Talk:Proportional representation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Dispute Resolution

Hi Balcoder. I have raised some concerns about user conduct on the ANI page, but would like to raise with you my more fundamental concerns about the fate of this Wiki page and its content. I think we both recognize that the page needs work. I started some work on it in the Spring, then had to set that aside due to competing priorities. In the meantime, you made a major contribution on August 2 which helped to move things forward. I remember being pleased to note that the page had improved when returning to it around that time. The question is how to continue to improve the page. Since you have reverted all of my edits since August 2, and could readily do the same at any time, I have little incentive to do any further work on the page. I fear that others may feel the same way.

While I am prepared to continue collaborating with you, I disagree with you regarding what version should be used as a base for ongoing collaboration in improving the site. I would like therefore to hear your thoughts on how best to address this disagreement. I am thinking that maybe we could seek a Third opinion on the question: "Given our willingness to work to further improve the page, is it better to revert to the August 2 version as a base from which to work or the Sept. 11 version?". We could each make our case, and see what a neutral third party has to say. Seeking a third opinion is considered a useful first step for disputes involving two editors. If you prefer, we could make a formal Request for mediation, which is a more formal way to go. Please let me know what you think.Reallavergne (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Reallavergne, thanks for asking for my comment on how to proceed. A third opinion may be appropriate but your proposed question puzzles me because the Aug 2 version is my major rewrite and the Sep 11 version is a reversion to Aug 2 with some minor corrections plus a very little of your work re-written by me. That is the current (Sep 15) state. I assume you meant your Sep 12 version before I reverted it, but I reject that (perhaps I am looking at GMT dates and you at something else). For me the important point is that the article, as it evolves, remains coherent, and I have already indicated I think your version a work-in-progress and so not coherent. The article may evolve in the direction you want but, as long as I can help it, only in a disciplined way and in stages which themselves are coherent (about 500 people visit the page each day and should see a consistent article).

But first, I think, the discussion stage of WP:BRD needs to be got through. Fundamental questions need deciding concerning the parts of the article particularly in dispute, the lead and the Advantages & Disadvantages section: why you want to change them and how. Once we have discussed your plans for these two sections a third opinion might be useful to help decide the outcome. Personally I think it preferable to attack those areas that need work most, namely the Mixed and STV sections in the body. The Mixed section didn't exist before Aug.2, I cobbled it together from text elsewhere in the article. You said in MMP on Apr.26 you would write it. But there too, because of my experiences with your edits, I will revert anything from you if it is not in simple and concise English, or is errant. BalCoder (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC).

Hi again BalCoder. Sorry for the confusion about versions. I was referring to either the Sept. 4 or Sept. 12 version, namely the one that contains all of the edits that I contributed, including adjustments made in consultation with you or in response to your comments. Of course, the work of accounting for your comments was so slow that we had not gotten much beyond the Lead section, but for the Lead, I thought that we were almost there and I proposed some additional tweaks that you could make yourself if you felt strongly about it. I therefore don't see why you saw a need to revert to your August 2 version for the Lead in particular.

For the Advantages and Disadvantages section, I had not yet done much additional work beyond what I had contributed on August 19, and what I did on the Gerrymandering section on Sept. 12. However, if your concern is with coherence, I feel that the Sept. 4 version is an improvement over what you had on August 2. I noted recently that you were the one to add the title "Advantages and Disadvantages" on August 2, so I think I may have misinterpreted your objections on the Pros and Cons issue, since "Advantages and Disadvantages" is essentially the same as "Pros and Cons." What I found, when I started to work on the article after August 2, is that among the sub-sections under the heading of Advantages and Disadvantages, there were some topics that clearly could be laid out as putative "Advantages," while others were topic areas of putative "Disadvantages" or what I called "Issues areas." I felt that readers would find it easier to digest the material if it was grouped into two such categories and if the subheadings made the "advantage" under discussion easier to identify. So that's why I added the two subheadings and adjusted the subheadings (though we could argue what those should be - I'm not so happy about the "Issue areas" heading, but "disadvantages" does not seem to cut it very well either). Still, I think that adding those headings and grouping the material in this way makes the section more coherent, not less, because readers don't have to be constantly wondering what is a putative advantage and what is a putative disadvantage.

Aside from that, I did not change very much at all. What I did, rather, was to add considerable new material under the "issues" heading and a section on the results of empirical research. That material has now been lost. I still don't know what it is you don't like about this material, so I am not able to respond to you further on this. It seems to me that I have not understood why you find the revised material less rather than more coherent, and perhaps you have not understood what I was trying to do. Maybe this message will help.

What I could do is reinstate material that you have taken out through your en masse reversion but that you have not commented upon in a specific way. However, that would involve a lot of what seems to me as unnecessary work, and I don't know where that is going to get us, if you are just going to revert things again. I am dismayed by your statement that "I will revert anything from you if it is not in simple and concise English, or is errant." Reversion is not the approach that WP encourages we should do lightly. If something is not in simple and concise English, alternatives should be proposed, and you should please not think that you are the only judge of what is simple and concise English. In fact many of my edits were called for because the existing material was hard to decipher or unclear in some way. The aim of good writing is not to reduce words to the minimum, but to maximize understanding and usefulness to the reader. We should not be arguing at length about whether a word is redundant or not when we can agree that it is and the real question is whether a bit of redundancy would be useful to readers or not. And while we may have different styles in that respect, no one has elected you to be the all-empowered arbiter of a particular style, that I know of. So let's try to be a bit more mutually respectful in this regard.

