This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think this list should be limited to commonly used systems: those that are (or have been) used at a national level, or in many places for local government elections. Otherwise it'll quickly become huge. I would like to have included approval but AFAIK it still hasn't caught on, and if you include one such system you have to include them all. Condorcet is also rare but it was possible to include it under the single "preferential systems" link. Iota 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use this template on pages that are not on the template, for example Nanson's method? It would provide a great deal of context to some of the more arcane stubs and split-out articles out there, but if there's consensus against it, then I won't. -- nae'blis 17:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the merge template to this template and the Voting template. They both seem to have the same point and massively overlap. They are also used inconsistently on pages that they both link to. Please add your opinion if you Agree or Disagree and a brief reason backing it up.--Old Hoss 05:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree - I think the voting template should be merged into the electoral systems template and the brief of the electoral systems template widend to include all electoral systems, not just common ones to present more of a neutral point of view in regards to the subject matter. - Grumpyyoungman01 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Below is a proposal to merge the aspects of both Template:Voting and Template:Electoral systems and convert them to a footer to be placed at the bottom of each listed page. I have included every link from both templates, and culled as many as I could from the category pages. Unfortunately, I know very little about this topic (other than the navigation was rough). Therefore, I need help in placing the links in the proper grouping; near the end I just ended up throwing them wherever. I may have included some terrible choices and may have excluded just as many. Please review the proposal and make the appropriate changes or suggestions.--Old Hoss 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This table is causing formatting problems because it is so large. Images that follow, floating right, get pushed below this and connected text gets pushed way down with it.

Can this table be split - divide single and multiwinner methods and cross-linking them? Tom Ruen 05:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain the rationale/categorisation behind the systems of: Two-round system, Bucklin voting, Coombs' method, Exhaustive ballot and Instant-runoff voting. What logically should come under what sub-category in the hierachial template? Note also from Runoff dab page that there are multiple uses for the term in electoral systems. Either refering solely to Two-round system or as an umbrella term. I don't see how instant-runoff could be called a runoff voting system anymore than could condorcet method, as all the counting is done instantly and there is no other election, preferences are used instead.

Thoughts? Solutions?

Grumpyyoungman01 09:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

These runoff methods have sequential rounds of counting. If there's no winner in the previous round, the count is ignored and the new round is the only active round. Comparatively Condorcet methods use no elimination and track parallel pairwise counts, and all counts are active at the same time. Does that help? Tom Ruen 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a pretty clear definition, but the individual pages for these runoff systems aren't so clear cut that they are all alike in this respect, which is what confused me in the first place.

How would that distinction apply to the organisation of links on this template? What you have said suggests that Two-round system and exhaustive ballot should be placed along with the others underneath runoff voting, which they currently are not. Could you please edit the template to clear this up? Thanks for you help. - Grumpyyoungman01 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't feel comfortable changing too much since I didn't create it. I actually only recently moved two round system outside of preferential systems which implies the use rank ballots. I'll wait to see if anyone else is watching for ideas. Tom Ruen 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The category Random selection should be dropped since those methods are also either Single-winner or Multiple-winner. There is no reason why this aspect of methods (being deterministic or non-deterministic) should be considered any more relevant than other ascpects (e.g., being monotonic or non-monotonic, being preferential or not, and so on). Heitzig-j (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear that this is the name of a system, as opposed to a description. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have a better suggestion, please promulgate it. If not, then you can either nominate the article for deletion or let it stand as a well-researched and -referenced piece of encyclopedic material. But an article about an electoral system exist and not be part of the template which lists electoral systems is absurd. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This template is named Electoral methods, but deals with more than elections. What could be a more representative name? Group selection methods? I guess that sounds like a method to select a group. Collective selection methods? --Chealer (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

MMP is classified under proportional. AMS (which is a bit of a vague term) is included under semi-proportional systems. What's up? They can't be both. Unless AMS is meant to be parallel voting but that already has its own heading. Nlsanand (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nlsanand,

AMS is the UK term for MMP. MMP/AMS have the potential to be proportional, but the results are usually semi-proportional. This is due to the fact that A. the list-PR seats are nearly always outnumbered by the FPTP seats, B. there are almost never sufficient compensatory seats to make up for the overhang, C. some MMP systems have a fixed number of elected officials, and therefore don't include compensatory seats at all, and D. high minimum thresholds (of 5-10%) further distorts proportionality.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Although this is not a widely-used template (under 100 transclusions), an IP editor (possibly the same editor but different addresses) has repeatedly attempted to make changes in the last few weeks that require discussion. He has been reverted at least twice. I endorse the "reverts" not on the merits of the change (I haven't formed an opinion on the merits) but on the grounds outlined in the reverting-editor's edit summary: That these types of changes need to be discussed first.

