Talk:Proportional representation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Lack of Neutrality in Lead

STV, despite long being admired by political scientists, is used in only two national lower houses: Ireland (since 1921) and Malta (since 1921). Political interests generally oppose its use because it so effectively transfers power from politicians to the electorate.

Sources cited do not appear to support the clear partiality in some of these statements.

1.) Saying "despite long being admired by political scientists" suggests there is complete agreement on the matter when it is clear that this cannot be true.

2.) Saying "political interests generally oppose its use because it so effectively transfers power..." is equally misleading and clearly only presenting one narrow argument as settled fact.

I would propose rephrasing these propositions to make them more neutral, particularly as the sources do not appear to make these claims.

1.) Could read "despite long being admired by some political scientists" to easily solve the problem.

2.) Could instead by written as "Established parties may oppose its use because it so effectively transfers power... in some cases"

I will add another line to this paragraph in the meantime should the proposed changes be considered inappropriate. ex turpi causa (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you are confusing STV and PR, and "neutrality" and "balance" (see WP:DUE). The para concerns STV specifically, not PR generally. It's part of the previous para on the use of PR from which it was split for no apparent reason by this edit. "despite long being admired by political scientists" paraphrases the referenced source (IDEA 2005 p.71, also in the Ace project you quote): "STV has long been advocated by political scientists as one of the most attractive electoral systems". The paraphrase could hardly be more neutral. Adding "some" would misrepresent the source. Do you have a reliable source that says "some" or something like it? Concerning "political interests generally oppose its use because it so effectively transfers power..." the Douglas Amy reference says "this system [STV] universally came under attack from the politicians and parties who lost power and privileges." Using "..generally oppose.." rather than "universally attack" shows, if anything, anti-STV bias. Again, inserting "may" and "in some cases" is not supported by the source, so it's not permissible. Quite possibly it is "so effectively" that is the problem, so why not just delete those words?

Your new sentence is not OK because it refers to PR disadvantages without mentioning any of the advantages, but at this point in the article no advantages have yet been mentioned. All the points your ref mentions are discussed in the Advantages and disadvantages section. The best solution would be to revert your changes and re-attach the para to the preceding one. --BalCoder (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you say I am confusing. I see STV as a branch of PR i.e. a system designed to achieve the general idea, as should be apparent by the extra line I added to that paragraph. I am also confused about what you mean regarding "neutrality" vs "balance" for a similar reason - I can understand that they are technical terms here on Wikipedia but they are also part of the same umbrella topic. What I meant when I wrote about neutrality was more along the lines of partiality (see WP:IMPARTIAL). I will try to be more precise in future, though it may also help to inquire as to my meaning first.

I can agree with you that the paragraph is about STV, but I worry we are becoming too pedantic with what is actually stated verbatim in the sources rather than how this information is being relayed in the lead. Saying 'admired' rather than 'advocated' as 'most attractive' paints the information as too positive. Admiring is far more positive and not the same as advocating it as being most attractive. I maintain that adding 'some' would not misrepresent the source, but rather draw attention to that it is just one source, and, at the same time, remove the glaringly positive spin put on it by saying 'long admired.' I may, however, have incomplete knowledge of referencing practice here on the site re: how closely a statement on the article should match that of the source. I do not, for instance, understand why it is permissible, according to you, to paraphrase some words not 'supported by the source' but not others. (e.g. one source doesn't say who the power was transferred to just that political interests saw some of their power lost but the wording clearly suggests power transferred to the electorate)

More than happy to have "so effectively" removed from the other line. This seems like an excellent solution to the same sort of problem I am having with the other line i.e. partiality and tone. It also seems quite a leap to draw this conclusion from the source given the line you are quoting in support of it. The paraphrasing seems to go too far in one direction, which might be viewed as a neutrality, balance, impartiality, tone issue (or indeed all of the above).

I think if we keep the sentences in that paragraph as they are, it is quite obvious to anyone reading them objectively that they are claiming advantages to STV or indirectly to PR more generally. If we accept that those sentences are painting some advantages, and that a lead section is a summary of some of the content that follows (such as advantages and disadvantage below), then it seems fitting for there to be a brief mention of both (with my new sentence being the brief summary of disadvantages). I think you're right about attaching it all to the preceding paragraph though. Seems to flow better and seems in line with the preceding paragraph. Some rewording, however, will be necessary to make that read well.

