. Mdw0 (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki

I deleted interwiki due to conflict in wikidata. For example, in this version which Vashti reverted, Japanese article links Single-member district, not this article. --kwan-in (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You deleted *all* the interwiki data because of an error for one language? Vashti (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

not just one, I just show one example of several errors. I'm mainly active in ko.wiki, that's why I realized that two interwikis are messed up. Also, two articles' interwikis are already moved to wikidata, so I thought that it doesn't need anymore. --kwan-in (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think I understand what is going on. Is this data automatically generated? Vashti (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This article's interwiki (wikidata) was made based on ko.wiki and ja.wiki, and then English one was added later. What you've reverted later, all of them is at Single-member district. --kwan-in (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm, okay, let's leave it then. Thanks. :) Vashti (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge with First-past-the-post voting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These are used interchangeably everywhere I've seen, the articles have a lot of duplicated content, and the intro of "Plurality voting" says "it may be called first-past-the-post (FPTP)".

User:Ahblair in the above discussion claims that plurality is a superset of FPTP and also includes instant-runoff voting, but the only references to "plurality" in Instant-runoff voting are referring to FPTP, not to a superset of IRV. If this is a real distinction it needs to be clarified.

Some definitions:

• "Plurality rule is the 'first past the post' system, in which the candidate with the most votes is elected, with no consideration as to whether he has obtained a majority or not." - https://www.springer.com/us/book/9789027703545
• "The voting method used was what is called plurality: each voter chooses one candidate, and the candidate with the highest number of votes wins." - https://www.mfo.de/math-in-public/snapshots/files/how-to-choose-a-winner-the-mathematics-of-social-choice
• "Plurality: Each voter awards one point to his/her top alternative, and the alternative with the most points wins." - https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~arielpro/15896/docs/notes8.pdf
• "Plurality: The winner is the candidate that was ranked first most often." - https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/boolean-analysis/lecture12.pdf
• "plurality voting: This is the usual rule for elections, in which the set of alternatives is a group of candidates, running for mayor, or member of parliament, or a position on student council. Some body of electors ... has to choose from this set of candidates. So each of these voters gets to mark a ballot, and can vote for only one of the candidates. What is the social choice rule here, for determining which candidate is chosen? The candidate chosen is the candidate with the most votes." - http://www.yorku.ca/bucovets/4080/choice/1.pdf
• "Each voter names a single candidate as his vote. Winner is the one named the most times." - http://m-schulze.9mail.de/votedesc.pdf
• "Plurality system, electoral process in which the candidate who polls more votes than any other candidate is elected." - https://www.britannica.com/topic/plurality-system

— Omegatron (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

First past the post is a poor choice of title for an article since, although widely used, it is a colloquialism that is technically incorrect; unlike most voting systems, plurality voting has no "post" whatsoever. It would be better to have an article about plurality voting, within which the FPTP material is subsumed, and with a redirect from that term. MapReader (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It is true that "plurality" and "first past the post" are often used interchangeably. However some distinguish between "single-member plurality" (i.e. first past the post) and the various forms of "multi-member plurality" (e.g. single non-transferable vote, limited voting, block voting). See for example https://citizensassembly.arts.ubc.ca/resources/factsheets/factsheet9.pdf.

Because "plurality" can refer to a category that includes multiple winner systems, I do not believe the two articles should be merged. However there is a lot of very similar content that could perhaps be removed from this article and merged into first-past-the-post voting.

Instant-runoff voting is generally not considered a form of plurality. Rhys Goldstein (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The status quo of having both Plurality voting and First-past-the-post voting articles is intensely confusing. My guess is that most of the inbound links to Plurality voting intend to refer to the single winner variety. The current introductory paragraph already addresses the point that Rhys Goldstein makes, since "Winner takes all" already redirects to Plurality voting, and suggests that in multi-member districts, plurality voting may be referred to as winner-takes-all (I'm actually not sure this is correct; I'm pretty sure that many people mean "single winner" when they say "winner takes all"). Given the confusion we already have, it seems to me a reasonable plan ("merge plan") would be:

1. Create a new "terminology" section, clarifying the distinction between single winner and multi-winner versions

2. Merge content from First-past-the-post voting into this article

3. Create a "First-past-the-post voting" section of this article, in deference to the widespread use of this particular term

4. Redirect First-past-the-post voting to the "#First_past_the_post" section of this article

That said, I have no interest in engaging in a debate with people who believe "First-past-the-post voting" should be the title of its own article. My personal experience is that non-experts have an easier time understanding "plurality voting", and that "first-past-the-post" sounds like confusing jargon to them, but I'll freely acknowledge that I haven't spoken with all Wikipedia readers. :-) An alternate plan that preserves "First-past-the-post voting" (the "summary plan") would be:

1. Create a new "terminology" section, clarifying the distinction between single winner and multi-winner versions

2. Create an infobox template, establishing Plurality voting, First-past-the-post voting, and Plurality-at-large voting as three articles in the "Plurality voting" family (with Plurality voting being the parent of First-past-the-post voting and Plurality-at-large voting), and add that template to all three.

3. Update all three articles to ensure that the bulk of the single-winner content is moved to the First-past-the-post voting article, and that the important topics are covered in this article using WP:Summary style, making it clear that Plurality voting is a high-level overview of the details available in the First-past-the-post voting

Regardless of whether the "merge plan", "summary plan", or some other plan is the best choice, the status quo doesn't help our readers understand the topic, and doesn't help editors keep the content organized and updated. -- RobLa (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The two proposals from RobLa seem reasonable. I had previously opposed the merge because there are a few sources that describe plurality as a category that includes both single-member plurality (FPTP) and one or more forms of multi-member plurality. But perhaps a "terminology" or "multi-member plurality" section would be enough to acknowledge this distinction. That said, the summary plan with the separate articles and infobox may also be a good way to proceed.

I believe "winner-takes-all" generally refers to voting systems that are not proportional, regardless of whether they are plurality systems or non-proportional systems of a different kind (e.g. instant-runoff voting). Perhaps there should be an article called "Majoritarian electoral system", and then "winner-takes-all" would redirect there. Rhys Goldstein (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong support of at least a partial merge - there is no reason to have so much duplication. Reywas92^Talk 23:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.