Talk:Wasted vote

--Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Gerrymandering

There is a link to this article on the Gerrymandering page, but this article doesn't say anything about the relationship between wasted votes and gerrymandering. I believe the term "wasted vote" is the most relevant in the discussion of gerrymandering, or that gerrymandering is certainly the most significant (U.S.) social application of the "wasted votes" concept. There should an overview of how wasted votes are exploited in the process of gerrymandering here in this article along with a link back to the main gerrymandering article. I might revamp the article to include this theme later if nobody makes the edit first. 24.179.114.255 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Tone of article

Personally I disagree with the tone of this article in giving some legitimacy to the concept of "wasted votes" as defined herein, especially given the fact that refrences aren't provided. For example, the definitions provided state that a wasted vote may be defined as... rather than something like 'the term wasted vote is often used to describe votes cast that...' et cet. I don't see how the definitions provided actually constitute a wasted vote, and while the term itself doesn't need to be an accurate description of the concept it denotes, I do think the article could do better to present the way in which the term is used and the arguments for and against its legitimacy in various situations. Above all, it would seem that the views of the sources should be prevented, rather than the article itself declaring certain votes as wasted. Provided that refrences can be found, would there be an objection to trying to focus on the debate over the term's usefulness in various situations, and the ways in which it is currently used? I feel the current article is actually taking a side on a controversial position that is neither good for the article nor accurate.--Δζ (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The definitions do not constitute a wasted vote in my opinion. Just having your party lose is not wasting a vote. A wasted vote is one where it would make no difference if you voted or not and one that has no effect on the outcome of the election.90.155.77.156 (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

---

92.29.236.253 (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)I also agree, on rare occasions we get asked our opinion on who we would like to govern or represent us, a wasted vote is one which does not give that opinion, either by not voting or by trying to vote tactically.92.29.236.253 (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.236.253 (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand the following quote from the article:

"Opponents of the concept of a wasted vote point out that voting one's conscience is fundamental to democracy - an example of this is the adoption of major Socialist legislation by more mainstream parties in the United States in order to halt the Socialist party [1]."

In what way does the example cited relate to voting one's conscience in a democracy? The two statements seem unrelated, or at least related in a rather abstruse way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.97.117 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is wasted vote should be counted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.8.130 (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference says both, and that by voting for their principles, Socialists influenced the major parties:

An unprincipled vote is the only wasted vote.

The most successful third party in the 20th Century was the Socialist Party. While never winning any significant elections, their small but growing vote totals were a threat to the Democrats. Thus the Democrats, and then later the Republicans, adopted piecemeal every major tenet of the 1916 Socialist Party platform.

This supports the text. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I'd like to point out that the last sentence makes no sense and that the link has nothing to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.50.189 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This whole article should be deleted as the concept of a 'wasted vote' does not exist, so therefore, there should be no explanation for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonton29 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree that the concept "does not exist", the article does have a NPOV issue in that the term itself is POV. It needs to present the idea as something that some people see as a problem, while others do not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Rename to Efficiency Gap?

With the recent Wisconsin decision and it coverage in the New York Times, it seems to me that the term "Wasted Vote" is now best understood as a part of the model associated with the Efficiency Gap, and that in fact it would make more sense to re-title this article Efficiency Gap. I added a redirect page for Efficiency Gap pointing here, but I think that the whole article should probably be turned inside out.

Clements (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking to add the redirect, people are going to search on "efficiency gap." I talked with a mathematician who teaches election math, he says that "wasted vote" as a concept is in the books but "efficiency gap" is still new, so I guess I'd vote against renaming the article.

He also said that the more common definition of wasted vote has only votes for the winner above the minimum needed for the win. The votes for the loser are in some definitions, but that is the minority. Right now the article describes both versions but the language seems rather muddy, talking about "broader" and "narrower". Also the article lacks a good reference.

M.boli (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe "wasted vote" is a general term in the field, but for the Efficiency Gap, it has a very specific meaning. I believe there should be 2 articles - one on Efficiency Gap, which contains its specific definition, and the more general page, with links to the Efficiency Gap page for those who are looking for it.