The same holds for anything that is "errant." I believe that you are referring here to ways of putting things that seemed biased to you. By all means, let us make the necessary corrections if that happens if something has not been properly expressed. We do not want to present any of the material in a biased way. But often, all is needed is a little tweak. It is much easier to propose what that tweak should be than to be accusing me of bias or reverting my work en masse. Try to hear me what I say that I am as interested as you in avoiding bias and we should be able to work together on this.

So far, your approach has been to be critical and relatively unyielding in your approach, and to combine this with the threat of reverting my work en masse. That is not the way we are expected to work in WP. If you want to propose an improvement, go ahead and propose something, in a constructive way, or make your edit. If we still disagree, we can discuss it, or I can propose a tweak of my own to see if that works for you. That is the style of work that I was proposing to you in my last message before you reverted everything the second time, and I stand by that suggestion.Reallavergne (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Further on this, I decided to try reintegrating some of the material to see how that could work, and started with the paragraph on gerrymandering, as explained elsewhere.

Next, I looked more carefully at some of the work that you did on the Lead section. As a rule, I think you have done a good job, and think we can focus our future efforts on other sectionsfor the most part. However, let me offer the two following reservations.

I note how you have handled mixed systems, and am please with a lot of it. However, I see that you have defined MMM out of the mixed-systems category, and you have referred to MMP as the principal example of mixed systems. I can see the logic of that, but there are three points worth making:

• There is a usage issue, because my main and most credible references on this point all include MMM as an example of mixed systems (the ACE Project categorization, the Typology chapter in Shugart (p. 15), and the Canadian Law Commission Report, section 4.4). To define MMM out of mixed-systems does not therefore seem appropriate to me.
• In fact, MMM is much more common than MMP, so to call MMP the "principal example" in light of the above is not entirely accurate.
• I suggest that we avoid citing AMS as another name for MMP, although I have seen it used that way in the UK. As you know, I would prefer not mention AMS at all in the Lead, but if you want to include it, I would add a reference to the UK and say "also known as AMS in the UK," including the link to its use in this way.

I have some reservations as well about how you handled the definition of PR. I understand why you would want to consider a definition that is broader than with reference to parties. There is a logic to that (and that is where the notion of sortition comes in). However, when applying definitions, the issue of common usage should not be ignored. According to Merriam-Webster on line, PR is "a system in which the number of seats held by members of a political party in a legislature (such as a parliament) is determined by the number of votes its candidates receive in an election." According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (on line), we have: "proportional representation, electoral system that seeks to create a representative body that reflects the overall distribution of public support for each political party." So, to define PR without reference to parties seems to me to miss the mark of established usage. I would suggest that we remedy that, while leaving an opening for your material on sortition.

Next, I was going to reinstate the "Review of Evidence" section, which seems to me particularly useful and well referenced. Upon investigation, this turned out to be a bit more complicated than I first thought, so I thought maybe we should discuss it first. Upon reviewing the work that you did on Sept. 12, I was able to determine that you had split up this material into two places, and that you replaced my section with a short section titled, "Wider benefits to society." I have several issues with this.

• First of all, the referencing has been heavily diluted, as it now refers only to a Fair Vote Canada piece. I think it is better to go back to primary research sources as much as possible as I had done.
• Secondly, the Review of Evidence is not just about "Wider benefits to society." It refers to academic research on the impact of PR, including its putative advantages and disadvantages. For this reason, it would be better to retain a more neutral title such as "Review of Evidence."
• Finally, the other place where you used some of the material was under the heading Voter Participation. However, the material used there seems somewhat off topic. If any research result should be included there, it is the result that voter participation is higher on average for PR countries. The article says that, but we could add the numbers and the reference too.
• However, the following material would fit better under the Review of Evidence heading

"With PR there are no "swing seats", most votes contribute to the election of a candidate so parties need to campaign in all districts, not just those where their support is strongest or where they perceive most advantage. This fact in turn encourages parties to be more responsive to voters, producing a more "balanced" ticket by nominating more women and minority candidates.[18] On average about 8% more women are elected.[14]"

I would like to make these adjustments but will wait to hear from you.Reallavergne (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantages section. The basic point of contention is that I have combined A&D into a single narrative, and that you prefer to separate them. I have given you my arguments, WP:PROCON basically, your argument seems to be that in my version "advantages or disadvantages were not clearly discussed, and I found the material hard to digest", and that others, e.g.IDEA 2005, list A&D separately. What "not clearly discussed" means, other than that they are not separately discussed, I don't know, the clarity of the writing, such as it is, stands for itself. "Hard to digest", too, seems to mean simply that the reader is not spoon-fed separate lists. So A&D should be separately listed because they should be separately listed? Where are the arguments for separating A&D? The point that things can be both advantages and disadvantages (e.g.coalitions) you seem to suppress. Readers must weigh the pros & cons and come to a conclusion themselves. But in the final analysis, we should do what WP wants. WP:PROCON is not mandatory but, unless we have very good reasons for doing something else, we should follow what better Wikipedeans than us suggest. That is why I wrote A&D as I did. Perhaps there is a WP essay supporting separate lists. If you can find it I will reconsider.

