1242:..." because party politics is dominated by the worst vote-counting system within a nation. There will be a change in who enters elections when a full election system is well-designed, but so far no nation uses a well-designed vote-counting system. For example, the electoral college in the US constrains what can happen in Congressional elections; the ability of a parliament to trigger a new election through a vote of no confidence is linked to how ministers, including prime ministers, are selected, which affects parties, which limits the ability of a reform-minded candidate to get elected, which means reform-minded candidates do not enter politics; "open primaries" in the US do not yet use a well-chosen vote-counting method in the first/nomination round; etc.
421:
32:
411:
390:
174:
1210:. I'm just referring to papers showing no difference on the results of elections—null effects on electoral competition, number of parties, or descriptive representation of groups like minorities and women. And in ~96% of cases where voting goes into multiple rounds, IRV and FPP line up. So, if it has no effect on the candidates who run, and no effect on which candidate wins, that's some pretty airtight evidence that there's no effect at all.
542:
306:
225:
285:
207:
55:
316:
1176:. I'm pretty sure that's not the case when you look outside of the plurality-with-elimination family, and particularly when you look at proportional representation. This seems like a very important thing to talk about—I'd love to have more information on studies relating to the importance of electoral systems to outcomes like democratic backsliding, voter satisfaction, and overall stability.
925:
consolidate around two major candidates, leading to a "runoff" dynamic where only these two candidates get a meaningful share of the vote. In the United States, you can think of the "consolidation" process as being the primaries for each party, and then the runoff is the general election (where only the major-party nominees have a real chance, so other candidates can be safely ignored).
499:
165:
993:
So far, Wiki articles have been written mostly from the first perspective; this can be a bit of a problem because these fields have different terminologies and focuses. As an example, single-member plurality or IRV would never be called "majoritarian" in social choice theory. The term "majoritarian"
924:
I'm in the process of writing some articles that will explain the research on this by social choice theorists. The upshot is that under strategic voting patterns, FPP turns into a "de facto" instant-runoff system: in the early stages of a campaign, strategic voters abandon the weakest candidates and
827:
My main issue with the current taxonomy is "majoritarian" or "majority" are used in voting system literature to refer to
Condorcet methods, not to IRV (a variant of plurality). Sometimes "majoritarian" is used to mean single-member (though that's a bit of a misnomer), in which case plurality would
1191:
In the United States, ranked choice ballots have not yet been used to elect state legislators, or a meaningful number of members of
Congress. When that happens laws and taxes are likely to be reformed. Then the economic advantages (reduced corruption, fewer unfair monopolies, fewer unfair tax
928:
As a result, IRV and FPP tend to behave very similarly to each other, but very differently from other systems (like score or
Condorcet voting). IRV and FPP tend to lead to polarized two-party systems, whereas score (under strategic behavior) or Condorcet methods select winners who are
787:
Sorry if I was unclear; I meant the article should be rewritten to explain the common classification of voting systems, which groups them into these 4 families (which I called categories). Each family should have its own section. This is not related to
Knowledge (XXG) categories.
1192:
subsidies, fewer unfair tax breaks, etc.) will become evident. In the meantime it's nearly impossible to research and yield evidence of these advantages. Remember the role of governors and presidents is to enforce the laws and taxes passed in legislatures.
178:
942:
Oh, to clarify—single-winner and multi-winner (including proportional) systems should definitely be kept in separate articles. Worth noting that any single-winner system can be made proportional by using the Single
Transferable Vote technique, though.
1224:(Note that I'm referring to the American political context, where my read on the literature is that IRV is basically reinventing the existing primary system, which already prevents spoilers from substantially affecting the results of an election.)
902:
I'm not really seeing the need to deviate from the existing classification, although I think we could perhaps make the first four listed (plurality, majority, proportional and mixed) separate from the subsequent ones (primary, indirect, others).
998:(which guarantee a majority of voters always gets their way). However, political scientists will sometimes call any winner-take-all system "majoritarian", because these tend to produce legislatures where one party has a majority. –
1310:
1280:
1300:
45:
802:
I don't think that would work as the list above omits multiple types of elections (where does PR fit into it?). Based on your comments elsewhere, I think you are overcomplicating matters unnecessarily.