Mdnahas (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect definition

The definition seems very wrong to me. Most of the time, when people talk about the wasted vote, they're talking about a vote for a 3rd party in a 2-party system. This has nothing to do with gerrymandering. This is, however, related to Duverger's law. The vote is "wasted" because a 3rd party candidate has very small chances of being elected, and your vote thus is very unlikely to impact the results of the election. Fresheneesz (talk)

I think you are describing an informal meaning of wasted vote. Generally the broader definition described in this article is the technical definition that has been adopted in election mathematics: a vote that ultimately did not contribute to the outcome. The outcome would be the same whether or not that vote was cast. It could be a vote for the losing candidate, or a vote for the winning candidate in excess of the number needed to win. There are some older articles that use the narrower definition (only the votes for losing candidates), but generally the more recent articles on election math that I have found are using the broader definition.

Also see the suggestion in the comment heading above, where an editor suggests that efficiency gap might be split off into a separate article, which would use this technical definition of wasted vote. I'll be happy to do that if there are other editors who think this is a good idea. M.boli (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe there is an error or ambiguity in the University of Chicago Law Review article's definition. Although it calls out "plurality-rule, single-member-district (SMD) elections that are almost universal in American politics," it assumes majority-rule SMDs in its examples. (IIRC, only 11 states use a majority threshold.) If wasted (or as the paper calls "inefficient") votes are those that do not directly contribute to victory, then (assuming plurality elections) wouldn't votes for the winner in excess of the loser's votes+1 be considered wasted since their removal will not change the outcome? Only if the election uses a majority threshold, would the wasted votes be those for the winner in excess of 50%+1. Maybe there should be a different term for wasted votes as used in EG calculations. It seems the authors of that article gloss over the distinction between a plurality threshold and a majority threshold. The confusion might also be caused by a difference of perspective: who is wasting the vote? Are the parties wasting votes, or are the voters? FB1A6E38 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Formal Definition and Visualization

Please excuse my Wikipedia naïveté. I have come to what I believe to be a formal definition of wasted (and conversely, effective) votes in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. I also have a method for visualizing them. I was thinking of adding this definition/visualization to this page, but since I believe this is a new definition, I have no citation for it. Can I add it anyway? I put together an example of it here:

Examples of wasted votes in different election systems

or get the original Numbers version.

FB1A6E38 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that making a graphic to illustrate a definition of wasted vote would be OK. But your graphic doesn't seem to correspond to any of the definitions that are cited in this article. I'm guessing that with some looking you could find some reference which works as you describe, or you could illustrate a reference that is similar.::

Your graphic is quite nice, by the way. It does a good job of illustrating a complicated example. As a matter of clarity, I suggest you could make it more clear what makes certain numbers in your table "necessary" or "sufficient". (But to post it to this article, you still should show that it corresponds to some reliably sourced definition of wasted vote.)

It seems the "icoud" site wants people to sign up for accounts to be able to see the files you are sharing. I was able to defeat that, but it would be more user-friendly if you posted future in some way that was not encumbered. M.boli (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I have updated the spreadsheet mentioned above to use the example election mentioned in the article and also included examples from two other election systems (IRV & STV).

Regarding the definition, I believe it does correspond to the existing definition, but I'll try to better explain this as you suggested. Thank you for your feedback. FB1A6E38 (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The definition you refer to is this: "A wasted vote is any vote that is either not necessary OR not sufficient to elect a candidate." I see a problem with it, though: now you must define "necessary vote" and "sufficient vote". I think it will not be possible, because it's not *individual* votes that are called wasted -- all one speaks of is the *number* of wasted votes. Here is an example. Consider the case where there are four voters, A, B, C, and D. Suppose A, B, and C vote for X and D votes for Y. Then 1 is the number of wasted votes, but there is no way to determine whether it's the vote of A that is wasted, or the vote of B that is wasted, or the vote of C that is wasted. Daniel R. Grayson (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think more to the point I've come up with a definition is not the same as I've come up with a reliable source. If the definition were accepted in the political science or mathematics community and published, that would be another story. I think it is OK to create explanatory diagrams, just as it is OK to create explanatory paragraphs, provided they explain reliably sourced material. M.boli (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The distinction between necessary and sufficient is found by the threshold for election. Depending upon the threshold, an election with the same tally of votes will have different effective/wasted ratios and possibly different outcomes. I tried to show this in my illustration linked above, but it could use more explanation/examples (I'll try to improve that). Regarding the four voter example: it depends on the threshold used, but in any case, trying to identify which individual's vote is wasted is not relevant. We can look at it two ways: either by the quantity of wasted vs effective votes (in total or broken down by candidate) or by the effective "value" of any individual's vote (again either in the election overall or by the candidate they voted for). If the four voter election used a majority threshold (50%), all 4 votes would be necessary, but only the 3 votes for the winner, X, would be sufficient. In this case, the effective:wasted ratio is 3:1 (75% effective/25% wasted). Looking at it from the voter's perspective, and not knowing who they voted for, the "value" of their vote is .75 (1 being totally effective, 0 being totally wasted). But the voter's themselves know who they voted for and could calculate their vote's value. Those that voted for X would be valued at 1 and those that voted for Y would be valued at 0. Now if a plurality threshold is used (25% in this example), the values would be different: 3 of the votes would be necessary (2 for X, 1 for Y) and 3 of the votes would be sufficient (all 3 for X). In this case, the effective:wasted ratio is 1:1 (50% effective/50% wasted). Looking at it from the voter's perspective, and not knowing who they voted for, the "value" of their votes overall is ½. More specifically, those that voted for X would be valued at ⅔ and those that voted for Y would be valued at 0. In either case, you'd definitely know that D's vote for Y was wasted. HTH FB1A6E38 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've published a story on Medium that attempts to explain my definition. Since I'm the author and this is probably considered original research, I don't think I should be the one to make changes to the article, but let me know if anyone thinks otherwise. FB1A6E38 (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Evaluative Proportional Representation: reverted addition