I recommend that this page be either semi-protected or pending-changes-protected for 30 days so that discussion can happen. If another editor concurs before any other editors object, that editor should go to WP:Requests for page protection and make the request. I'm flexible on the "30 days" but it should be at least 2 weeks and no more than 2 months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Updated in light of new information, see below davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:davidwr,

The IP editor is likely User:BalCoder editing while logged out. This user has not provided a single source which categorizes voting systems as: single-winner, multiple-winner, proxy voting, random selection, and social choice theory. The reality is, there are no sources which classify voting systems this way. Contrarily, I have provided 7 reliable sources above which classify voting systems as :Plurality/majoritarian, Mixed Member, Proportional, and Other.

On a related issue, BalCoder has repeatedly claimed that MMP always results in fully proportional results. I have repeatedly stated that MMP often results in semi proportional results, with a plethora of reliable and scholarly sources. For example, Roger Scully, a Professor of Political Science from Cardiff University, argues that the proportionality of MMP varies from country to country, and it can be either proportional or semi-proportional depending on a number of factors such as the ratio of FPTP seats to List-PR seats.

"The Additional Member System (AMS, or Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) as it is known in much of the world) has been used since 1999 in elections for the devolved Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales. But AMS is not used in identical form in the two nations. The division between constituency and list members in the two institutions is as follows:

Scottish Parliament: 73 constituency MSPs, 56 regional list MSPs

National Assembly for Wales: 40 constituency AMs, 20 regional list AMs

Not only is the total number of elected representatives much greater in Scotland than Wales; so also is the proportion elected from the regional list (43.4% against 33.4%). This difference is more than just an arithmetical detail. With a smaller explicitly proportional element the Welsh variant of AMS is far more likely to produce disproportional results... The system deployed in Wales can more accurately be described as semi-proportional representation. What would be needed for similar levels of proportionality in Wales as in Scotland? A 70-member Assembly, with 10 additional regional AMs, would produce a situation where List members comprised almost the same proportion (42.8% of the total) as they do in Scotland." ^[1] I provided this source on the Talk:Proportional representation page, and BalCoder has suspiciously avoided responding to this source.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

(replying to myself) In light of two recent comments by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (combined diff) this looks like an editing dispute between two established editors, one of whom suggests that the other one may be editing without logging in (an easy thing to do if you are in a hurry or are a victim of a bug that logs you out without you knowing it), and protection would only force all editors to be logged in. Therefore, I would only recommend protection if this is not one of the two named editors and disruptive IP-editing continues. Traditional dispute resolution methods are available. The best solution would involved at least 3 previously-uninvolved editors familiar with WP:WikiProject Politics and the articles which use this template or which are likely to use it in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The classification categories (which are currently completely unsourced) need to be updated with modern scholarly language. Contemporary scholars classify electoral systems into the following groups: Proportional Representation Systems, Mixed Member Systems, Plurality/Majoritarian Systems, and some scholars include an "other" category. I have provided references below.

1. The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Proportional Representation”, “Mixed Systems”, and “Majoritarian Systems”. The ERS lists AMS (the UK term for MMP) as a “Mixed System”. ^[1]

2. The Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project classifies electoral systems into 4 groups: “Plurality/majority”, “mixed”, “proportional representation”, and “other”. The ACE Project lists MMP as “Mixed”. ^[2]

3. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Plurality and Majority Systems”, “Proportional Representation Systems”, and “Mixed Electoral Systems”. The IFES lists MMP as a “Mixed Electoral System”.^[3]

4. The Parliament of Canada classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Proportional Representation”, and “Mixed Systems”. It lists a variant of MMP (D’Hondt system), which is used in Germany, as a “Mixed System”. ^[4]

5. Claudio Martinelli, Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law from the University of Milano-Bicoccaand author of “Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective” classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Proportional”, and “Mixed” P.3-4. Martinelli lists two variants of MMP: the Hare e D’Hondt system used in Italy from 1995 to 2005, and the D’Hondt system used in Germany as “Mixed Systems” {P.9-10). ^[5]

6. Pippa Norris, Harvard Professor and author of “Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems” classifies electoral systems into 4 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Semi-proportional Systems”, “Proportional Representation”, and “Mixed Systems”. Norris groups AMS (the UK term for MMP) as a “Mixed System” (P.1-2).^[6]

