400:- I found this to a very effective reference article: useful, comprehensive, and well-written. (This is my first "support" on FAC; formulating a support seems much harder than an objection, because you inevitably end up endorsing quite a number of things at once. For me, at least, it is way easier to be confident in "knowing what you don't know" when you have specific objections, Over-limiting one's support also seems problematic ("this part is OK, I don't know about the rest", as does overgeneralizing ("I thought it was great!". Participating in this whole "consensus, not a...vote" thing is tricky, and requires lots of work. IMHO.) My support here is based on absolutely no formal knowledge of voting systems, and no significant critical experience in the various presentation styles for academic/reference material:
252:, but I think the "smushed" history section still looks a bit choppy as a single section. I wonder if adding a few subheadings back (say, ancient world, development of voting theory in the 18th century, implementations in the 19th and 20th century innovations, and issues in modern times) would help? (v) It may be worth mentioning that different voting systems can be used in the same country at the same time - for example, five different voting systems are currently used in the UK for different purposes: "
487:(I first read it before the smushing and instantly noticed the difference). For one, it changes the rhythm that preceded it. Second, it makes the section a bit misleading, in that it is a history beginning with democracy, and I'm not sure if that is exactly the same as the history of "voting systems". (Using the subhead to clear this up may not be the best solution, but it worked for me.) I am also somewhat concerned by a comment in a previous support about the omission of stuff like
408:- The writing may be (well, is) spare, and this reinforced by the many short paragraphs, however, the job is clear from the start, and the style handles it well. Many things are explained, but the overall context of "voting systems" is maintained. "More words" or a more conversational treatment could possibly work as well, but that is so far distant from this approach, and this works, so I find the style to suit the subject matter very well indeed.
86:. First let me say that the article seems nicely comprehensive and is written at a very appropriate overview level, and that it is very well-written at a sentence-by-sentence level. Nice images, too. My objection is that it is choppy— specifically, there are a lot of really short paragraphs and a lot of really short sections. (Outline or "Powerpoint presentation" style, some might call it.) Specifically, I'd:
493:; I would hope (trust) that "all" of the reasonably relevant info is here. This illustrates (my) difficulty with support, but in balance, I will trust that this final FAC process will appropriately catch such things (heh-heh). An "Other voting systems" as a mop-up section for anything that may be of lesser overall importance, if warranted, would perhaps satisfy anything in this area.
424:- In part due to the above, after reading the first few paragraphs, I was basically "confident" in the material, and this was maintained through to the end. On any number of levels, I automatically question what I read to a greater or lesser degree; here, I soon felt that everything was likely well-handled and consistent, and could concentrate on the actual information at face value.
470:
particular, and it was cool to see how the article had evolved over a period of four years with many contributors doing stints over time -- this added some confidence in the article's accuracy. I'd return to this page if I wanted to know something specific, say, about "proportinal representation", FIRST, before hitting the search engines, for the context it provides.
432:- This overview involves many classes and subsets and variations and the like, and an uneven treatment could easily have created confusion. The choices of what to explain in more or less detail was well-handled. When an "other options" list was presented, it seemed natural, There was never a sense of, "oh, why wasn't
618:
Criteria based on ranked preferences don't make much sense on an
Approval ballot, and you get really stupid hypothetical situations like "what if candidates A and B are exactly the same, but a voter approves one and disapproves of the other because they approved of C even more and had already decided
152:
Another way of looking at it is that the best writing is organized — at the page level, if you know what I mean — by the writing itself, not by the table of contents. Especially in the history section, I think you'll find that it improves when it flows as one coherent narrative rather than a grab-bag
59:
I was expecting to see an article couched in jargon and theoretical babble that I wouldn't understand. Instead, I'm very pleasantly described. It's well-written and conveys its subject to a lay reader, such as myself, brilliantly. One criticism is that it's slightly disjointed in that the history of
614:
The problem is whether to assume that every ballot is a lossy view of the actual preferences of the voter, and those preferences should be taken into account for criteria, or whether all that matters is the votes on the ballot. If you pick either option and stick to it as a hard rule, you run into
121:
I'm not sure I agree with combining sections. For an article this long, I figured that frequent headings are important for keeping track of where you are. Without dividing the history into five eras, for example, I don't see how to keep it from being one huge, undifferentiated section. Likewise, I