"Coherent": my dictionary (NOAD) says "1, logical and consistent" and "2, united as or forming a whole". The A&D section as a single section is more "united as a whole" than separate Advantages and Issues sections. Also more consistent than a mix of narrative and bullets.

"What I did, rather, was to add considerable new material under the "issues" heading and a section on the results of empirical research. That material has now been lost." Let's see. "Opportunities for voters etc.": "This is one of the reasons that mixed-member systems...", which should be in the Mixed systems section, and "Mixed-member systems involving modest-sized districts..." which I think is your own idea and still unsourced (if it were true, and it might be, it would be very interesting). Everything else is in my version. "Political fragmentation etc.": Gridlock and post-conflict situations. Perfectly good point. Centre parties always in government. Perfectly good point, better with an example. Complications caused by PR. Well, possibly, but Italy's problems are more cultural than due to the electoral system, and "the solution...", I don't think so, Renzi is changing it again already. Richie & Hill: the point was already in my text, you could have added this as an additional ref. "Review of evidence": I added those points to my text on Sep.11. So, considerable material lost? No. "I still don't know what it is you don't like about this material". Well, I have told you. That it is separate from the Advantages section, that it uses a bullet list when it shouldn't, that coalitions are not just issues but also advantageous, that independents are not at all only an aspect of fragmentation, and that the fact that STV facilitates independents is also an advantage and not an issue.

"Simple and concise English": all this means is use plain English WP:UPE. "Reverting", "errant", and "unyielding in your approach". You started changing my text on Aug 18, I made a number of posts on the Talk page to get you to recover the lead, to offer advice, and then requesting you revert your work and integrate it into mine. I didn't revert any text of yours until Sep 11, when I reverted everything because you were still ignoring important points I was making. I could hardly have been more yielding, nor demonstrated very clearly that I don't revert "lightly". At the same time you were quite unnecessarily changing wording indiscriminately, often to the detriment of the text. I have explained all this before with plenty of examples. That added to my exasperation so I reverted and now we can proceed in a more disciplined way.

I will respond to your "Further on this" later (I can't type as quickly as you). We are stll in the BRD discuss stage so don't change any more, what's the hurry? --BalCoder (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Further on this. You write "I decided to try reintegrating some of the material". Does this mean you have conceded the "Dispute"? If yes perhaps you could make that clear. Either way I don't see what this "Further on this" post of yours has to do with resolving it. Perhaps you could insert a sub-heading (as I did for Hungary 2014) to keep topics separate a little.

"To define MMM out of mixed-systems does not therefore seem appropriate to me". I am astonished, this shows how little communication there can be between two communicating people. I have made the point three times, I think, but it has to be made again: MMM is NOT a PROPORTIONAL system; this article is about PROPORTIONAL representation; ergo, MMM is not of interest in this article. NOWHERE have I said MMM is not a MIXED system, but it is a non-compensatory mixed system and so not proportional. "Mixed" in the lead and the heading in the body means hybrid, two-tier compensatory systems, not the class of voting systems whose name begins with "Mixed", a pointless classification. I have already said I prefer to use "two-tier compensatory" instead of "Mixed", now I insist on it.

"AMS in the UK". If you can find a source that says AMS is only found in the UK, then OK.

"to define PR without reference to parties seems to me to miss the mark of established usage". Who defines established usage? Mill saw PR as a way of reducing the power of parties. Simply objectively considered it is not just about parties, that STV can be used without parties is widely noted as an advantage. Do you think organizations, companies, universities, etc.don't also use PR? And how do parties draw up those party-lists? Perhaps this is why IDEA 2005 mentions "groups" as well as "parties". (This has nothing to do with sortition, nothing at all. In a randomly elected parliament political parties (should they still exist) would be proportionately represented just like every other division in society).

"Review of Evidence". What does "Review of Evidence" mean? I assumed "recapitulation of evidence" presented hitherto in the article but that seems to be wrong. One could say the whole article is basically a review of evidence. I have no idea what it is supposed to mean.

"primary research". You can't ref a work you haven't read. Fair Vote Canada is I'm sure honest (except that I'm unhappy about an absence of any qualification of the points made: the benefits are all due to PR? I don't think so). But you can only cite the Fair Vote Canada piece, that's basic honesty. Anyway it includes more than one ref for each point and a little discussion, where's the difference between it and any other cited paper?

"refers to academic research on the impact of PR". It looks to me as if I integrated everything from "Review of Evidence" in my text except "kinder, gentler democracies". Is that what you are talking about?