1315:
1275:
477:
135:
824:
This categorization is only related to single-member elections (PR is a separate class of systems). This is to replace the current "Plurality" and "Majority" categorization shown here.
1325:
116:
61:
1320:
1036:
We can leave a smaller article behind here. I think splitting this into two separate articles should help us give each family of methods the focus it deserves. –Sincerely,
250:
232:
212:
893:
Maybe we should group together the "Core support" systems (FPP, DAC/DSC, IRV) instead? Then the other categories would be majority-rule (Condorcet) and rated voting. –
881:
1091:
Ireland and
Northern Ireland both use STV, yet have different scores on gallagher index, 2.22 for Ireland and 7.8 for Northern Ireland, so how they can be protional
884:. Like I said elsewhere, this categorization isn't unique/universal, but it's used in several texts. ("Standard" was the wrong word—"common" would've been better.) –
97:
1270:
1295:
372:
1350:
1335:
467:
362:
965:
study of electoral systems as actually existing sets of laws in different countries. This kind of cataloging would fall under law or political science.
443:
1074:
My suggestion is more that we try slimming this down and putting the details in new articles on single-winner and multi-winner systems. –Sincerely,
1305:
527:
1340:
1168:
Lots of people I talk to are basically convinced that electoral systems don't matter, mostly because of the big wave of recent studies showing
338:
1345:
1285:
745:
Notably, "majoritarian" is an incorrect name, as it applies only to
Condorcet methods. Plurality+IRV do not require a majority of the vote.
41:
434:
395:
866:
They use the terms "graded" (for cardinal), "iterative" (for sequential), and "margin" (for round-robin), but the classes are the same. —
554:
1330:
1067:
I think it's perfectly fine to include something here! I've got no objections to keeping something here—there should definitely be
329:
290:
685:
Sequential methods: Sequentially eliminate biggest losers according to some other method. Rerun election excluding them. Includes
1229:
1215:
1181:
871:
833:
793:
752:
31:
1290:
1057:
985:
914:
814:
777:
605:
600:
595:
588:
583:
578:
571:
566:
561:
515:
187:
704:. Winner is the candidate who is "closest to winning every match" (different methods define "closest" differently). Includes
1207:
972:
study of electoral systems as abstract objects or rules for mapping individual preferences to social preferences (called
958:
I think maybe this will help clear things up. There are two distinct branches of science that study electoral systems:
1225:
1211:
1177:
1075:
1037:
1020:
999:
944:
934:
894:
885:
867:
829:
789:
748:
727:
638:
54:
738:
1016:
44:. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
694:
617:
713:
193:
973:
1143:
1124:
1046:
I don't think this is a good idea. There should be a single overarching article on electoral systems IMO.
1206:
I'm not talking about effects on government policy. I doubt any study could show effects on that because
690:
442:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
337:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
420:
718:
Cardinal methods: Every candidate gets a rating or grade; candidate with highest grade wins. Includes
1169:
1120:
977:
930:
849:
164:
1173:
1154:
1052:
969:
909:
853:
809:
772:
530:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
1247:
1197:
962:
701:
623:
426:
410:
389:
709:
236:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to
995:
981:
848:
Do you have any source for this being standard? I have not really seen it like this before.
