This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
First-past-the-post 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 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Unlike what it says, Liberals were over-represented by 50 seats. they should have received 134 seats not 133 as written. Greens were unrepresented by 10. they should have received 11 seats, not 12 as written. Currently we have Liberals over-represented by 51 and other parties under-represented by 49 seats, which does not match and can be seen to be wrong if you look at the math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.203.119 ( talk) 21:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose editing this sentence: "The effect of a system based on plurality voting spread over a number of separate districts is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distributed support gain a disproportionately small share.", my proposed edit is as follows:
I propose deleting ".. and parties with more geographically concentrated support.." because in reality a party with too great a geographic concentration of voters could lose out because because of waster "surplus" votes. Friend-of-the-planet-99 ( talk) 12:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I hope that helps. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk)€
Election inversion is a standard term; and a phenomenon mainly occurring with FPTP (albeit not only: Rounding procedures can produce them also in proportional systems). Why isn't this even mentioned here, let alone discussed - see of course 2000 and 2016 in the US ( Michael Geruso, Dean Spears, Ishaana Talesara. 2019. "Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016." NBER paper, slides by Nicholas R. Miller). -- User:Haraldmmueller 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Newfoundland and Labrador 1989, New Brunswick 1974 & 2006, Quebec 1966 & 1998, Saskatchewan 1986, British Columbia 1996.---- Bancki ( talk) 12:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The folks at FairVote and the folks at the Center for Election Science have both been referring to this method as "choose-one voting". [1] [2]. It would appear that there's now a redirect from " Choose-one voting" to this article. Should we put something to the effect of "also called 'Choose-one voting" in the introduction to this voting method? -- RobLa ( talk) 03:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
References
The phrases "non-compensatory" and "compensatory" are used in a technical sense but nowhere defined, and neither is hot-linked to another Wikipedia article where we can learn what those words mean. "Compensating" FOR WHAT? 2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 ( talk) 02:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Why is this called 'first past the post'? What post? The winner is the one with the most votes, not the one with more than 50% of the votes. OsamaBinLogin ( talk) 17:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
While we're up, is the term used anywhere outside the Commonwealth? — Tamfang ( talk) 17:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
First past the post is the primary selection method in both lower and upper houses, although there is a system for preferential voting as well for certain block seats.
For lower house 289 out of 435 members are elected by first past post system, so good enough to mention that in the article, right ? 240B:10:2D83:2200:7D25:6B9E:E777:4915 ( talk) 03:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Plurality article be merged into FPTP? Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 00:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
First-past-the-post 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 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Unlike what it says, Liberals were over-represented by 50 seats. they should have received 134 seats not 133 as written. Greens were unrepresented by 10. they should have received 11 seats, not 12 as written. Currently we have Liberals over-represented by 51 and other parties under-represented by 49 seats, which does not match and can be seen to be wrong if you look at the math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.203.119 ( talk) 21:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose editing this sentence: "The effect of a system based on plurality voting spread over a number of separate districts is that the larger parties, and parties with more geographically concentrated support, gain a disproportionately large share of seats, while smaller parties with more evenly distributed support gain a disproportionately small share.", my proposed edit is as follows:
I propose deleting ".. and parties with more geographically concentrated support.." because in reality a party with too great a geographic concentration of voters could lose out because because of waster "surplus" votes. Friend-of-the-planet-99 ( talk) 12:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I hope that helps. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk)€
Election inversion is a standard term; and a phenomenon mainly occurring with FPTP (albeit not only: Rounding procedures can produce them also in proportional systems). Why isn't this even mentioned here, let alone discussed - see of course 2000 and 2016 in the US ( Michael Geruso, Dean Spears, Ishaana Talesara. 2019. "Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016." NBER paper, slides by Nicholas R. Miller). -- User:Haraldmmueller 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Newfoundland and Labrador 1989, New Brunswick 1974 & 2006, Quebec 1966 & 1998, Saskatchewan 1986, British Columbia 1996.---- Bancki ( talk) 12:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The folks at FairVote and the folks at the Center for Election Science have both been referring to this method as "choose-one voting". [1] [2]. It would appear that there's now a redirect from " Choose-one voting" to this article. Should we put something to the effect of "also called 'Choose-one voting" in the introduction to this voting method? -- RobLa ( talk) 03:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
References
The phrases "non-compensatory" and "compensatory" are used in a technical sense but nowhere defined, and neither is hot-linked to another Wikipedia article where we can learn what those words mean. "Compensating" FOR WHAT? 2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 ( talk) 02:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Why is this called 'first past the post'? What post? The winner is the one with the most votes, not the one with more than 50% of the votes. OsamaBinLogin ( talk) 17:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
While we're up, is the term used anywhere outside the Commonwealth? — Tamfang ( talk) 17:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
First past the post is the primary selection method in both lower and upper houses, although there is a system for preferential voting as well for certain block seats.
For lower house 289 out of 435 members are elected by first past post system, so good enough to mention that in the article, right ? 240B:10:2D83:2200:7D25:6B9E:E777:4915 ( talk) 03:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Plurality article be merged into FPTP? Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 00:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)