This template was considered fordeletion on7 July 2021. The result ofthe discussion was "no consensus".

This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theElectoral systems sidebar template.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help. Assume good faith Be polite andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute resolution if needed

Archives:1,2,3Auto-archiving period:6 months

Thepositional voting page incorporates this template but is not listed within it. Using this template, it is possible to navigate from positional voting to other electoral systems but not to navigate back to it.

Examples of positional voting electoral systems include theBorda count, theNauru/Dowdall method and theEurovision Song Contest (ESC) one. However, the Borda count employs anarithmetic progression of weightings whereas the Nauru/Dowdall method uses aharmonic progression instead and the ESC uses neither type. The latter two are sometimes called ‘variants’ of the Borda count but this word is unfortunate since the properties of different types of weighting progressions generate quite different ranking outcomes.

The Borda count is well known for being a system that promotes consensual candidates. At the other extreme, plurality (which can be analysed using positional weightings of 1, 0, 0, …, 0) promotes polarised candidates. Intermediate weightings (seehere) between these two extremes often produce markedly different election outcomes. Referring to any positional voting system (or plurality!) as a ‘variant’ or ‘modified’ Borda count is simply misleading. The Nauru/Dowdall and ESC voting systems are accurately defined as positional voting ones but much less well as ‘sort-of’ Borda count ones.

Therefore, I would suggest amending this template as follows. Replace ‘Borda count’ with ‘Positional voting (Borda count,Nauru/Dowdall method,Eurovision Song Contest)’.Mencor (talk)08:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No comments or objections made so amendment actioned today.Mencor (talk)09:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request toTemplate:Electoral systems has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Change the label of the link to "CPO-STV" to say "CPO-STV" or "CPO" instead of "Wright".Icebound Alpaca (talk)02:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Mvqr (talk)11:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 main categories of single-winner systems:

1. Sequential-loser methods like IRV: take the "biggest losers" of one method (like plurality) and delete them from the list of candidates. Iterate on this to rank candidates from worst-to-best. Includes IRV, Coombs, and Condorcet elimination.
2. Round-robin systems: compare every pair of candidates to each other to create a pairwise matrix. Use this matrix to select a winner. Includes most Condorcet methods, but not all (Nanson's, Baldwin, and Alternative Smith are biggest-loser methods).
3. Positional systems: Every candidate gets a certain number of points depending on their position on the ballot. Includes Plurality, Nauru, and Borda.
4. Rated systems: Every candidate gets a rating. Includes highest medians, highest averages, approval, and STAR.

Closed Limelike Curves (talk)20:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed.Closed Limelike Curves (talk)17:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is IRV under the name Alternative Vote if the article is named IRV? RCV I get, but isn't AV just as geographic and vague, inaccurate? Not to mention the abbreviation AV (also approval voting)

What is the nonpartisan proportional thing under mixed supposed to be under ballot type? its ballot types specifically of mixed systems, I don't really understand what this even refers to especially there is no page yet.Is it some kind of IRV/STV MMP instead of FPTP+listPR?Rankedchoicevoter (talk)19:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went with "alternative vote" because it's about as accurate/descriptive as IRV: if your vote doesn't get used, it goes to your alternative/backup. OTOH, IRV doesn't seem to be used by anyone at this point.

For nonpartisan, it's supposed to refer to proportional systems that don't involve party lists. (STV, Thiele, Phragmen, Chamberlin-Courant, or expanding approvals.)Closed Limelike Curves (talk)05:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I usually encounter only IRV (apart from RCV which is very inaccurate), rarely AV. Sometimes "Hare" and plurality with elimination. I think the last one is probably the best, but not really adopted. When I edit I will probably still refer to IRV as it seems to be the most common here, but I won't change back the sidebar under plurality/runoff, I I like that under positional the different elimination methods are there and there I would leave IRV or spell out instant runoff. I'd skip "Hare" as I lean towards not using proper names at all for these, very arbitrary where it sticks and where there are good descriptive names, I'd stick with those. If there is a vote/consensus thing on the main article name, I still lean towards keeping IRV.

I see the point with the nonpartisan, that is very well but you had it under mixed systems. Is there a non-partisan mixed system that has an article or mention here? (there might be, I really don't know). But I don't think there is or atm needs to be a "nonpartisan ballots in mixed systems" page.Rankedchoicevoter (talk)08:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]