This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums 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 articles Politics Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/82599.stm FAQ on votepair.org that addresses the issue of whether votepairing could get used to manipulate an election or sabotage a candidate http://pairvote.ca FAQ on votepair.org that addresses instant-runoff voting and voting reform, which would make vote pairing moot article referencing how a web site for actually buying and selling votes, vote-auction.com, was shut down by an Illinois judge in the 2000 presidential election total vote-pairing tally in Florida by the vote-pairing web sites in the 2000 presidential election details on how the vote count in Florida varied from what Katherine Harris certified and what the Florida Supreme Court Ruled ACLU's news release on how they challenged the charge that the vote-pairing web sites were illegal, "ACLU Seeks Permanent Court Order on Issue of Online Voter Matching" (11/27/2000) more history on the vote-pairing web sites and their legality in the 2000 presidential election, as well as an online debate around their legality, see the article posted on November 1, 2000 in the online magazine, Slate, "Is Vote-Swapping Legal?" by Jeremy Derfner For legal analysis of the issue of vote pairing, Marc Randazza, The Other Election Controversy of Y2K: Core First Amendment Values and High-Tech Political Coalitions, 82 Washington University Law Quarterly 143, 240–241 (2004) SwapmyVote.uk – UK vote pairing website set up for the 2015 UK general election BernieTrumpTradePact.com – US vote pairing website set up for the 2016 closed primary elections

Isn't this illegal (although very difficult to enforce, this law) in some jurisdictions and shouldn't that be mentioned? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:54 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering if any theoretical or other mathematical studies have been conducted re. possible connections between vote swapping behavior and improbably close election results.

updated article to reflect history on how terminology changed from "vote swapping" to "vote pairing," added info on whether it can be used to manipulate elections, info on IRV, info on 2000 election and legal debate over votepairing, with sources. The last may arouse some political disputes.

Also moved article from "vote swapping" to "vote pairing." Both phrases are in the article, so people doing a search on either phrase will still get referred to this article as well as to the original "vote swapping" reference which will then forward to this article.

"vote swapping" was the term through the 2000 election, but this changed to "vote pairing." Even voteswap.com now just directly forwards to votepair.org, which has an explanation in their FAQ of why they changed the term: http://votepair.org/faq.php#saying Snowden666 18:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article implies, in the 2nd and 3rd to last paragraphs of "The issue of legality..." section that the 9th circut found vote swapping to be legal. It did not make that finding. Also, on remand, the District Court dismissed the case again in favor of the State (and against the vote swap site). The case is on appeal again to the 9th. There should be no implication of legality at this point from that case line.

As noted above Wekes feels the article is biased, and so noted that the 9th Circuit decision is on appeal. I agree the article states that the 9th Circuit decision vindicates the legality of vote pairing, and the article directly states that. It sounded like Wekes would perhaps like the article to say that the 9th Circuit did not vindicate the legality of vote pairing? However, I personally don't see how that's accurate. Snowden666 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in Oct, '06, IRV, approval voting, and proportional representation sections were removed because that editor felt they were unrelated to the article topic. Today, I added the section on IRV back in; however, I added it back in at the end, I shortened the section on approval voting so that it's less editorially oriented, and I left out the proportional representation paragraph. To me, it seems IRV is very related, because, as the section points out, advocates of vote pairing tend to also advocate IRV. Also IRV makes officially moot the unofficial strategy of vote pairing. It addresses within the formal structure of an election what vote pairing addresses outside of that formal structure. Voters only resort to vote pairing when they don't have IRV. Snowden666 23:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is very confusing for someone to read and should be either simplified, edited, separated so information is not crowded into large paragraphs or completely rewritten. TJ 15/05/08 1513 GMT

During the U.S. 2000 presidential campaign, liberals like me referred to this practice as being a "Nader trader." (Some others called such a person a "Nader traitor.") Perhaps we should mention this term (or "Nader trading"), or have a re-direct from it? 128.255.110.152 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vote pairing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027161513/http://nvri.org/library/cases/Porter_v_Jones/9th%20Cir%20opinion.pdf to http://www.nvri.org/library/cases/Porter_v_Jones/9th%20Cir%20opinion.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926202531/http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/82-1/p143%20Randazza%20book%20pages.pdf to http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/82-1/p143%20Randazza%20book%20pages.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_(parliamentary_convention) is the other article. Mang (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]