I just reverted an addition that described the main idea behind Evaluative Proportional Risk (EPR), a concept in voting recently published by an academic political scientist. I'm not opposed to putting some of these ideas into Wikipedia, however the edit I just reverted was multi-ways ham-handed.

• It plunked a longish description of this concept right in the lede. There is a concept of wasted vote used by political scientists, and which has recently been utilized in legal filings, the political science literature, and the public discourse on gerrymandering. EPR is a concept which appears in a small number of academic articles, and apparently hasn't been a part of any academic or legal discourse. Filling up the lede with this non-standard and unusual definition of "wasted vote" misleads the lay public. Typically Wikipedia is for people seeking information on a concept being bandied about in the public discourse. At least the lede section should serve that audience, even though the rest of the article might be more encyclopedic.
• This longish description wasn't written as lede material anyway. At best it could belong in a separate section describing EPR.
• The added material did not conform to Wikipedia editing standards. The references were simply run-in to the text, without even ref tags. There were apparent cite number superscripts that seemed to have been copy-pasted out of some other source. It would have to be reformatted and edited.
• It would be helpful if there were independent citations to the EPR concept so that we could believe it is notable. It is possible some authors are trying to gin up credibility for their otherwise un-notable niche paper. It is also possible this is a notable concept that is taking the political science world by storm. I'm unable to judge. But finding some other references would establish notability.

Do other people have thoughts on this matter? If this is a notable new concept, we should figure out how to include it. But it may not be. M.boli (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is the text recently added to the lede (the second version) by Stephen C Bosworth (talk · contribs):

The voting method called majority judgment (MJ) addresses the problem of qualitative waste. Voters are asked to grade each candidate’s fitness for the office as either Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or Reject. All these evaluations are counted to guarantee that the winner is the one most highly valued by a majority of all the voters. Evaluative Proportional Representation (EPR) adapts MJ to elect all the members of a legislative body. Each voter’s representative is the one most highly graded by that voter – no vote is wasted.

This is certainly a more readable and comprehensible summary than the first try. I did some minor copy-edit on the citation, I think you can put it into Wikipedia.

I think you make a good point: many proportional representation systems are partly designed to reduce wasted votes. It could make sense to put a sentence in the lede that notes this fact, and links over to proportional representation. But EPR is hardly unique in this respect.