686:
671:
619:
541:
244:
763:
723:
321:
762:
This isn't the right place to discuss categories. If you want to rename a category, use
1150:
1047:
955:
904:
804:
767:
679:
1138:
Your participation could help
Knowledge (XXG) decide on the best title for the page:
315:
305:
284:
224:
206:
1264:
1243:
1193:
719:
705:
1116:
Alliance Alliance Vote share 13.5 Seat share 18.8% Seat won 17 90Ă—13.5=12 seats
17:
863:
734:
675:
439:
1097:
Fianna Fail Vote share 22.2% Seat share 23.75 Seat won 38 160Ă—22.2%=35 seats
1017:
https://www.accuratedemocracy.com/archive/condorcet/Monroe/004004MonroeBurt.pdf
654:
Request: Rewrite categories to follow more standard, four-family classification
1104:
Fine Gael Vote share 20.9% Seat share 21.875% Seats won 35 160Ă—20.9%=33 seats
416:
311:
1100:
Sinn Fein vote share 24.5% Seat share 23.125% Seat won 37 160Ă—24.5=39 seats
248:
and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit
862:
I'll try and find a better (textbook) reference when I'm not on mobile, but
621:
1251:
1233:
1219:
1201:
1185:
1158:
1128:
1078:
1062:
1040:
1023:
1002:
947:
937:
919:
897:
888:
875:
857:
837:
819:
797:
782:
756:
1032:
Suggestion: Split portions off into multiwinner and single-winner systems
334:
238:
1311:
Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
1113:
DUP Vote share 21.3% Seat share 27.7% Seat won 25 90Ă—21.3%=19 seats
1110:
Sinn Fein Vote share 29% Seat share 30% Seats won 27 90Ă—29%=26 seat
670:-th place. Candidate with most points is the winner. Includes
624:
535:
493:
158:
1301:
Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Society and social sciences
1172:
has no effect on most outcomes of interest when compared to
658:
Standard, four-family classification of voting systems is:
1281:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
976:). This is a branch of economics and mathematics called
60:
This article appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s Main Page as
523:
519:
510:
505:
128:
109:
90:
864:
here's an example of social choice theorists using it.
1316:
C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
1276:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
733:(Optional) Hybrids: Combine 2 of the above. Includes
260:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Elections and Referendums
1144:
Talk:Condorcet_paradox#Requested_move_13_August_2024
438:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
333:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1238:We cannot yet prove or disprove that a method "...
700:Round-Robin methods: Compare every candidate in a
737:, Smith//Score (can be grouped with Cardinal),
1326:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
666:points for each ballot ranking a candidate in
263:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
632:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
1321:C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
1107:Northern ireland 2022 Assembly elections
497:
384:
279:
201:
69:
26:
880:I found another example of it being used
1271:Knowledge (XXG) former featured articles
504:Text and/or other creative content from
1240:has no effect on the candidates who run
1164:Request: More information on importance
1134:Move discussion for "Condorcet paradox"
1013:Found another example of it being used—
452:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Mathematics
386:
281:
203:
162:
1296:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles
642:when more than 5 sections are present.
233:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
7:
931:close to the median voter's ideology
522:on 20 March 2017. The former page's
432:This article is within the scope of
347:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics
327:This article is within the scope of
230:This article is within the scope of
192:It is of interest to the following
266:Elections and Referendums articles
25:
1351:Low-priority mathematics articles
1336:High-importance politics articles
636:may be automatically archived by
994:is reserved exclusively for the
540:
455:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
419:
409:
388:
314:
304:
283:
223:
205:
172:
163:
53:
30:
986:comparison of electoral systems
516:Comparison of electoral systems
472:This article has been rated as
367:This article has been rated as
1306:C-Class level-5 vital articles
980:, which includes results like
693:(sequential-loser plurality),
1:
1341:WikiProject Politics articles
1252:15:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1234:18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1220:19:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
1202:18:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
1186:17:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
446:and see a list of open tasks.
350:Template:WikiProject Politics
341:and see a list of open tasks.
1346:C-Class mathematics articles
1286:Old requests for peer review
1000:Maximum Limelihood Estimator
945:Maximum Limelihood Estimator
935:Maximum Limelihood Estimator
895:Maximum Limelihood Estimator
886:Maximum Limelihood Estimator
1159:03:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
695:descending solid coalitions
1367:
948:04:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
938:15:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
920:22:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
898:21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
889:02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
876:16:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
858:07:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
838:22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
820:21:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
798:21:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
783:19:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
757:17:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
741:(grouped with sequential?)
373:project's importance scale
117:Featured article candidate
1331:C-Class politics articles
514:was copied or moved into
471:
404:
366:
299:
257:Elections and Referendums
218:
213:Elections and Referendums
200:
149:
72:
68:
48:) and why it was removed.
