This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ranked voting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a big change, and so I want to discuss it before I make it: Myclob ( talk) 17:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (May 2023) |
Michael Gallagher points out that the strengths and weaknesses of different ranked voting methods can be best elucidated through specific examples. [1] A practical example can be provided by considering a voter's ranking of candidates: "If A is eliminated, the voter's vote is transferred to B. If B is then eliminated, the voter's vote is transferred to C. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes," explains Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn. [2]
Logical voting criteria play a crucial role in evaluating voting methods. The Condorcet criterion, as defined by Duncan Black, states that "the candidate who would win in a head-to-head race against all other candidates should be the winner of the election." [3] Moreover, the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) criterion, explained by Kenneth Arrow, implies that "the ranking of candidates should not change if the order of the candidates is changed." [4]
Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn highlight the utility of simulated elections as a means to study the properties of ranked voting methods. [5] These simulations can estimate the 'efficacy' of each voting method, which is defined by how frequently it elects the candidate closest to the center of the voter distribution. In terms of these simulations, Andrew Reynolds indicates that "Condorcet methods and Coombs' method tend to deliver optimal outcomes, followed by the Borda count. Instant-runoff voting comes further behind, with first-past-the-post voting trailing." [6] Myclob ( talk) 17:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
References
May I please receive the green light to fix the first point there, considering that it refers to ranked voting as such an other method, despite the whole article being about ranked voting in the first place, while it's description is also incoherent and seems to mix things up with elements of yet another voting method?
For now I am thinking that the point there was meant to be about score voting instead. Wulfstrex ( talk) 08:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Keraleais: Might it be worth a mention in this article that Slovenia used ranked choice voting for some offices for a certain period, with references, of course? It would be best if a reference could be found with a plausible discussion of why it was changed? Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 23:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The article mentions that Instant-Runoff Voting is sometimes called the "Alternative Vote" or "Ranked-Choice Voting", however it's obvious to anyone who knows that other voting systems exist that those terms can't really refer to Instant-Runoff Voting specifically.
I've deleted those alternate terms for now. I do think that they should be mentioned in some way, but that would require a sourced explanation of who uses the terms and when. -- Brilliand ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ranked voting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a big change, and so I want to discuss it before I make it: Myclob ( talk) 17:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (May 2023) |
Michael Gallagher points out that the strengths and weaknesses of different ranked voting methods can be best elucidated through specific examples. [1] A practical example can be provided by considering a voter's ranking of candidates: "If A is eliminated, the voter's vote is transferred to B. If B is then eliminated, the voter's vote is transferred to C. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes," explains Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn. [2]
Logical voting criteria play a crucial role in evaluating voting methods. The Condorcet criterion, as defined by Duncan Black, states that "the candidate who would win in a head-to-head race against all other candidates should be the winner of the election." [3] Moreover, the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) criterion, explained by Kenneth Arrow, implies that "the ranking of candidates should not change if the order of the candidates is changed." [4]
Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn highlight the utility of simulated elections as a means to study the properties of ranked voting methods. [5] These simulations can estimate the 'efficacy' of each voting method, which is defined by how frequently it elects the candidate closest to the center of the voter distribution. In terms of these simulations, Andrew Reynolds indicates that "Condorcet methods and Coombs' method tend to deliver optimal outcomes, followed by the Borda count. Instant-runoff voting comes further behind, with first-past-the-post voting trailing." [6] Myclob ( talk) 17:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
References
May I please receive the green light to fix the first point there, considering that it refers to ranked voting as such an other method, despite the whole article being about ranked voting in the first place, while it's description is also incoherent and seems to mix things up with elements of yet another voting method?
For now I am thinking that the point there was meant to be about score voting instead. Wulfstrex ( talk) 08:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Keraleais: Might it be worth a mention in this article that Slovenia used ranked choice voting for some offices for a certain period, with references, of course? It would be best if a reference could be found with a plausible discussion of why it was changed? Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 23:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The article mentions that Instant-Runoff Voting is sometimes called the "Alternative Vote" or "Ranked-Choice Voting", however it's obvious to anyone who knows that other voting systems exist that those terms can't really refer to Instant-Runoff Voting specifically.
I've deleted those alternate terms for now. I do think that they should be mentioned in some way, but that would require a sourced explanation of who uses the terms and when. -- Brilliand ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)