469:
It is actually readable! It could be seen as "too point-form", but I read it for FAC, not out of current interest in the topic, and it did carry me right through by building an informative picture. I also checked the article history, scanning versions in 50 edit hops, not looking for anything in
455:
These methods are often referred to collectively as the
Condorcet method, because the Condorcet criterion ensures that they all give the same result in most elections. The differences occur in situations where no option is undefeated, meaning that there exists a cycle of options that defeat each
36:
This article is the culmination of the efforts of many voting theorists and voting system enthusiasts. I think that this article has become a great example of NPOV in a field that sorely needs one, because almost all of the other published literature and web sites on voting systems are biased in
626:
I'm sure there's a third way in between, a common sense way to apply such criteria, but even if someone here figured out what it is, it couldn't go in an article because it would be original research. Phew, that was a lot. So, in summary, this is a relevant issue that should probably appear on
622:
If you go by the votes only, though, you get
Plurality passing just about everything in vacuous ways, simply because so little information is provided by a plurality ballot. And the best method ever, in that view, would be one where everyone submitted blank ballots and the winner was chosen at
374:
Thanks. Re (i): with my standard screen setup using the classic skin, I have to scroll right to see the last column or two. Re (iv): looking at the edit history, I see I was asking for for pretty much what was there before your changes to deal with
355:
The table has been tested for lower screen resolutions. Try resizing your window and note how the headings wrap. I'll try to work in (ii) and (iii), and the dreaded (iv), later. I don't think (v) is necessary, and it would bloat the article.
204:
Update: Support still stands with (5 instead of ealier 6) subsections reintroduced back into history. I'd have gone with fewer, but it's hardly a deal breaker! I like the way it reads now with the combined paragraphs a lot better, too.
444:
could have been offloaded to the
Condorect voting article and not been missed by me; based on my trust in the authors, I feel its inclusion adds to my understanding at this overview level without getting "too detailed" compared to the
228:
is quite wide and may not display well on smaller (x600) screen sizes. Making the font smaller, or abbreviating the headings, or both, may help. (ii) In the
History section, there is no discussion of voting systems in
498:
Phew. Given the relatively little time I spent on it, and whatever background expertise or lack thereof I bring to the relevant considerations, those are my findings in support. Perhaps a little wordy... Oh well. :-)
60:
voting systems bit at the end is kind of a subtopic. Maybe some reference to the history in the introduction would be useful, so that this section doesn't come as a surprise. Excellent work overall,
122:
think the headings in the "Aspects of voting systems" section serve a useful purpose -- if you want to get on to the meat of the article, you can skim them and see that the major aspects are the
379:'s comment! Re (v): I was surprised to see discussion of recent developments in the US, Canada and New Zealand, but nothing about the spread of proportional representation in the UK. - --
416:- The sections are logical, and not overdone. I feel confident in returning to this article and being able to easily access specifics about voting systems, and the TOC establishes this.
154:
607:
The "Ambiguous" listing was a compromise. There's a whole complicated issue here that I don't know where to discuss - it might involve splitting
Independence of Clones off from
603:
itself says that it fulfills this criteria. I'm unclear as to which it is. Also, the 'ambiguous' listings in the chart could use a link to somewhere explaining the amibuity.
456:
other. Considering the
Condorcet method to be the abstract method that does not resolve these cycles, specific versions of Condorcet are called Condorcet completion methods.
483:. Especially given the spare styling and amount of info to come, reading it in one go I think is much more effective in setting the tone and providing an overview. Also,
72:. Well written article, showing how much thought has gone into seemingly simple things. Very complete when including its many branches into complementary articles. −
190:
now. I see you've "smushed together" the history section. This article gets my support now, even with the short "Aspects of voting systems" sections. —
17:
37:
favor of one voting method or another. The article has been through a peer review, and now I think it's ready to be a featured article candidate.
224:- a pretty comprehensive and easy-to-read overview. A few comments. (i) The table in the middle setting out whether systems meet various
134:
right from the headings. But if this really isn't the right style for a featured article, I suppose I can go through and merge sections.
619:
to only approve their top 2 candidates?". The same objection applies to rated ballots if you see them as a superset of
Approval ballots.
317:
646:
I didn't realize the extent of this issue. It should probably be addressed at some point, but shouldn't affect this FAC.
721:
I disagree. It would involve terms that weren't yet defined, and make it really hard to get to the meat of the article.