If we want to move forward with improving this page, I suggest we start by being less hasty with reverting edits and less pedantic with Wikipedia policy -- at least until we reach some consensus on 'balancing' this paragraph out. ex turpi causa (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In your original post above, the highlighted words you wanted to insert suggested to me you wanted to moderate the statements, to convey a middle-of-the-road impression, where middle-of-the-road is not supported by the sources. That was why I thought you may have thought neutrality meant (a false) balance, taking a middle-of-the-road point of view. Neither neutrality (WP:NPOV) nor balance (WP:DUE) means middle-of-the-road. I thought you may be confusing STV and PR (very common) because the summary of your original post complained that the para in question asserted that "PR is a sort of political panacea" although it concerned specifically STV and its historical lack of success. It looked like you mistook the para as an overall summing up of the lead.

Your understanding of "admire" differs from mine and my dictionary's: "regard (an object, quality, or person) with respect or warm approval", its use here is uncontroversial. But you see "glaringly positive spin", which is unreasonable. However, let's change "admired" to "favored". Only now do you say, in parentheses, what the real problem is, that "transfers power from politicians to the electorate", for me a rather obvious conclusion, isn't in the source. So remove it. How about "Political interests generally oppose its use because it curtails their power" and remove your new sentence, for which there is now no longer a justification.

Paraphrasing sources is subject to WP rules(WP:VERIFY). When you write "adding 'some' would not misrepresent the source, but rather draw attention to [the fact?] that it is just one source" you presuppose there are other sources with a different view. If you can find one you can add a corrective, but until then you can't. That's not being pedantic. What kind of enyclopedia would it be if we all used sources we thought ought to exist. --BalCoder (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I can see how you got the wrong impression with my initial edits and then again with my explanations above. Can you see now that I am trying to discuss "tone" and "partiality" rather than the "neutrality" or "balance" which you are referring to?

With regards use of the word "admire." I admit calling it 'glaringly positive' may have been an exaggeration. However, I was really just trying to use the adverb to draw attention to the main idea: the word "admire" has clear positive connotations especially when paired with the qualifier "long." The sweeping generality when taken as a whole is not, and cannot, be supported by a single source which looks at one study in only one place etc. I think the encyclopaedia should maintain as impartial a tone as is practicable and I'm not sure using 'favored' in its place resolves the issue. Perhaps the solution is to describe what it is precisely political scientists favour from that one (singular) source cited to avoid the general implication that otherwise arises, namely that STV and/or PR is 'better' or somehow 'more advantageous' and that there is unequivocal agreement on this point merely because the one source cited refers to it the system 'favourably' in the context of that source's one (singular) study.

I can see how it comes across that I am presupposing counter-sources out of thin air. However I can assure you that this is not the case - they exist. I was merely waiting to discuss the matter further with you before proceeding to make changes that appeared likely to otherwise be reverted. Please note, in addition, that I was not attempting to contribute new content without providing a source for it. I have merely been trying to find the most efficient way to remedy this impartial tone issue.

There is still justification for my new sentence in the lead as I provided at least two (I think) in my post above - i.e. the tone of the current paragraph, and the type of information in the Body that needs to find some expression in the Lead e.g. that there advantages and disadvantages.

To summarize for the sake of clarity, my issues with the paragraph revolve around primarily how the sources are being relayed/summarized, particularly with regards to tone and secondarily that the Lead isn't reflecting the contents of the Body. ex turpi causa (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I reject categorically that the para.in question is partial in fact or tone. "Can you see now that I am trying to discuss "tone" and "partiality" rather than the "neutrality"..." No, not at all, I haven't the slightest idea how impartiality differs from neutrality, my trusty dictionary uses the one to define the other. It's a pity you are out of sympathy with WP's core polices WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV, but you are free to follow your own, in which case I hope you will be reverted.