7. “Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Best of Both Worlds?” by Professors Matthew Søberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg from the University of California, classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Proportional Systems”, “Majoritarian Systems”, and “Mixed-member Systems”. Shugart and Wattenberg group MMP as a “Mixed-member System” (P.1-2). ^[7]

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've created a default doc, sandbox, and testcases page. Please redo the sandbox so we can see what you have in mind (you may need to purge the testcases page for your changes to be visible). Once it's discussed we can go live with it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd's changes back to the version of Oct.17. Ontario boasts of "contemporary classification systems" and "modern scholarly language", but this is whitewash to veil Ontario's agenda that MMP is not proportional. The basic classification (plurality, PR, mixed, other) is certainly widespread, but because it can be misused (or misunderstood) to exclude MMP, unquestionably a proportional system, from the ranks of PR systems it is inappropriate here.

Despite those boasts Ontario is fickle about sources: in 3 months on Talk:Proportional representation she has yet to produce a RS supporting her claim that MMP is not PR. That's clearly no reason not to move MMP to the "Semi-proportional representation" heading in this template and to rename the heading "Mixed Member Systems" (MMP is after all "mixed"). That none of the articles listed under semi-PR except AMS, parallel voting and AV+ are mixed member systems also doesn't faze Ontario in the slightest. She has also renamed the "Semi-proportional representation" article to "Mixed Member Systems".

To prevent this kind of mayhem I have been trying for months to get Ontario blocked/banned; if protecting the template prevents Ontario changing it I am for it. --BalCoder (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: Before reverting again please provide "scholarly" sources that state that (1) Cumulative voting, Limited voting, Single non-transferable vote, Majority bonus system, Proportional approval voting, Sequential proportional approval voting, and Satisfaction approval voting are mixed-member systems; and (2) that MMP is not proportional. --BalCoder (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BalCoder,

As you know, on the Talk:Proportional representation page, I have provided a plethora of sources which state that MMP can be semi-proportional. For instance, Roger Scully, a Professor of Political Science from Cardiff University describes the MMP system used in Wales as semi-proportional due to its lopsided FPTP to List PR seat ratio. ^[8] We will keep the conversation of the proportionality of MMP to that talk page.

The Majority bonus system is a Mixed Member system. ^[9]

Limited voting, also known as Single non-transferable vote, is a majoritarian system. ^[1] Proportional approval voting, Sequential proportional approval voting, and Satisfaction approval voting are plurality voting systems similar to IRV. ^[10]

Cumulative voting is "other". It is a corporate voting tool where shareholders gain a vote for each share they control. ^[11] I will make these changes into the sourced classification system.

As you also know, I have already already provided 7 scholarly sources which classify voting systems as "Majoritarian/Plurality", "Mixed Member", "Proportional" and "other. ^{[1] [12][13][4][5][6][7]} These scholarly sources are reliable, and include peer reviewed journals by numerous professors from institutions like Harvard. These sources are more than enough to outweigh the zero sources which classify electoral systems as "single-winner, multiple-winner, proxy voting, random selection, and social choice theory".

Please provide a source which classifies electoral systems as "single-winner, multiple-winner, proxy voting, random selection, and social choice theory" prior to reverting. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: Concerning MMP: The topic is not "MMP in Wales" but MMP period. --BalCoder (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BalCoder,

During this 6 month debate, you have been unable to find a single source which classifies electoral systems as: ""single-winner, multiple-winner, proxy voting, random selection, and social choice theory". Contrarily, I have provided 7 scholarly sources which classify voting systems as "Majoritarian/Plurality", "Mixed Member", "Proportional" and "other. ^{[1] [14][15][4][5][6][7]} You are required to provide SOURCES prior to making disruptive edits/reversions. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd:

1. Your classification shows that MMP is not PR which is wrong, and will confuse readers. Your only reason for using this classification is to show, for your own politically partisan reasons, that MMP is not PR. For that reason alone you should be reverted.
2. Over many years other editors have contributed to the page and I am not prepared to allow their work to be thrown out of the window by an editor who continues to demonstrate not only a profound lack of understanding of the subject, but also contempt for the principles of WP.
3. Sources: self-evidently, I am not required to provide sources when I revert your changes to the status quo ante. In any case, this is not a WP article but a template, which is intended as an aid for readers, and as such has no need to reflect any external classification. The division "single winner", "multiple winner" is easy to understand and obvious. "Proxy voting", "random selection", and "social choice theory", are more helpful than "other".