1226:– Closed Limelike Curves
1212:– Closed Limelike Curves
1178:– Closed Limelike Curves
1129:10:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1079:02:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
1063:01:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
1041:19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
1024:01:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
478:project's priority scale
62:Today's featured article
1208:reality is underpowered
1003:21:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
974:social choice functions
720:score (highest average)
435:WikiProject Mathematics
152:Former featured article
136:Featured article review
42:former featured article
1291:C-Class vital articles
868:Closed Limelike Curves
830:Closed Limelike Curves
790:Closed Limelike Curves
749:Closed Limelike Curves
702:round-robin tournament
639:Lowercase sigmabot III
46:the nomination archive
1094:Ireland 2020 GE, 160
1071:kind of article here.
691:instant-runoff voting
186:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
179:level-5 vital article
1170:ranked-choice voting
978:social choice theory
458:mathematics articles
330:WikiProject Politics
1174:first-past-the-post
739:Tideman alternative
662:Positional voting:
528:provide attribution
64:on January 6, 2006.
427:Mathematics portal
188:content assessment
73:Article milestones
18:Talk:Voting system
996:Condorcet methods
984:or everything at
714:Minimax Condorcet
646:
645:
611:
610:
534:
533:
492:
491:
488:
487:
484:
483:
383:
382:
379:
378:
353:politics articles
278:
277:
274:
273:
157:
156:
145:
144:
91:November 12, 2005
16:(Redirected from
1358:
1060:
1055:
1050:
917:
912:
907:
817:
812:
807:
780:
775:
770:
710:Schulze's method
641:
625:
558:
557:
544:
536:
513:
511:Electoral system
501:
500:
494:
460:
459:
456:
453:
450:
429:
424:
423:
413:
406:
405:
400:
392:
385:
355:
354:
351:
348:
345:
324:
319:
318:
308:
301:
300:
295:
287:
280:
268:
267:
264:
261:
258:
251:our project page
245:electoral reform
227:
220:
219:
209:
202:
185:
176:
175:
168:
167:
159:
150:Current status:
131:
129:November 3, 2009
112:
110:December 2, 2005
93:
70:
57:
38:Electoral system
34:
27:
21:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1261:
1260:
1166:
1136:
1089:
1058:
1053:
1048:
1034:
982:Arrow's theorem
915:
910:
905:
828:count as well.
815:
810:
805:
778:
773:
768:
656:
637:
626:
620:
549:
509:
498:
457:
454:
451:
448:
447:
425:
418:
398:
369:High-importance
352:
349:
346:
343:
342:
322:Politics portal
320:
313:
294:High‑importance
293:
265:
262:
259:
256:
255:
183:
173:
127:
108:
89:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1364:
1362:
1354:
1353:
1348:
1343:
1338:
1333:
1328:
1323:
1318:
1313:
1308:
1303:
1298:
1293:
1288:
1283:
1278:
1273:
1263:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1236:
1165:
1162:
1148:
1147:
1135:
1132:
1103:
1088:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1072:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
991:
990:
989:
966:
952:
951:
950:
926:
878:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
825:
743:
742:
731:
728:highest median
716:
698:
683:
655:
652:
650:
644:
643:
631:
628:
627:
622:
618:
616:
613:
612:
609:
608:
603:
598:
592:
591:
586:
581:
575:
574:
569:
564:
551:
550:
545:
539:
532:
531:
526:now serves to
502:
490:
489:
486:
485:
482:
481:
470:
464:
463:
461:
444:the discussion
431:
430:
414:
402:
401:
393:
381:
380:
377:
376:
365:
359:
358:
356:
339:the discussion
326:
325:
309:
297:
296:
288:
276:
275:
272:
271:
269:
228:
216:
215:
210:
198:
197:
191:
169:
155:
154:
147:
146:
143:
142:
139:
132:
124:
123:
120:
113:
105:
104:
101:
94:
86:
85:
82:
79:
75:
74:
66:
65:
58:
50:
49:
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1363:
1352:
1349:
1347:
1344:
1342:
1339:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1324:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1312:
1309:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1294:
1292:
1289:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1279:
1277:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1266:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1163:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1133:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1086:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1051:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1031:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1004:
1001:
997:
992:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
964:
960:
959:
957:
953:
949:
946:
941:
940:
939:
936:
932:
927:
923:
922:
921:
918:
913:
908:
901:
900:
899:
896:
892:
891:
890:
887:
883:
879:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
860:
859:
855:
851:
847:
839:
835:
831:
826:
823:
822:
821:
818:
813:
808:
801:
800:
799:
795:
791:
786:
785:
784:
781:
776:
771:
765:
761:
760:
759:
758:
754:
750:
746:
740:
736:
732:
729:
725:
721:
717:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
696:
692:
688:
684:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
653:
651:
648:
640:
635:
630:
629:
615:
614:
607:
604:
602:
599:
597:
594:
593:
590:
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
576:
573:
570:
568:
565:
563:
560:
559:
556:
553:
552:
548:
543:
538:
537:
529:
525:
521:
517:
512:
507:
503:
496:
495:
479:
475:
469:
466:
465:
462:
445:
441:
437:
436:
428:
422:
417:
415:
412:
408:
407:
403:
397:
394:
391:
387:
374:
370:
364:
361:
360:
357:
340:
336:
332:
331:
323:
317:
312:
310:
307:
303:
302:
298:
292:
289:
286:
282:
270:
253:
252:
247:
246:
241:
240:
235:
234:
229:
226:
222:
221:
217:
214:
211:
208:
204:
199:
195:
189:
181:
180:
170:
166:
161:
160:
153:
148:
140:
138:
137:
133:
130:
126:
125:
121:
119:
118:
114:
111:
107:
106:
102:
100:
99:
95:
92:
88:
87:
83:
80:
77:
76:
71:
67:
63:
59:
56:
52:
51:
47:
43:
39:
36:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1239:
1167:
1149:
1142:
1137:
1118:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1068:
1035:
1019:–Sincerely,
747:
744:
706:Ranked pairs
667:
663:
657:
649:
647:
633:
546:
506:this version
474:Low-priority
473:
433:
399:Low‑priority
368:
328:
249:
243:
237:
231:
194:WikiProjects
177:
151:
134:
115:
96:
37:
1119:jamestwice
735:STAR voting
449:Mathematics
440:mathematics
396:Mathematics
98:Peer review
1265:Categories
1121:Jamestwice
766:. Cheers,
1151:Jruderman
970:normative
956:Number 57
850:Jannikp97
672:Plurality
606:Archive 9
601:Archive 8
596:Archive 7
589:Archive 6
584:Archive 5
579:Archive 4
572:Archive 3
567:Archive 2
562:Archive 1
520:this edit
239:elections
182:is rated
1244:VoteFair
1194:VoteFair
963:positive
724:approval
547:Archives
344:Politics
335:politics
291:Politics
122:Promoted
103:Reviewed
680:Dowdall
634:90 days
524:history
476:on the
371:on the
184:C-class
141:Demoted
81:Process
1076:A Lime
1049:Number
1038:A Lime
1021:A Lime
906:Number
806:Number
769:Number
764:WP:CfD
687:Nanson
190:scale.
84:Result
676:Borda
555:Index
518:with
171:This
40:is a
1248:talk
1230:talk
1216:talk
1198:talk
1182:talk
1155:talk
1125:talk
1069:some
968:The
961:The
882:here
872:talk
854:talk
834:talk
794:talk
753:talk
664:f(k)
363:High
78:Date
1087:STV
933:. –
508:of
468:Low
1267::
1250:)
1232:)
1218:)
1200:)
1184:)
1157:)
1127:)
874:)
856:)
836:)
796:)
755:)
726:,
722:,
712:,
708:,
689:,
678:,
674:,
242:,
1246:(
1228:(
1214:(
1196:(
1180:(
1153:(
1123:(
1059:7
1054:5
988:.
954:@
943:–
916:7
911:5
870:(
852:(
832:(
816:7
811:5
792:(
779:7
774:5
751:(
730:.
697:.
682:.
668:k
480:.
375:.
254:.
196::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
-logo-v2.svg.png){kind=logo}