"somewhat off topic". If you are referring to "On average about 8% more women are elected" then I would agree with you. But election of women candidates was mentioned there. Where else are you going to put it?

"With PR there are no "swing seats"". I don't begin to understand - as I say I have no idea what "Review of Evidence" means. At the moment this text fits in the Voter Participation section. --BalCoder (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Conceding the dispute?

Hi BalCoder. I am not conceding the dispute, but I am prepared to agree to disagree with you about this, because I can't easily imagine a mediator wading though all of our communications to come up with a proposal. I am willing to at least try to work with you one piece at a time, in pursuit of an improved product. However, I don't suggest that we try to agree on everything at once. I suggest we start with the basics and work from there.Reallavergne (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The definition

You asked me who establishes usage with regard to definitions. The answer to my mind is: the people who write dictionaries and encyclopedias. On the meaning of PR, you cite J.S. Mill, but Mill was not in a position to write about current usage. I have consulted the Webster-Miriam dictionary, the Oxford dictionary, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Ace Project encyclopedia, the IDEA Handbook, the Law Commission of Canada and other sources. All of them give essentially the same definition of PR, which is the one that I had summarized in the second sentence that I had proposed for the Lead. I will put a sentence to that effect back in, using a quote from the Ace Project so that there is no dispute about wording.

I do hear you when you say that everything about proportional representation is not necessarily about parties. For example, one could have quotas for women or minorities as a way of promoting PM. Also, we strive to ensure some geographical representation in most systems. However, I believe that the meaningfulness of PR as a conceptual construct is in opposition to the Majoritarian/plurality model and that is why the experts have defined it the way they did. I will add a few words to clarify that, without overloading the text. You'll see that the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on PR elaborates a fair bit on this point. Your original first sentence is a bit superfluous, but can be kept to convey the more general meaning that you seek to convey.

This brings us to the issue of what electoral systems to include as "PR Systems." I did find one source that includes MMP as a PR system along with STV and List PR, like you want to do. That was the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, every other source of the great many that I consulted identifies three families of electoral systems: Majoritarian/plurality, Proportional (List PR and STV) and Mixed Systems (MMP and MMM). I think the thing to do is to reproduce this taxonomy with links to other WP pages on each topic, then explain how MMP and MMM also pursue the PR ideal of greater proportionality, but in different ways and to different degrees. We agree that the distinction between MMP and MMM is fundamental. Then, citing the Encyclopedia Britannica, we can mention that some sources include MMP as a form of PR.

I will work all this in, and you can then take your own cut at it if there is anything that you think deserves further improvement. Reallavergne (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

We are still in the WP:BRD discussion stage so do not change anything until we have come to an agreement. I will reply more fully in due course. BalCoder (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi BalCoder. I made the changes announced above more or less at the same time as I was explaining them in Talk, so they are already there.

I respectfully don't agree that we are in a WP:BRD discussion overall. What we have is a situation where you reverted 40 days of my work en masse. This is not foreseen as a BRD process, the gist of which is to deal with "an" edit, not work done over an extended period of time. Nor do I accept that you have a veto power over all edits made since your own contribution of August 2 and 3, as you seem to think you have.

If you want to view my edits of yesterday as the B of a BRD process, that might make some sense. If so, the protocol for reverting any changes in such a situation are clearly outlined in WP-BRD: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognises that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed..."

This bit of push-back from me notwithstanding, I do recognize the need for me to be cautious in being bold as we try to collegially resolve our differences, and the need to engage with you in a spirit of dialogue and consensus building. I have therefore opted to avoid edits on the Advantages and Disadvantages section until I have heard from you.Reallavergne (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. I refer you to your final comments in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854#Mass reversion and disrespectful language - Proportional Representation. --BalCoder (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. My final comment was, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." I stand by that.Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is my fuller response to you points from 03:07, 22 September 2014.

"Usage": This is irrelevant. J.S.Mill wrote authoritatively about PR, that is why I cite him. I also cite IDEA 2005 (the ACE project has the same text but, being online, perhaps includes updates since 2005). Your edit comment "Adding a definition in the Lead that is more in line with references" is just being selective. What I was referring to is in IDEA 2005: "conscious translation of a party’s share of the votes into a corresponding proportion of seats in the legislature"; and ACE: "conscious translation of the overall votes of a party or grouping into a corresponding proportion of seats in an elected body". There is no NEED to change what I wrote.

Your are saying that usage is irrelevant when it comes to definitions and that using multiple dictionary and encyclopedic references to come up with an accepted definition is "just being selective." Really? Then you cite two definitions that you like, but the the point is that you did not use either of them, so I inserted a similar one that I thought would do best, and you reverted it. I'm sorry, but try as I might I don't see how we can have a serious conversation when you respond in this way. I feel like Alice in Wonderland!Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"I do hear you when you say .. not necessarily about parties." No, you don't at all. Quotas and geographical representation is not at all what I was talking about, rather candidates organized other than by parties (i.e.in "groups"), and independent candidates.

