Electoral system is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 6, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||||||
Sections older than 3 months may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 June 2019 and 3 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ogrubbs.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Topic organization
We have a family of great articles on voting systems that are, as a group, disorganized and duplicative. I would suggest a group approach to editing them all as a batch with the following structure:
Voting systems (the view from the moon) (Currently it is Electoral System)
- Voting system in nation (as many as are needed)
- name voting system (Plurality voting, Majority judgement, etc)
- voting system criteria (Condorcet, Condorcet loser
- other topics (Tactical voting, Tactical manipulation of runoff voting and others)
The very first step would be be an agreement on the use of voting, election, or electoral as a standard term for the naming the articles and categories. Electoral is the incumbent.
The second step would be normalization of the names and secondary names. For example, in the existing articles ranked voting is freely referred to as RCV,AV, IRV and other terms, even if they are differentiated elsewhere. A standard taxonomy supported by academic work would be a real plus for this set of articles.
We would rejigger the categories to make probably four. The names come after we have agreement.
- Category:Voting system in various nations (start at List of electoral systems by country)
- Category:Voting systems (exists already, needs some cleanup Category:Electoral systems)
- Category:Voting system criteria (exists already Category:Election system criteria)
- Category:Election topics or strategies (this would be the subcategories of Category:Electoral systems)
Some existing categories should either be beefed-up or removed. For example: Category:Use of electoral systems which has only three entries.
All of these articles need to corralled into the Portal:Politics, Electoral systems. Many are floating by themselves. They need to be labelled.
This is no small chore. Please respond with thoughts. Rhadow (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Moving from electoral system to voting system wouldn't fly. We had a long discussion about this last year. This also led to a bit of a reorganisation of the articles and categorisation, so I don't think another one is needed (I think the current situation is probably optimal). Number 57 14:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
EU parliament - national election systems - help wanted!
I am currently working on the national election systems for the EU parliament election, in form of a table. Your help is welcome, especially if you speak other languages from EU member states (I use the laws in foreign languages as references) C-Kobold (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Meaning of: "how the ballots are counted"
The words "how the ballots are counted" have multiple meanings. Apparently we need to separate it's two main meanings. One meaning is the process that is used to count the ballots by hand or by machine. Separately, there is the meaning for how the ballot counts are used to identify a winner. Then it will be appropriate to restore the link I added that links to the second meaning. At that point we should also add a link to an article about the first meaning (or create such an article if it does not exist). Does anyone have any suggestions for how these two different meanings can be worded? VoteFair (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- With regards to the sentence in question, perhaps something like this (new text in bold):
- These rules govern all aspects of the voting process: how votes translate into the election outcome, when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who can stand as a candidate, how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted, limits on campaign spending, and other factors that can affect the outcome.
- With regards to the link, it already exists twice in the article, once as a 'main article' link in the Comparison of electoral systems section, and again in the See also section. Another link, particularly in the introduction, isn't needed and is discouraged by MOS:REPEATLINK. Number 57 12:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The basic problem
It is often said that the choice of an electoral system is important and should reflect the will of the people; in other words, to help implement a representative democracy. Very rarely is it pointed out that the basic problem of achieving fair elections is not the choice of electoral system, but the choice of candidates who are nominated for election (placed on the ballot).
In the USA, minority candidates get on most ballots based on numbers of petition signatures, which is subject mostly to the motivation (emotional or otherwise) and/or money behind the petition-signing campaign. This method has clear limitations.
However, majority (party) candidates are not really chosen this way. They are mostly chosen by "machines", meaning structured informal organizations that deliver votes, set up by large political parties specifically to reflect a platform. Delivery of votes can be mediated by techniques such as the Electoral College or gerrymandering, but most of its methods are poorly documented and the responsibility only of certain trusted politicians (elected or not), who have proved that they can get out the vote. These individuals are not required to report or document their methods.
While there are certainly fundamental differences between the platforms of the two major USA parties, and these are often the subject of public debates and discussion, both parties are basically set up to reflect the values and issues of interest of the wealthiest members of society, with lip service paid to the well-being of the poor and of the middle class. This orientation is so subtle and complete that few people care about the pervading problems faced by these two classes of society, and most of those people persistently lay blame for these problems anywhere but their true cause, such as blaming specific objectionable companies, individuals, or political beliefs.
Thus, fundamental reforms of society, such as various forms of equality for women and minorities, take decades or centuries to develop through public education, public information, and the election process, all of which have a built-in inertia that protects the interests of those in power, and ultimately of the interests of the wealthy class.
Not only does this process of growth, evolution, or improvement take a great deal of time, but there is no protection against local reversals to even worse policies, which was well illustrated by the election and subsequent actions of a recent U.S. president.
It would be within the design and purpose of Wikipedia to elucidate these points, both here and in a standalone article, but due to the very lopsided (non-representational) structure of our society and its institutions, few comprehensive yet reliable and recognized sources are available to serve as evidence for such a section or article.
Perhaps this note can serve as a stub or placeholder until suitable references exist for writing a section and fuller article on this subject. David Spector (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Source For Plurality Used In Majoritarian Systems?
Do we have source or link for the statement below in the article?
"...although in some elections more than two candidates may choose to contest the second round; in these cases the second round is decided by plurality voting."
Filingpro (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is a feature of French elections – see the electoral system section of the last French legislative election article (any candidate with over 12.5% of the vote can progress to a second round if one is needed). The IPU can be used as a reference. Number 57 10:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The reference JSTOR may discuss this, but it is behind a paywall. There is a discussion of 2nd-round plurality in the article Condorcet method, especially at Condorcet method#Comparison with instant runoff and first-past-the-post (plurality). There is a brief mention in FairVote under the heading Two Round System. There are some relevant sections, such as the Two-Round System in The Electoral Knowledge Network. David Spector (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
Suggested fixes for Majoritarian section (I may return if I have more time and make revisions):
• Add French Assembly specific reference within Two-Round paragraph with a citation—example text: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/two-round-system/
• Preface plurality winner variations as exceptions to majoritarian systems, not examples of. Then I think we are free to remove the vague reference from the section opening which contradicts the definition. This could simplify the article.
• Remove/rewrite this parenthetical clause “(although in some cases only a plurality is required in the last round of voting if no candidate can achieve a majority)”< — Q: what cases? Also, this is an internally redundant phrase because it's always a strict plurality vote in the final round so there is no majority test. I think what would have to be explained, if at all, are the cases where more than two candidates proceed to a final plurality election.
• Make consistent and clear the language of elections, rounds of voting, and rounds of counting (or virtual rounds). Note that IRV is a single election with multiple rounds of counting. In Two-Round systems the second round of voting can be conducted in a separate runoff election. In an assembly the two rounds of voting and counting could be conducted in one sitting via open ballot.
Filingpro (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)