Electoral system is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Request: Rewrite categories to follow more standard, four-family classification
Standard, four-family classification of voting systems is:
Positional voting: f(k) points for each ballot ranking a candidate in k-th place. Candidate with most points is the winner. Includes
Plurality,
Borda,
Dowdall.
Sequential methods: Sequentially eliminate biggest losers according to some other method. Rerun election excluding them. Includes
Nanson,
instant-runoff voting (sequential-loser plurality),
descending solid coalitions.
(Optional) Hybrids: Combine 2 of the above. Includes
STAR voting, Smith//Score (can be grouped with Cardinal),
Tideman alternative (grouped with sequential?)
Notably, "majoritarian" is an incorrect name, as it applies only to Condorcet methods. Plurality+IRV do not require a majority of the vote.
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 Wikipedia categories.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
21:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Number5721:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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 count as well.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I found another example of it being used
here. 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.) –
Maximum Limelihood Estimator02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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).
Number5722:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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 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).
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
close to the median voter's ideology. –
Maximum Limelihood Estimator15:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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. –
Maximum Limelihood Estimator04:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Number 57 I think maybe this will help clear things up. There are two distinct branches of science that study electoral systems:
The
positive study of electoral systems as actually existing sets of laws in different countries. This kind of cataloging would fall under law or political science.
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" is reserved exclusively for the
Condorcet methods (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. –
Maximum Limelihood Estimator21:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggestion: Split portions off into multiwinner and single-winner systems
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,
A Lime19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's perfectly fine to include something here! I've got no objections to keeping something here—there should definitely be some kind of article here.
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,
A Lime02:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
STV
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
Electoral system is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Request: Rewrite categories to follow more standard, four-family classification
Standard, four-family classification of voting systems is:
Positional voting: f(k) points for each ballot ranking a candidate in k-th place. Candidate with most points is the winner. Includes
Plurality,
Borda,
Dowdall.
Sequential methods: Sequentially eliminate biggest losers according to some other method. Rerun election excluding them. Includes
Nanson,
instant-runoff voting (sequential-loser plurality),
descending solid coalitions.
(Optional) Hybrids: Combine 2 of the above. Includes
STAR voting, Smith//Score (can be grouped with Cardinal),
Tideman alternative (grouped with sequential?)
Notably, "majoritarian" is an incorrect name, as it applies only to Condorcet methods. Plurality+IRV do not require a majority of the vote.
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 Wikipedia categories.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
21:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Number5721:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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 count as well.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I found another example of it being used
here. 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.) –
Maximum Limelihood Estimator02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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).
Number5722:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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 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).
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
close to the median voter's ideology. –
Maximum Limelihood Estimator15:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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. –
Maximum Limelihood Estimator04:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Number 57 I think maybe this will help clear things up. There are two distinct branches of science that study electoral systems:
The
positive study of electoral systems as actually existing sets of laws in different countries. This kind of cataloging would fall under law or political science.
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" is reserved exclusively for the
Condorcet methods (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. –
Maximum Limelihood Estimator21:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Suggestion: Split portions off into multiwinner and single-winner systems
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,
A Lime19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's perfectly fine to include something here! I've got no objections to keeping something here—there should definitely be some kind of article here.
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,
A Lime02:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
STV
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