This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I don't particularly want to make a big deal of this, Nardopolo, but conventionally the term "runoff", when discussing "instant runoffs", refers to "the process used of transferring votes according to a ranked ballot from earlier to later preferences" and "vote" (n.) refers to "the thing that is being transferred in a single transferable vote system". Arguing in the edit summaries that such usage is abus[e], misuse, or mistaken without explaining your problem with the conventional definition is not particularly helpful at getting your point across. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Affinepplan: as I read it, the voting methods criteria paragraph you removed was intended as an introduction to just what criteria are and why they matter, to familiarize readers who haven't read other voting method articles. As such, I think it would be useful to have some intro paragraph in the article. Do you have any opinion on what level of detail it ought to have? Wotwotwoot (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's possible to make judgments on an article by article basis without falling down a slippery slope. For instance, it may be more useful to recap what criteria are in a relatively popular article like this one, than on say, an article about CPO-STV.
The 2011 James Green-Armytage ref ("Four Condorcet-Hare Hybrid Methods for Single-Winner Elections") in the main article analyzes four of them. They are, using Green-Armytage's names:
- Woodall: Elect the Smith set member who was eliminated last by IRV.
- Benham: Repeatedly eliminate Plurality losers until there's a Condorcet winner (when considering only the remaining candidates). Elect this Condorcet winner.
- Smith-AV: Eliminate every candidate not in the Smith set. Then use IRV on the reduced set of candidates.
- Tideman: Tideman's alternative method. Alternate between eliminating every candidate not in the Smith set and eliminating the plurality loser. Elect the last candidate standing.
Off the top of my head, I'm not aware of any of these having been used in the real world, apart from the Condorcet Internet Voting Service. It supports the Benham method, which it calls Condorcet-IRV, and also supports another IRV-Condorcet hybrid method called Bottom-Two Runoff. Wotwotwoot (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