""admire" has clear positive connotations" - of course it does, that is what the source says: academics find it "one of the most attractive systems", how is that not positive? But that is too much for you, a "sweeping generality" because it suggests "that STV and/or PR is 'better' or somehow 'more advantageous'"? You still seem not to grasp that all the paragraph is saying is that STV is a failure, despite having been well regarded for 150 years ("long"). It does not claim STV, still less PR (it is not about PR at all), is "better". Support for PR is "unequivocal" among academics (see below). To then disparage IDEA 2005 as "a single source which looks at one study in only one place", as if it were possibly an outlier, or somehow questionable, is nonsense. It's a reliable, established, consensual, source (which in its online guise, the ACE project, you have cited), and BTW I don't think it is a single study. If you find another source saying something different you can't replace the "sweeping generality", you can only put your source alongside it as a corrective.

Of course the lead should reflect the body, but more importantly, it tries to summarize PR. I agree that a sentence summarizing pluses and minuses of PR might be a good idea, but I don't think there is a need to point out that "there are advantages and disadvantages", that is common sense, and the A&D section is not easy to summarize, some things are both advantage and disadvantage. Yours is not a very good attempt, lack of influence on coalition building is a general criticism of representative democracy, in the UK non-PR system voters also had no say in talks for their current coalition. The basic objection concerns coalitions, a more general summary saying that, and giving the other side too, wider representation, would be better, for e.g.: Almost all academics support proportional representation, the few "rare" opponents see it as a "menace to effective democracy" (both quotes from Forder). --BalCoder (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's try this a more constructive way. Let me first see if I am understanding what you are saying because it seems you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say, or are somehow set on insisting that my views are inferior to yours on this matter, judging by my reading of your tone, your approach thus far, and your approach with other good faith editors on this page.

Previously you seemed to take the approach that things like 'balance' etc from the policy pages were distinct from questions of partiality and neutrality etc. Now you say you cannot see the difference between the two. This is a little confusing as I am not entirely sure what your position is on the matter since you simply refer me to policy articles without indicating more precisely what you mean by making the reference, other than the obvious suggestions that I am confused on what I am trying to convey to you, don't know how to use a dictionary and am unfamiliar with basic Wikipedia guidelines. You also said previously that I was confusing STV with PR. If, as you now say, the paragraph is about STV, and not PR at all (your words and emphasis), then what is the paragraph doing in a page on PR?

I am also confused by the way you refer to and quote Forder. If you mean James Forder and his 2011 book then it seems like you are trying to use the subject of the work against itself, which then seems to go against everything (which I think) you are trying to persuade me I am incorrect on i.e. correct use and presentation of source information in the context of a public encyclopaedia.

I have no intention of disparaging institutions like IDEA, any other reputable sources out there, or fellow editors on here. However, this does not change the fact that they are only one voice, and one source. This is my whole point. As a singular source it should be represented as such (even if it is from an 'academic' or an 'institution' -- these are not the only authoritative voices out there; just because many academics agree on something does not mean they are all correct in every context, though this does not mean they should be ignored, although in practical matters they frequently are, or have their findings misinterpreted etc...). Similarly, IDEA is one constituent entity of the several that founded and comprise ACE. But none of this is to suggest that prominence should be given to the minority that do not support PR as a legitimate system in its own right. This is more about guarding from the potential for creating inappropriate implications from the language and use of the statements/sources.

A source's findings should be represented impartially and without going beyond what is written there. I am trying to look at this paragraph holistically and do not agree that the two statements sit well together (note how at the start of the thread I reproduce both statements together), and when placed together worded as they are, they extend the meaning of both constituent statements, distorting the more narrow (but not worthless) findings of the sources themselves in isolation. I know this may seem like common sense, but not everyone will have time to read the sources in full or have the same common understanding on some of these issues, especially when they are presented in a certain light (e.g. STV, a form of PR, has been 'long admired' though historically not taken up, followed by "political interests generally oppose it because it's bad for them and good for the electorate etc."

Friendly suggestion: rather than disparaging my attempts at making amendments, why don't you first try to understand what I am trying to say -- it is (very common) for people to misunderstand one another over plain text. In the meantime I will make some edits in an attempt to incorporate some of the comments we have both been making. ex turpi causa (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my tone is short, I am often accused of being abrupt when I don't intend to be. But I do find these endless discussions trying because composing my responses takes time.