309:
718:
I think that the history should come first, as that makes better sense and seems to be the standard procedure IIRC
335:: Two or three subheadings in history would be great for that length. (It was six before.) Pre/post 20th century? —
808:
795:
781:
772:
743:
734:
711:
675:
650:
640:
586:
570:
540:
519:
503:
386:
369:
344:
327:
214:
199:
182:
166:
157:, but I can promise I harp on this point nowadays not out of spiteful revenge, but because I became a believer.) —
147:
116:
76:
64:
50:
281:
289:
277:
265:
340:
210:
195:
162:
112:
225:
238:
777:
Good point. Perhaps the section should be rearranged as ==Motivations for Voting
Systems== or somesuch
695:
608:
237:, election of officeholders, etc). (iii) There is no mention of unanimous voting systems - such as
293:
273:
253:
752:==Majority Rule== seems to fit better as the first subsection under ==Aspects of Voting Systems==
582:- however I agree that at least some of the subheadings need to go back into the history section.
90:
Eliminate the subsections in "Aspects of voting systems" and use prose to introduce the sub-topics
583:
376:
336:
305:
249:
206:
191:
158:
108:
659:
The lead should mention the history of voting systems so the section doesn't come as a surprise
242:
805:
792:
778:
761:
759:
for these systems, not a parameter of the system that you tweak like the other aspects are.
740:
723:
700:
664:
647:
629:
559:
553:
Thanks for all the feedback! I'll work on some of your suggestions. And I nominate this for
358:
285:
257:
234:
136:
39:
516:
383:
324:
313:
301:
436:
explained more?" A case in point, I really like this bit, where the distinction between
791:
Overall, these concerns are relatively minor and I look forward to seeing this make FA
297:
261:
179:
73:
599:
The comparison table lists Range Voting as ambiguous under 'Clone
Independence', but
27:
600:
537:
500:
230:
694:
Probably true, but not too much more - this part of the history mostly belongs in
767:
729:
706:
670:
635:
565:
533:
364:
142:
45:
691:
The history section could use a bit more expansion under ===Early Democracy===
513:
380:
321:
269:
61:
595:
Very well written and informative overall, but I have a couple of issues:
153:
of sections. (I hated it when someone gave me this same advice in my
485:
the "smushing" of the History section subheads is I think a mistake
755:
After some consideration, I disagree here too. Majority rule is a
627:
Knowledge (XXG), but it will involve fleshing out other articles.
421:
Establishes sense of authority, feeling of confidence -- trust
681:
698:
when it doesn't deal with different voting systems.
557:: Featured Featured Article Candidates Comments. :)
536:on the front page is still fresh in my mind.) --
94:Eliminate most of the subsections in "History".
662:Sure - I'll think about how to work that in.
481:The lead could be crunched into one paragraph
8:
739:I see your point, disregard that suggestion
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
429:Abstraction to a consisent level of detail
512:Wow - you could just say "support" ;) --
7:
615:flagrant violations of common sense.
804:My issues have all been addressed.
24:
241:- for elections to membership of
99:Combine paragraphs in "History".
318:Elections in the United Kingdom
684:? 03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
1:
587:22:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
571:05:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
541:20:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
520:19:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
504:17:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
387:19:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
370:17:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
345:16:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
328:16:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
215:03:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
200:16:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
183:08:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
167:03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
148:03:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
117:02:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
77:14:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
65:11:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
51:01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
809:03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
796:00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
782:03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
773:01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
744:03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
735:01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
712:01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
676:01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
651:03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
641:01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
413:Effective use of subheadings
268:in local elections), closed
442:Condorcet completion method
266:multi-member constituencies
825:
282:Northern Ireland Assembly
245:and similar bodies. (iv)
405:Clean expository writing
290:additional member system
278:single transferable vote
310:directly elected mayors
284:and local elections in
226:voting system criteria
611:into its own article.