Which leads to my suggestion: proportional representation is the proper article to describe Evaluative Proportional Representation. In particular, this seems like a kind of cousin to Reweighted Range Voting. The main ideas are a) proportional representation and b) a voter assigns a score to each candidate (which in your system is a 5 point scale). This contrasts with other systems where voters rank their candidates in preference order. I will be happy to try to help integrate this material into Wikipedia. I prefer to keep the discussion on the article talk pages, as opposed to individual editor talk pages or e-mail. M.boli (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping @Stephen C Bosworth: in a separate edit in order to be sure the ping/notice is sent. Please look at Talk:Wasted vote talk page M.boli (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: I wiki-linked majority judgment. Neither of us noticed it already has a wiki-page. Is it possible that EPR belongs on the majority judgment page? M.boli (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping @M.Boli:Talk:Wasted vote Thank you both for helping me on this my first contribution, and for expressing your willingness to help integrate my material into Wikipedia. You are right that Reweighted Range Voting (RRV) has some resemblance to EPR. Both allow citizens to rate candidates and then these ratings are counted to elect parties proportionately into the legislature. However, as cogently argued by Balinski & Laraki (p. 283), MJ’s and EPR’s ratings (i.e. the 6 grades from Excellent to Reject) are more meaningful, informative, and discerning than RRV’s 6 ratings (e.g. scores from 5 to 0). Also, the different ways that MJ and EPR count the ratings is simpler than RRV’s. RRV uses the Droop Quota and somewhat arbitrary fractions, while each EPR vote can be counted by anyone who can only add and subtract whole numbers. Also, EPR’s giving different weighted votes in the legislature to each member, assists each voter to guarantee that her vote will not be wasted either quantitatively or qualitatively. EPR’s proportionality is exact while RRV’s is only approximate. Each EPR citizen’s vote is added to the weighted vote in the legislature of the representative she has most highly graded. Among all the multi-winner methods, only EPR allows no vote to be wasted qualitatively. Do you have any suggestions as to how more discussions of MJ and/or EPR might be usefully added to Wikipedia? For example, might I contribute a step by step description of how an EPR election is counted? Might it be carefully compared and contrasts with each of its rivals with regard their delivery of the features desired in an electoral system? (talk)Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

18-9-24Stephen C Bosworth (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Roger. I'll fix up the cite templates, wiki-links, etc. In my opinion your EPR does not belong in the lede paragraph on wasted vote, for reasons I listed above. This is not an article about voting systems or representation systems, it isn't lede material. My feeling was that it could go a) in the proportional representation article, or b) in an article by itself. If there is some other method where representatives get unequally weighted votes in the legislature you might explore putting your material there. Right now I will move it down to the bottom, but that is temporary until we find it a proper home. M.boli (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph on "evaluative proportional representation" does not belong to the "wasted vote" article. It is clear that proportional representation systems reduce wasted votes, compared to plurality rule and that it makes sense to put a sentence in the lede that notes this fact, and links over to proportional representation. But why EPR ?. I suggest to delete the EPR paragraph from this article.--Tiritigi (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. I moved it to proportional representation, with a link back to here. Thank you! I put it in the "other systems" section. It may belong under one of the other headings, but it wasn't obvious to me which that would be. M.boli (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

References

The Ambiguity

‎Kolyvansky (talk · contribs) noticed the ambiguity in the paper: the words in the U of C Law Review article seem to mean votes over 50%+1 count as excess, whereas the worked-out example in that paper uses 50% exactly.

But then the same author Stephanopoulos uses 50%+1 in his New Republic article. And 50%+1 made more intuitive sense to me. So I went with that. But as a practical matter I guess it won't make much numerical difference except in small toy examples. M.boli (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy of a statement

Consider this statement from the page: "If each party wins a number of district elections in rough proportion to that party's electoral popularity, the efficiency gap will be near zero."

Now consider an example: 5 districts, 10 voters per district, two parties A and B, district 1 with all 10 from A, district 2 with all 10 from A, district 3 with 10 from A, district 4 with 10 from A, district 5 with 10 from B. So party A has 20 wasted votes and party B has 5 wasted votes. The difference is 15, so the efficiency gap is 15/50 = 30%. Party A has 40 voters and gets 4 seats, party B has 10 voters and gets 1 seat, so each party wins a number of district elections in proportion to that party's electoral popularity. But the efficiency gap is far from 0. So the quoted statement is false. Unless I made a mistake.

Daniel R. Grayson (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yap! And that is congruent with the first (and biggest) shortcoming mentioned in the shortcoming section. I adjusted the language to remove that claim, and modify a similar claim a few sentences later. M.boli (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you want to fix the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering in the same way? Or should I add a remark there? Daniel R. Grayson (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no dibs on fixing that. Thanks for noticing it. Even though I probably introduced the bug in the first place. :-( -- M.boli (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a remark there to see who wants to fix it. Daniel R. Grayson (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You will also feel your vote is wasted ...

... in a primary, if you are stuck with an early vote cast for a candidate who then dropped out. Carlm0404 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Another example?

Currently, the following is stated for example calculations:

Consider an election where candidates A, B and C receive 6000, 3100 and 701 votes respectively.

If this is a plurality voting election for a single seat, Candidate A has a plurality of votes and is therefore elected. The wasted votes are:

   All 3801 votes for candidates B and C, since these did not elect any candidate
   In the wider definition, 2899 of the votes for candidate A are wasted, since A would still have won with only 3101 votes. Therefore, 6700 out of 9801 votes are wasted.