What I wrote was I cannot see the difference between impartiality and neutrality. Balance, with reference to WP:DUE, refers to giving the various "sides" due weight. If IDEA says "STV has long been advocated by political scientists" it is a false balance to suggest that it has only "long being admired/favored/well regarded by some political scientists". The one implies many, the other not many. My position is simple, follow the WP rules and guidelines, period. Your point is that IDEA "are only one voice, and one source. ...[and] should be represented as such", the implication being (you are not more precise) that the source should be moderated, or toned down, in anticipation of a more moderate source turning up someday, or amazingly that "just because many academics agree on something does not mean they are all correct in every context"! But WP says (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source". There was an example here a few days ago when an anon.edit introduced the point that in the US "extremes are being favored over the middle". The referenced Guardian article is about the brokenness of the US political system but it does say: "The inevitable result: a drift to extremes. 'There has been a hollowing of the political centre,' said Larry Haas, a former Clinton aide." Personally I think the Larry Haas quote glib, the Democrats haven't drifted to the left, but the Guardian says it so I take the, possibly simplistic, view that I can't simply 'correct', still less delete, the ref. Luckily Paul Krugman agrees with me, so I could add his ref.to balance the point.

I am flummoxed by your para on Forder (yes, Forder 2011, the second most cited book in the article. I have not found other reliable sources of anti-PR arguments). He thinks PR is a bad thing and that most, the vast majority in fact, of academics support it. If my sentence honestly and accurately reflects Forder's view, and I can't think Forder would think it didn't, where is the problem? I am not trying to trip him up, or say he contradicts himself (he doesn't), that would be ridiculous.

Your changes are milder than I feared so this discussion has not been a waste of time. Concerning the start year of STV in Malta the de Miño/Lane source says 1921 and provides details of STV elections since 1921. A mention of "restricted franchise" suggests not everyone had a vote, but that STV has been in use since 1921 is beyond doubt, whatever the reason for the IDEA date of 1947 (Malta became independent in 1964). To simply delete the source is not in order, it is there precisely because it provides a stronger case than does IDEA for 1947. Also, you write "transfers power to other interests" and give Douglas Amy as source, but Amy doesn't say that. He says "would take power away from party leaders and give more of it to voters." which is pretty much what I wrote in the first place (about STV which is what Amy is talking about). I think this discussion is finished. --BalCoder (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is much clearer, and I can now see more fully where you are coming from - thank you for your patience in talking this through.

I do greatly appreciate the need for the Wikipedia guidelines and hope that you realise I am not trying to do away with them, or distort them - rather am trying to apply them effectively to the specific problems we are identifying. The notion of taking care not to go beyond what is in the source is something I had been trying to draw attention to throughout this discussion, for instance. As you can tell I was quick to abandon adding the word 'some' to the lines above and haven't been pressing that specific (moderation-type) approach since the initial suggestion in this thread. I think we are both on the same page here particularly in the overarching interests of good faith editing.

In defence of the point regarding academics: I had a professor at law school mention that academics are, like all "groups," a form of interest group. This does not mean they are to be ignored or disrespected (on the contrary, in my opinion) but merely that it is important to be aware that there are other valid voices/sources, and that there are a number of reasons why their work is occasionally not implemented on a practical level (even when there appears to be widespread general agreement within their community - there are always limitations). I found this quite striking at the time, but it is sound - it even came straight from the horse's mouth.

Regarding Forder: I took his argument to be about voting reform in the UK, though it is possible to take his general comments on PR further. On a more general note, it is interesting that so many academics seem to support PR wholesale so it would be interesting to inquire why this may be so, considering that regardless of this fact there are notable well-functioning democracies that have not taken it on. Perhaps it is a matter of academics publishing against PR in this way as not 'fashionable' within their industry at the moment (i.e. there is no funding in it, do not want to be ostracised for speaking out etc), but who knows. Either way I understand the Due Balance point.