I was trying to understand your point in a way that made sense to me. I spent some time thinking about this, and can't see how PR applies with independent candidates or groups except under some sort of sortition system. You can have STV for all sorts of things (electing several directors at large to a board, for example), but that does not make it PR. It is merely a form of preferential voting. In order to have proportional representation, the representation has to be proportional to something, and the system has to be set up to ensure some degree of proportionality - as with quotas or geographical divisions in the carving up of electoral districts or, in writings about PR, with mechanisms to ensure proportionality by party.

"in opposition to the Majoritarian/plurality model". If you are in Canada, or USA, or UK you might think that. But if you are on the European continent you wouldn't see it that way. Why be parochial. PR isn't an anglophone concept. But if this is only about adding "as would happen in single-winner voting systems" I don't mind (except the "would happen" - redundant).

I don't understand what the problem is here. I added the word "majority" where you just had "plurality" which seems a logical enough addition, and it seems that you "don't mind" that I added the words "as would happen in single-winner voting systems." So why did you revert this, if you don't have a problem with it?Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Your original first sentence is a bit superfluous", see WP:BEGIN: "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition".

Well, it sounds like your first sentence should be removed. I don't have a serious problem with it either way and left it in to be respectful, so if you want to remove it, please go ahead.Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"This brings us to the issue of what electoral systems...". You don't seem to realize you are conflating "PR systems" and "electoral systems". In fact there is not much to say, I wrote "There are three types of PR voting systems" and added two sources, both of which confirm that. Where is the difficulty? You write "every other source of the great many...": not so, you forget one of my two sources YOU introduced into the article on April 26, mis-representing it as proposing four systems. In fact, I don't mind changing the article to say two, there are after all, au fond, only two proportional methods, List PR and STV; then MMP and other composite systems can be mentioned as being a hybrid of List PR and something else.

I am befuddled here too. I don't think I am conflating anything and if so, I don't think I am doing so any more than you or others have done. For instance, you say in the first sentence that "PR characterizes electoral systems," then you say that there are "three types of PR electoral systems." Such language indicates that you too are using the expression PR in reference to a type of electoral system even though it is also a representational ideal (a la Stuart Mill). Of course there are other types of electoral systems. The material that I added has the advantage of showing where the notion of "PR systems" comes from and where it fit in most breakdowns of electoral systems, while clarifying where MMP stands in this regard. Anything else is an oversimplification that risks confusing things. Of the two references you mention, I think I was the one to provide the one from the Canadian Law Commission. The footnote points us to p. 22, which does have the three systems as PR, as we both would have it. But it ALSO uses the conventional breakdown of electoral systems types later in the book. I think it is important to reconcile these two ways of doing it (more on this theme where you bring it up again, below).

As for you second reference (footnote 6), I am unable to access it, as it does not appear to be online. There are three links in this footnote, none of which point to the article itself as far as I can tell. Maybe they should be removed, as they are a distraction.

Generally, concerning the lead we must both change our ideas. WP prefers no more than four paragraphs (WP:LEADLENGTH) and no bullet lists. A glance at any featured article will show what is meant. I think, like you, a bullet list helps the reader but that is not what is wanted. --BalCoder (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've always thought the Lead was too long, so we agree on that. I think we could keep the following:

"Most experts group electoral systems into three general categories: Single-winner voting systems including first-past-the-post, runoff or instant runoff systems; Proportional representation systems, including Party-list PR and the Single Transferable Vote (STV); and Mixed member systems, including Mixed Member Proportionality (MMP) and Mixed Member Majoritarian (MMM), also known as Parallel Voting. When comparing single-winner systems and PR systems, mixed-member systems are usually described as semi-proportional. However, MMP has the potential to be highly proportional and is sometimes included as a PR systems.) MMM adds an element of proportionality to a single-winner system but does so in a relatively circumscribed way."

We could then move the material in the three big bullets into the body, plus the material on sortition. However, I would suggest keeping some material on the prevalence of different types of systems in different countries, including the edits that I had offered, but adding material from your contribution back in regarding the different types of PR, as you suggested in your comments.Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think your suggestion here would be incorrect. SNTV, Limited vote, Cumulative vote, bloc vote etc. doesn't fit into any of those categories. Generally I think we should be careful about saying "there are X types of things" in this way as voting systems are concepts that there could theoretically be infinite numbers of, if that makes sense. Øln (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Øln. We need to find language that reflects that there are many variants of electoral systems, and that systems of categorization may differ somewhat. When I spoke of moving the three big bullets down into the body, I did not mean to imply that they should be moved as a bloc. Rather, if we need to reduce the length of the Lead, as seems desirable, I think we could just make sure that the material in the big bullets is not lost and is duly included under the appropriate headings in the body (more on this after your other comment below).Reallavergne (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I do agree there should be some mention of non-proportional systems and semi-proportional systems to contrast with. I'm not sure how best to do this though. The article does contain some mentions of semi-proportional systems in the history section which I'm not sure belong here though, such as use of cumulative voting in the US.Øln (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, here too, we need to find the best way to do things. We want to make sure to introduce some of the major conceptual categories that will be needed later. This includes plurality/majority systems (or single-winner systems - see comments below), Party List and STV (usually grouped as "PR systems"), Mixed systems and within that the important distinction between MMP and MMM. We should find language that shows awareness that there are options out there that don't fit neatly in these categories, but indicate that for our purposes, these are the key concepts, and they cover just about every practical case out there.