Why is there not an example where 2,899 of the votes for candidate A are wasted, none for candidate B are wasted and all for candidate C are wasted? The votes for candidate A reach 50%+1 for candidate B at 3,101, resulting in any more votes for candidate A being wasted in defeating his or her rivals. The votes for candidate B are not wasted, as they are the threshold that candidate A had to overcome. The votes for candidate C are wasted as they have no impact on the race between B and C, resulting in 3,600 wasted votes (2,899 for A and 701 for C) out of 9,801 ballots cast. I suppose counting the votes for candidate C as 'wasted' refers to the position presented in the Incorrect Definition discussion about third parties which are too small to impact the election between the top two candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.183.104 (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The point is that wasted vote is a technical term. It means the votes for the losing candidates, and can also include the votes for the winning candidates beyond needed for winning.

I agree the word wasted has ordinary English meaning with pejorative connotation. So calling votes wasted sounds insulting to the people who voted. But that's not how the politicial scientists are using the word. — M.boli (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

grammar edit 9/7/21

previously: "...considered a qualitatively wasted if..." edit: "...considered qualitatively wasted if... consider also "...considered a qualitatively wasted vote if..." 2601:283:8200:CC00:B4AF:D7BD:2D98:28B1 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Normalized Efficiency Gap

The concept used in this article for the normalized efficiency gap was created by a single user (who has since been banned), contains no source or reasoning as to how the formula was created and is of low quality relative to the rest of the article. Would it make sense for this to be rewritten in a more professional way? A Doctor Who (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not looked closely at that section or its history, but I don't doubt you at all. Large parts of this article are more or less bizarre. I am lost within one sentence of the start of the article, when the definition of a wasted vote includes votes for second place candidates. It's absurd, and at odds with the literature, to say that "wasted votes" include votes cast by those who voted for the second-place candidate when they least-preferred the first-place candidate. Is it a "waste" to refuse to boost the election chances of your most hated candidate? If I vote for the Democrat in a district where the Republican usually wins, but there are literally two candidates on the ballot and I know I don't want the Republican to win, did I waste my vote? Even in less extreme cases, if there are more than two parties and the voter does not least-prefer the top vote getter, it's still possible for a rational utility maximizer to strategically vote for a second-place candidate whom they hold higher in their preference ordering than the top vote getter. It is so weird to say that such a voter wasted their vote, and I don't think I've ever encountered that particular mis-definition in the literature. I am sure all of this sounds like WP:OR but sadly it's the old WP:EXPERT conundrum where I could easily give you however many references you want that define wasted votes correctly, but the only way I could think of to find sources that mis-define it in the peculiar way that Wikipedia does is to look in the reference section of this page ... Clearly I've gone off topic a bit, all this was to say that you have my strong encouragement to give a thorough WP:BB treatment any and all text that looks even a little strange on this page. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wasted vote - Australian context

This page appears to be being edited by an Australian politician or other actor in relation to a Twitter argument relating to the concept of "wasted votes" in the Australian preferential voting (STV) system. Suggest reversion to previous accurate technical description of "wasted vote". The edits made by the user Austinatorus add to confusion in relation to the term "wasted vote". Particularly the phrase: "In that context, every vote that is added to the final count has been recognised as an expression of the voter's opinion and has therefore not been wasted." The idea of a "final count" may not exist in all voting systems. Even in a preferential voting system such as the Australian House of Representatives STV single-candidate system, all votes that accrue to the final eliminated candidate are "wasted" in the sense of not receiving representation in the final division of seats. TheLoneAmigo (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed "Wasted vote by country"

Removed the recently-added "wasted vote by country" section.

• It contained only one country, the USA.
• The one reference was garbled: the fairvote.org URL didn't match the Vox author/title. In any case, neither possible reference seemed to support the claim. My best guess is it was derived from adding up numbers in a spreadsheet from fairvote.
• In any case, the percentage of wasted votes isn't a meaningful number. In every first-past-the-post election all the votes for the losing candidate are wasted. One would expect a huge number of wasted votes.

-- M.boli (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposing we also delete 'examples of proportional representation' and take only a couple of those examples to show high and low %'s of wasted votes to the 'Proportional representation' section to prevent this from becoming a list Superb Owl (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge Unrepresented voters into Wasted vote

Reason: overlapping meaning HudecEmil (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Narrow and false information

I don’t support plurality voting, but this page makes false claims about it and “wasted votes” that lack nuance and should elaborate on the different philosophical interpretations. 45.42.157.72 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)