696:history of democracy
609:strategic nomination
178:Very good effort. —
294:Scottish Parliament
274:European Parliament
254:first past the post
532:I could. (I guess
306:supplementary vote
258:general elections
243:Gentlemen's clubs
816:
770:
764:
732:
726:
709:
703:
673:
667:
638:
632:
568:
562:
466:General comment:
438:Condorcet method
367:
361:
286:Northern Ireland
235:Roman assemblies
145:
139:
48:
42:
824:
823:
819:
818:
817:
815:
814:
813:
768:
762:
730:
724:
707:
701:
671:
665:
636:
630:
566:
560:
365:
359:
314:Mayor of London
302:London Assembly
262:local elections
143:
137:
46:
40:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
822:
820:
812:
811:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
716:
715:
714:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
590:
589:
576:
575:
574:
573:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
525:
524:
523:
522:
507:
506:
495:
494:
472:
471:
461:
460:
459:
458:
449:
448:
447:
446:
425:
417:
409:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
350:
349:
348:
347:
312:, such as the
298:Welsh Assembly
264:, with mostly
219:
218:
217:
185:
172:
171:
170:
169:
132:constituencies
119:
104:
103:
102:
101:
96:
91:
79:
67:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
821:
810:
807:
803:
800:
799:
798:
797:
794:
783:
780:
776:
775:
774:
771:
766:
765:
758:
754:
753:
751:
745:
742:
738:
737:
736:
733:
728:
727:
720:
719:
717:
713:
710:
705:
704:
697:
693:
692:
690:
683:
679:
678:
677:
674:
669:
668:
661:
660:
658:
652:
649:
645:
644:
643:
642:
639:
634:
633:
624:
620:
616:
612:
610:
605:
604:
602:
598:
597:
596:
594:
588:
585:
584:Scott Ritchie
581:
578:
577:
572:
569:
564:
563:
556:
552:
551:
550:
549:
542:
539:
535:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
521:
518:
515:
511:
510:
509:
508:
505:
502:
497:
496:
492:
491:
486:
482:
479:
478:
474:
473:
468:
467:
463:
462:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
443:
439:
435:
431:
430:
426:
423:
422:
418:
415:
414:
410:
407:
406:
402:
401:
399:
396:
395:
388:
385:
382:
378:
377:Bunchofgrapes
373:
372:
371:
368:
363:
362:
354:
353:
352:
351:
346:
342:
338:
337:Bunchofgrapes
334:
331:
330:
329:
326:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
250:Bunchofgrapes
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:(election to
232:
227:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
207:Bunchofgrapes
203:
202:
201:
197:
193:
192:Bunchofgrapes
189:
186:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:
168:
164:
160:
159:Bunchofgrapes
156:
151:
150:
149:
146:
141:
140:
133:
129:
125:
120:
118:
114:
110:
109:Bunchofgrapes
106:
105:
100:
97:
95:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
68:
66:
63:
58:
55:
54:
53:
52:
49:
44:
43:
35:
29:
28:Voting system
26:
19:
801:
790:
760:
756:
722:
699:
663:
628:
625:
621:
617:
613:
606:
601:Range voting
592:
591:
579:
558:
554:
490:blackballing
489:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:
465:
464:
454:
441:
437:
433:
428:
427:
420:
419:
412:
411:
404:
403:
397:
357:
332:
308:system (for
246:
239:blackballing
231:Ancient Rome
221:
187:
175:
135:
131:
128:voting power
127:
123:
98:
93:
84:Minor object
83:
82:
69:
56:
38:
33:
32:
806:The Catfish
793:The Catfish
779:The Catfish
741:The Catfish
648:The Catfish
270:party lists
81:See below.
757:motivation
477:Criticism:
304:) and the
292:(for the
280:(for the
272:(for the
260:and most
180:Wackymacs
155:first FAC
74:Woodstone
34:Self-nom.
593:Comment.
316:) - see
802:Support
623:random.
580:Support
538:Tsavage
501:Tsavage
398:Support
333:Comment
288:), the
256:" (for
222:Support
188:Support
176:Support
70:Support
57:Support
680:How's
534:"Cool"
517:(Talk)
384:(Talk)
325:(Talk)
130:, and
124:ballot
769:speer
731:speer
708:speer
672:speer
637:speer
567:speer
555:FFACC
514:ALoan
445:rest:
381:ALoan
366:speer
322:ALoan
320:. --
144:speer
47:speer
16:<
682:this
440:and
434:that
341:talk
300:and
247:Pace
211:talk
196:talk
163:talk
113:talk
62:jguk
276:),
499:--
343:)
296:,
213:)
198:)
165:)
126:,
115:)
763:r
725:r
702:r
666:r
631:r
561:r
360:r
339:(
209:(
205:—
194:(
161:(
138:r
111:(
107:—
41:r
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.