The ACE project includes Block vote as a plurality/majority system. Worth noting is that Block voting is a plurality system, but not a single-winner system. This illustrates that single winner or plurality/majority are two slightly different categories. Of the two, plurality/majority is the more common category that I have seen in use (many just say "majoritarian"), but in the box at the top right of the PR page, Wikipedia refers to "single-winner" voting systems, so we may need to comment on that somehow - maybe say "plurality/majority systems usually involving single-winners (the exception being Block voting, which is a plurality system using multi-member seats)." My preference would be to put the part in brackets in a footnote, but Wikipedia does not seem to use footnotes that way very much.

The ACE Project then includes SNTV, LV and BC (Borda Count) as "other systems." I see that these various "other" systems account for only 2% of the country systems in use as shown in the ACE Project map, while Bloc voting remains more common at 4%.Reallavergne (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverting. We haven't finished the discussion and you have modified the lead, which is not in order, so I am reverting it.

I have already made the point that this is not how it is supposed to work.Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth here is a detailed justification.

You wrote above: "Your original first sentence...can be kept...", but then you change it, mangling the English. Do you really think that sentence NEEDED changing? Compare your changes to the quotes I include from IDEA 2005 and ACE above.

It's a lot of work for me to have to explain even the smallest of grammatical edits, but here goes. Just don't complain that my responses are too long, OK? I made two minor changes. First, I replaced "the electoral body" with "electoral bodies," because the definite article "the" was incorrectly used. This is because "the electoral body" in question has not been defined. The other change that I made was to change "an electorate" to "the electorate," referring to the electorate that corresponds to the electoral body to which it is attached. For another example of this usage, please see the next sentence in your own text, where you have used the expression "the electorate" in that way. These changes are not "mangling the English." They are small corrections that needed to be made.

I am afraid I don't understand what this has to do with your quotes from IDEA and ACE.Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"..roughly 30% of seats would be won": you already conceded on 17:23, 26 August 2014 that "would" can be "will" ("normative" etc.), now we have to go through that all over again?

I had found a way to make the word "will" make sense in an attempt to satisfy you in the Sept. 4 version, which read "In a PR electoral system, if 30% of the electorate support a particular political party, then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that part." However, you reverted that edit, so I tried something else.Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In your edit you introduce another bullet list: "Most experts group electoral systems into three general categories". That is irrelevant, the article is about PR not electoral systems. Put that into the "Voting systems" article (linked to in the very first line, by "electoral systems") if you want.

I think the reason for introducing the material the way I did should be obvious enough from the way it is presented. As I explained earlier, the point is to situate the notion of "PR Systems" in context. People whose starting point is "electoral systems" define three main types, one of which is "PR systems" but for people whose entry point is PR, it is insufficient to limit one's self to Party List and STV, since MMP can be designed to give results as proportional as either of those and MMM attempts to at least add a greater element of proportionality. My additions are intended to make this clear.Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"When comparing single-winner systems..." (I assume this qualification is irrelevant) "...mixed-member systems are usually described as semi-proportional". Not so, see the source you introduced on April 26, and IDEA 2005: "While an MMP system generally results in proportional outcomes". If you want to talk about MMM put it in the Mixed systems section in the body.

You may be right, and I would not object to removing the following: "When comparing single-winner systems and PR systems, mixed-member systems are usually described as semi-proportional. However,".

I don't have time to search all of the references to see which ones do or do not call MMP semi-proportional. Maybe none of them do and maybe I have conflated my recollection of what tends to be said about MMP and MMM as you suggest. My thinking is informed in part by the theoretical consideration that MMP can in fact be only semi-proportional: all is takes is for the regional districts to be fairly small or for the number of list seats to be relatively small.Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit contains a number of careless edits. The ACE ref in the first paragraph is an inline ref which is deprecated, you should know better by now; the Encyclopedia Britannica ref is in error, as is the STV link in the bullet list. There is a lost ")". You haven't even done a preview before you saved. A poor job.

For your information, I put in about 11 hours of work on this material saving the material only after multiple visits to Preview. All this on a Sunday, as a volunteer. Of the four things you mention I fixed three of them before you reverted my changes. Errors happen, no matter how careful one is. The constructive approach is to help fix them - as I did with the two grammatical errors in your first sentence - not to criticize the author for a poor job.

