Add listNname parameters[edit]

My suggestion for values is: plurality, proportional, mixed, other. This makes it possible to expand individual sections on relevant pages. (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add link to positional voting within this template[edit]

The positional 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 the Borda count, the Nauru/Dowdall method and the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) one. However, the Borda count employs an arithmetic progression of weightings whereas the Nauru/Dowdall method uses a harmonic 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 (see here) 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[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2022[edit]

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[reply]

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

Proposal: 4-part classification[edit]

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[reply]