Regarding Amy: I see what you mean where he writes "would take power away from party leaders...." The aim of my edit was to capture some of the other points he makes within the context of the source as whole (i.e. it's an American study and his conclusions, namely that there are a variety of factors and interests involved in assessing these sorts of claims with no straightforward answers [probably because the answer you get will depend on who gives it, these are politically-loaded questions after all] - and despite making specific suggestions along the way e.g. the one you mention). Hence my saying "other interests" despite it not being literally verbatim in the source. Note that throughout the paragraph you quote he also writes "At times..." and "sometimes helped to curb the power of party bosses."

I'll re-tweak the Malta point (i.e. reinstate the source, revert to the date therein) and reconsider the expression of the Amy source to try and incorporate both of our points.

I hope we can continue to collaborate on this page. ex turpi causa (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Only Two?

"There are, basically, only two PR voting methods, party list PR and the single transferable vote (STV)"

What about Reweighted Range Voting?

Jack Waugh (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has to reflect the sources (WP:VERIFY) and they don't mention reweighted range voting. The operative word is "basically", RRV is "basically" STV with scoring. In any case, the lead can't mention everything, it is a summary (WP:LEAD). One can certainly argue that RRV and other STV variants should be mentioned at the end of the STV section in the body (although RRV isn't mentioned in WP at all, not even in Range voting). --BalCoder (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Source 4 says "There are two major types of PR system—List PR and Single Transferable Vote (STV)". How about using that quote? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of the sources talk about types so I can't complain about that. Nonetheless, others (Amy and ERS) don't, and keep it simple, so why change it? The text as it is presents the reader with the bald, correct, fact of only two PR voting methods - that there are variants is unimportant at this point. The word "basically" (Amy also uses it) not only implies these variants but also prepares the reader for the next sentence and the fact that plenty of sources list MMP as a third distinct method (the two sentences were originally joined by a "but" but that was too much for someone). With your change you have to make MMP a type too. There are a number of other problems with your quote: "major" is redundant because "type" implies a major grouping - are there any minor types? "PR system" needs to be "PR voting system", "PR system" is simply wrong because sortition is omitted which is clearly a PR system - but not a voting system. Is it "party list PR" or "list PR"? Forder also uses "list PR", others "party list PR", the article already uses "party list PR". The article does not capitalize voting system names. BalCoder (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Why change it? Because some people (including myself) find "method" more specific than type. A type of PR system includes a number of different methods for implementing it. I also think "basically" is unencyclopedic and "only" is a value judgement. How about: "There are two PR voting types: party list PR and the single transferable vote (STV)"? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks at least for discussing it. BalCoder (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

One man, many votes

There is a voting system where the elector has a ballot paper and can vote for as many candidates in the constituency as he wishes. (Of course, it might be pointless to vote for everyone!). The votes would be counted and the candidate with the most would win. (Or, to gain even more balance, the top two, or three, etc, could be elected). This excellent system keeps (i) the constituency link and (ii) the ability to vote for a candidate rather than a party, and (iii) eliminates the need for tactical voting and (iv) avoids the horror of the "party list".

Voters may vote as they please with neither the fear of "splitting the vote", nor of the "wasted vote". For instance a left-leaning voter (in the UK) might vote Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green; and a right-leaning voter might vote Tory, BNP and UKIP. The successful candidate would clearly be one acceptable to most of the electorate. A minor complication is that, in the absence of electronic voting, the ballot paper would have to be either in the form of a booklet with a page for each candidate, or else the single sheet ballot paper would need to be sliced in a special guillotine to produce a number of single votes.

I personally think this is a great system, but I can't remember (a) what it is called, and (b) where I read about it. Any ideas? Arrivisto (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a form of block voting. But what you think would happen isn't what actually would happen. Here is what would happen: The largest party would put up as many candidates are to be elected in that district, and than the party's voters all vote for those candidates, and the largest party takes the entire district. Block voting is rightfully considered the most unproportional system, even more unproportional than first past the post in single member districts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.112.41 (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits by user REH7

REH7: I have kept the shorter paragraphs in the lead but undone all your other edits because there is very little which is an improvement.

• Lead Paragraphs: I agree with you about the long paragraph but a WP rule-of-thumb is four paragraphs in the lead (WP:LEADLENGTH) so longer paragraphs are normal, check out any featured article.
• Bullet lists: WP prefers prose to bullet lists (WP:USEPROSE). You can change coalition arguments to a bullet list but there is no need to so don't. Why didn't you change the next para to a bullet list too?