As for the ACE reference, I am not sure what is wrong with it. What could be more convenient for readers? No worries, though, we can put it as a footnote if that is the preferred option.Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion, we are going around in circles, and I am tired of wasting all this time trying in good faith to reach an agreement. If you don't like the revert go and try arbitration again. --BalCoder (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that with this entry, we have satisfactorily discussed the Lead. I will wait to see where you take it from here. If you continue to treat your August 2 version as though it is cast in stone, I will have to conclude that we are going to continue going in circles, and will have no choice but to try arbitration again or give up working on this page altogether.Reallavergne (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am reverting your change to the first sentence, the definition, because it is wrong, PR is not limited to, or concerned only with, parties. On this Talk page I have found the following from you (00:16, 25 September 2014) which seems to encapsulate your misunderstanding: "You can have STV for all sorts of things (electing several directors at large to a board, for example), but that does not make it PR. It is merely a form of preferential voting. In order to have proportional representation, the representation has to be proportional to something, and the system has to be set up to ensure some degree of proportionality - as with quotas or geographical divisions in the carving up of electoral districts or, in writings about PR, with mechanisms to ensure proportionality by party."

You write "but that does not make it PR": why not? Of course it is PR if more than one director is elected, that is, if the district magnitude is sufficient. "The representation has to be proportional to something": it is proportional to the sentiment in the electorate, in this case the share-holders. The choice of directors reflects the wishes of the share-holders proportionately. If you don't understand this elementary point you should (as you wrote above on 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)) "give up working on this page altogether". STV is "set up to ensure some degree of proportionality", or as Prof.Mollison says, it is "inherently proportional". The same goes for sortition which will produce a selection which proportionately represents even, as I have already said, parties, not becuse they are parties but because they are a division in the electorate like any other. --BalCoder (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

Dear BalCoder and Øln. Following our thorough discussion of the Lead section, I have now taken another cut at it, trying to address all concerns that the three of us have raised by drawing on material from different versions and making further adjustments as required. A major consideration was to reduce the length, which we agreed was excessive. Of course, this has required making some choices on what material should best be moved. I now have it down to three paragraphs: one on defining features; one on the classification issue; and one on the geographic prevalence of different systems. I have moved details that were in the big bullets and some of the details about STV into the corresponding PR system sections in the body. A useful by-product of this exercise is that the PR system sections are reinforced somewhat, notably the one on mixed systems. I also moved the paragraph on sortition, adding it as a new section in the body called "Non-electoral method" (I did not edit the content). I have also tried to address the categorization issue in a concise way. I don't pretend that the result is perfect, but I think it takes sufficient account of all of the discussion to date regarding the Lead section to constitute a base to work from for any further edits. I look forward to any contributions you might be able to offer to further improve the material.Reallavergne (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Reallavergne, I am reverting your edit. In the second paragraph only one sentence and one phrase refers to PR: "PR systems are usually considered to include party-list PR and the single transferable vote (STV) system" and "but MMP has the potential to be highly proportional due to the compensatory way that list seats are distributed, and some categorizations include it as a PR system". More than half is devoted to your hobby-horse mixed-member systems. When they come to this article readers want to know what PR is. (WP:LEAD): "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". An overview of PR, not of electoral systems in general. All this has been exhaustively discussed. If you insist on writing about electoral systems generally add a section to the body entitled something like "PR in the classification of electoral systems".

I overlook the fact that STV is not explained with even a single word, that sortition, the only way to get complete proportionality, is not mentioned at all, that refs have been mis-positioned, and the unnecessary wordiness.

If you change the lead again put it in your sandbox and add a section to the Talk page soliciting opinions. Don't update the article. If you can't improve it don't change it. --BalCoder (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I have not been able to find anything in the Wikipedia pages suggesting that one's sandbox should be used this way. What you are describing sounds like what this Talk page is for and we have already been very thorough in that regard, while the BRD model suggests the need to boldly try things out for size at some point, which is what I did. I don’t think you have a veto power on when one may try to find a solution to issues that have been under discussion.

I would also suggest more discretion on your part regarding what reversions you propose. For instance, I see that your comments bear essentially on paragraph two, so it seems to me that you did not need to revert paragraphs one and three. I can see reverting paragraph two or moving it into the body while we decide on priorities for what else to include in the Lead.

With regard to paragraph two, we have always considered that situating PR in the universe of electoral systems is important (if only by identifying three systems that can be considered to be “PR systems”), so the real question is how best to do that while shortening the Lead.

My edit suggests one way to do that by avoiding definitions of the different types of electoral systems in the Lead and limiting ourselves to showing where PR fits in the universe of electoral systems. It’s true that I included a fair bit on mixed systems in paragraph two, because how mixed systems fit in is a bit more complicated, so more explanation is needed. Otherwise, we keep on arguing needlessly about where MMM fits in, even though we are actually in agreement. (By the way, paragraph two included the term “PR” six times, and the words “proportional” or “proportionality” six times, for a total of twelve references, so it’s not like the material has nothing to do with PR.)

However, I recognize that my paragraph two ended up being quite long, and an option similar to what you suggest could also work. Under this approach, we would take the whole second paragraph that I had and move it down to become the first section of the body, while retaining the definitions of party-list, STV and MMP in the Lead. It’s just a question of what we consider to be more important to put in the Lead. If the consensus is that it is better to do it as you suggest, we should edit the introductory phrase, “There are three types of PR voting systems:”) to take account of Øln’s reservations, which I share. I would suggest “Three types of voting systems most commonly associated with PR are:” Øln, I wonder if you have a preference between the paragraph two that I had proposed, the three definitions or something else?

Sortition is an outlier, and in my humble opinion does not belong in the Lead, especially if the Lead is too long. However, a previous version had left one sentence in the Lead as a compromise, and I suggest that you reintroduce that sentence if you feel so strongly about it. Surely you will agree that it is inappropriate to have a long paragraph about sortition in the Lead that is unmatched in the body of the article.

Finally, you mentioned that the positioning of some of the references has become distorted. As we move forward I think you should feel free to help out repositioning any references if I or others make some mistakes in that regard for any references that you had introduced in the first place. It’s sometimes hard to know which references continue to be relevant and exactly where they belong when edits are being made, particularly if the references are relatively general and do not include page numbers.Reallavergne (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantages

It seems we consider to misunderstand each other regarding advantages and disadvantages, so I won't change anything for now. Let me try again to explain why I think this section needs improvement.

As I pointed out under previous discussions, there is debate in the Talk page of WP-PROCON regarding the pros-and-cons issue. See for example the following link. However, I do not wish to reproduce that debate here. The general points that we need to respect and project a neutral point of view (NPOV) is well taken. I found quite useful the example they provide where they compare two different ways of putting things on the subject of Internet Explorer.

My “coherence issue” with the way you have assembled the material in under the title of Advantages and Disadvantages can best be summarized as follows. I would expect under that title to find “Advantages” and “Disadvantages” and would expect the sub-titles and sub-sub-titles to be labeled accordingly, so that I could easily spot the most common advantages and concerns identified by experts in the matter. To call the section “Advantages and Disadvantages” and then follow up with a number of themes, letting readers fend for themselves is not a user friendly or coherent way to do things.

In fact, your first two sub-headings do correspond to advantages (these would become sub-sub headings in the approach that I propose). The headings on voter participation and gerrymandering also seem to cover advantages, and that could be made clearer. Then you then have two headings that refer to more contentious topics, coalitions and links with constituents. In these cases, you see to be using a thread-mode method that WP considers even worse than pro-con lists. I find this back and forth confusing.

If there are commonly acknowledged benefits of PR (like fairness), they should be acknowledged as such, and where there are some frequently raised objections, those should also be identified as such, especially if there is going to be a section called “Advantages and Disadvantages.” To try to keep this as NPOV as possible, I would suggest as major sub-titles, “Frequently cited advantages” and “Frequently raised concerns” using NPOV sources to flesh out and reference the material. The Ace Project encyclopedia provides a good source among others for working on this, in addition to the material that you already had. I think those sub-titles would be better than the ones I have proposed earlier namely "Advantages” and “Issue Areas”.

“Coalitions” should not be a sub-sub-heading, as Coalitions and neither an Advantage or Disadvantage. They are neither. Rather, the issue has to do with the frequently cited concern about political fragmentation and coalition politics.

(Perhaps we should also have an advantage about how PR encourages greater inter-party collaboration and a less partisan approach to policy dialogue, but for now, I was careful not to be adding new material.)

Finally, the “Review of Evidence” section that I had added is a review of the evidence from a range of comparative studies about the impact of electoral systems. Maybe that would be clearer if it was included as a third sub-heading under Advantages and Disadvantages, and no doubt the title could be clearer, maybe “Evidence from comparative research on different electoral systems.” Regarding the references, I used the Fair Vote Reference as an entry point, and was transparent about that. However, I checked and cited the primary references whenever I could find them on line. It is always better to go back to the source if one can.

As noted, I am not changing anything in this section until I hear from you further. Perhaps you have some constructive suggestions of your own to make.Reallavergne (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

'My “coherence issue”...'. Yes, we know you want separate “Advantages” and “Disadvantages” sections. I have asked you to produce counter arguments to the WP:PROCON arguments and you refer to a WP:PROCON talk section. There there seems to be some consensus that separate lists can be appropriate in engineering etc., and less so in "political-science, economics, or sociology" but it seems the arguments are mostly POV. You just mention "coherence" and "I find this back and forth confusing" again which we have already discussed.

"you seem to be using a thread-mode..". There is a difference between thread-mode and narrative.

"There are commonly acknowledged benefits of PR (like fairness)..". The Forder book I cite a number of times with arguments against PR (there aren't many anti-PR academic sources) has a whole chapter questioning "fairness". I didn't include anything from it because I thought the arguments weak but someone else might want to. How would you integrate that?

"Coalitions are neither an Advantage or Disadvantage". We have discussed this too. You may think they are neither, others see them very much as one or the other (Forder for example). Put the arguments in one "coherent", neutral narrative and let readers make up their own minds.

'The “Review of Evidence” section...comparative studies about the impact of electoral systems.' Then they should go in the "Voting systems" article. This article is not about electoral systems, only about PR.

"I checked and cited the primary references whenever I could find them on line". If you find the source on-line then cite it. But then I would expect a sentence on the statistical strength of the claims, which those sources will certainly have addressed. Someone has already deleted the point about election frequency as being unwarranted.

We are not getting anywhere. As I said in a post above you should go back to arbitration. --BalCoder (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)