• PR systems in the broader family of voting systems: You have changed 'plurality' to FPTP but that is not correct, FPTP is just one plurality system (explore the 'Voting Systems' box at the top of the article).

• Advantages and disadvantages: "removed a wild claim that was not backed up by the citation provided". The citation provided, Forder, says on p.53 "Michael Pinto-Duschinsky - a rare academic opponent of proportional representation- has...". The text you deleted is a reasonable paraphrase (WP:PARAPHRASE) of that (or do you think Mill wasn't talking about PR?) It also adds the useful reminder, the article being about representation, that english-speaking democracies use representative democracy (which is what Mill was also on about). It is uncontroversial, so leave it. The line you added in its place ("Most arguments against PR are based on concerns ..") is stating the obvious. At least it is nice to have the Lovink ref, a rare anti-PR article.

• Coalitions: "Moved content around so that the FPTP argument was not presented as a straw dog ...": You write "One of the objections to PR systems .." No, you are misrepresenting the sources - they say it is not just one but THE principle objection. IDEA p.58 (p.59 is wrong): "Most of the criticisms of PR in general are based around the tendency of PR systems to give rise to coalition governments and a fragmented party system." Forder, p.58: "One of the few things on which both sides of the PR debate seem to agree is that it almost surely makes coalition more likely..". You have removed this emphasis and so are misrepresenting the sources which you can't do (WP:DUE). The not unimportant point that coalitions do not necessarily form at the centre has disappeared. In "In a Westminster parliamentary system, minority governments can be (and are) voted out..", for Forder the most important argument, you have removed his emphasis ("Most importantly..") and added a series of unnecessary rewordings. The point is not restricted to Westminster systems. The para "Nevertheless, on average, compared to.." has gone; I didn't particularly like it but it is sourced. There are a number of other unhelpful, wooden, rewordings: "Objections to having many coalitions..", "Coalitions can have difficulty creating some policies ..". You also say "Supporters of PR" "..also argue that the US experience shows.." No, supporters of PR don't argue that, that was one politician in one Guardian article, you have changed the meaning. Personally I think the sentence should go but it's sourced.

• Link between constituent and representative": "An accusation against PR is .." has been changed to "Another concern about PR is .." Is that really necessary? You have added text which doesn't reflect (WP:DUE again) your source.

• Measuring proportionality: "Deviation from proportionality" denotes rather obviously a degree of malapportionment ("malapointment" is presumably a typo) but you call that "inflammatory"!. It's a technical term used by political scientists. The para.was a separate article and was recently merged here. It's incomplete but inoffensive. --BalCoder (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

STV bias?

A really lengthy section on STV whilst open list system says wrongly that districts don't exist. You can have multi-member constituencies (Coachtripfan (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

The STV and MMP sections are of similar length, if you ignore the Australian STV section which is exceptional. The Party List PR section is the only section that has not been rewritten in the last year, you are welcome to rewrite it yourself. I hope it will then be much like the MMP and STV bits. The nonsense about districts not existing is from a new user and is the subject of the above discussion "Edits by user BalCoder..." and now an incident on the administrator's noticeboard. With luck he will be blocked and I will then revert his changes. --BalCoder (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protected

I have full-protected the article to prevent the current edit-war from continuing. I have restored the article to what seems to be its stable state before applying the protection. This is solely in the spirit of WP:BRD and not an endorsement of that version. I encourage involved editors to discuss the issue and reach consensus over the proposed changes. Use the resources of WP:POLITICS, WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN if you need outside views, of follow one the dispute resolution processes. I'll be happy to lift the protection early if such a consensus is reached, or if there are assurances that the edit-war won't continue. Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute related to this page. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer) Case closed—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Lithuania

Doesn't Lithuania have some sort of proportional representation system?

Protected edit request on 22 September 2015

I would like to ask if this table could be re-inserted under the section "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems" to allow a simple overview of the types and categories of the systems of Proportional Representation, preferably at the bottom of the section unless you (admin editing) feel it would be better placed elsewhere.

It does not seem to be contentious content, only a contentious author (see above discussion of edits). I have asked for clarification of which block vote is meant by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (original author of table) but have not yet received a reply clarifying.

Proportional Representation Systems	Mixed Member Systems	Plurality/Majority Systems
Single Transferable Vote	Mixed Member Proportional	First Past the Post
Party List Proportional Representation (closed/open/local)	Alternative Vote Plus	Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting
	Additional Member System	Preferential block voting
	Majority Bonus System	Limited Vote
		Supplementary Vote
		Two-Round System
		Borda Count

Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

BalCoder, are you opposed to such an addition? Is there anything you would like to change? Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, I assume you are still wishing for this to be added? MSGJ, there are two users besides myself. How do you propose getting a "two/three-person" consensus unless we make an RfC for the first handful of individual edits until more users deign to watch and comment? It is confusing when the page is blocked because of two users at loggerheads. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr Crazy 102: I am emphatically opposed to including this table in the article. (1) The article already has a voting system classification table, Template:Electoral systems, a second is superfluous. (2) It is a copy of the Electoral Reform Society's "Voting systems made easy" table that is already linked to by citation 5 in the protected article, so for this reason there is no need to embed it in the article. (3) Though it has been slightly modified it is obviously a copy of the ERS table which seems to be copyright. WP being sensitive to copyright violations, I doubt the table would survive long in the article (User Ontario has copy/pasted the whole section to several other articles). --BalCoder (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of that the copyvio. If I had've known I would not have made the request, sorry. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr Crazy 102 There is no evidence of any copyright violation with this table. The Electoral Reform Society is properly sourced, which would forego any possibility of copyright infringement. The table is also not unique to any single source. Here are a few example of other sources which use a table to group the electoral systems into: PR systems, Mixed Systems, and Plurality/Majority Systems. These categories were already present in the article prior to my contributions. I merely transferred existing information (an added supplementary sources) into an easy-to-understand table. Therefore, there should be no legitimate objection to this Help:Minor edit as it falls under the category of "Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page". The Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary policy states "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse". Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the table on Idea.int makes me wonder why this article does not have a section actually listing what type is used where. I am curious about if creating such a table, but properly referenced and only partially based on the Idea.int's table would placated both arguments. So including a sortable table of system, place, category of system, etc. to show the widespread useage but to also show the differing types and their usage. Is this more viable? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

^{couch, BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, see above please. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)}

Dr Crazy 102: Is the section "List of countries using proportional representation" not what you are talking about? Please don't forget that the article is about PR specifically, not voting systems in general. User Ontario is trying to fundamentally corrupt the basic article, a table of usage is not going to paper over such cracks. --BalCoder (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr Crazy 102: There is a separate article (that still needs a fair bit of work) about that at Table of voting systems by country. Øln (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Page protection

Ok, I'm confused as it looked like I went to the wrong page and it mentioned an RFC.

There's an edit war going on. Don't know who is "right" and don't care because all of you are acting bad. Page is protected for one week from all editing. I suggest you start with small changes and work your way from there... No more big huge changes. Also, Ontario, you are making alot of mistakes in your changes, by doing small change you will also limit your mistakes. Bgwhite (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ontario as in a user called Ontario, or the province? There is a very heated debate going on here in Canada as our new PM Trudeau has promised electoral reform, and everyone is fighting over which system is best, and which system might be snuck in to maintain party majorities. moeburn (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is Ireland on the List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation but not Scotland?

I couldn't help but notice that even though Scotland is mentioned twice on this page about PR, it isn't in the list of countries using PR. Now some might say that is because it only uses PR for its own local elections and not UK elections, but the same could be said about Ireland, and yet they are on the list. Why was Scotland omitted? moeburn (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Moeburn, you need to be aware of the fact that there are actually two Irelands. The UK's Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic of Ireland. I believe this is what is causing the discrepancy as obviously, one is not actually it's own country and the other is its own separate, self-governed country. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Videos

I was looking at some YouTube videos by CGP Grey. I've seen quite a few of them. I noticed he had videos on voting systems. I think they would make a good addition to this or other articles.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Bgwhite (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)