For these reasons I am reverting your changes. --BalCoder (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I really lack the time to do a proper check for sources, but it is quite distressing to have the pair of you reverting back and forth on my watchlist. Just my 2 cents, BalCoder, this is not an article, but it appears in many article so I would say the information on it should be verifiable (sources on the talk page, not the template obviously). Also, wp:V says that the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Ontario had to give sources for his additions and he did. You reverted, ie restored the previous material and ought to provide sources. Please do so. The other thing is that accusing people of doing things for partisan reasons with no real evidence is inappropriate. I strongly urge you to both stop reverting and discuss. Perhaps an RfC would be appropriate as it seems no agreement can be reached. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello user talk:Happysquirrel,

I agree. BalCoder believes electoral systems are classified as "single-winner, multiple-winner, proxy voting, random selection, and social choice theory". This user has been unable to provide a single source which classifies electoral systems this was, as none exist. Contrarily, I have provided several reliable sources classifying electoral systems as: "Majoritarian/Plurality", "Mixed Member", "Proportional" and "other. ^{[1] [16][17][4][5][6][7]} This user knows that the sources I have provided are reliable, and knows that these reliable sources are accurately represented. This user prefers ad hominem attacks by "attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly". This is in strict violation to Wikipedia's civility policy.

Happysquirrel, thank you for A) Asking BalCoder to provide sources to support his/her position, and B) Asking BalCoder to stop the personal attacks. I appreciate your support. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your Plurality/Majority understanding

This all you included in so call "Plurality/Majority" systems are Single winner systems. I used more neutral Single district member as it seems to be the preliminary name of the system and somebody assumes Single Winner is aggressive :) The Wikipedia editors should put their likes and dislikes a side. This is wrong to attempt to be a propagandist instead scholar editing encyclopedia Ontario Teacher BFA BEd :)

Such kind of assumption #3 of Britannica - i.e. plurality is more than others - is only in UK and US encyclopedias, maybe in Canadian ... thus the only countries where the make-up of democracy still exists. The English speaking post-imperial and imperial states attempts to manipulate the language for political reason and some become shamanistic about their way - because the Wikipedia is in ENGLISH! This is not good it can be insolent anyway. The logic says if #1 and #2 in Britannica says plurality means "many" it can not means "most" i.e. #3. Simple :)

Majority means "more than half". You can easily find that the system produce FALSE majority governments - supported by less than half electorate (30-39% in most cases). Thus it has nothing to do with "majority" in truth meaning. Since in reality the system also reduce/eliminate the smaller parties on district/constituency level and become in fact two party system - like in US - it reduce the number of parties in parliament. It should be call LESS plurality/FALSE majority system, is it not? Be honest. A scholar way? Logic language? --New Speech Killer (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:New Speech Killer,

1) The term "plurality", when referring to voting systems, means more than any other single party or candidate. "Majority" refers to more than all over parties/candidates combines, i.e. more than 50%. ^[18]

For instance, if candidate A. receives 48% of the vote, candidate B. receives 38% of the vote, and candidate C. received the remaining 14% of the vote, candidate A. has received a plurality of votes, but not a majority. If you are still confused, please view this video: http://study.com/academy/lesson/plurality-vs-majority-based-elections.html

The following scholarly sources use the terms "Plurality" and "Majoritarian" to describe this voting system category. ^{[1] [19][20][4][5][6][7]} It is important to stick with the nomenclature used by journalists, academic scholars, and political groups. This list of sources are reliable, and international.

The term 'plurality' has nothing to do with the quantity of political parties. The term you are looking for is called: multi-party systems, which differs from two-party systems, and one party systems. You have incorrectly assumed that plurality voting systems are always two-party systems. In Canada, we use a plurality voting system with a multi-party system.

2) You are correct in observing that plurality/majoritarian systems are more likely to produce majority governments than minority governments or coalition governments. Some voters prefer majority governments, while others prefer minority governments, or coalition governments. The personal opinions of editors are irrelevant. Additionally, please ensure than all of your edits are from 1 account only, and you do not edit while logged out. Editing from multiple accounts, and editing while logged out are forms of sock puppetry. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

RE 1) I prefer simplicity, so at #1 the 4 first sources, you provides, definitely put difference between what is so call "Plurality" system and "Majority" system. (I check just 4 first links you provides.) Maybe there is some later witch mix like you Plurality/Majoritarian in one group. It is one OR the other not P/M in each of the sources. I am not going to show you how the Brit source are inconsistent with each other but the P or M systems in each one source are put as separate. Seems to be your invention to put P/M by attempting to find consistence which does not exist. Single winner system in one source is put as Plurality in other source as Majority but the system call P/M is nowhere. Is it one or the other.

RE 2) :))) It is not a question what some voters prefer. If it is FALSE MAJORITY this is against democratic principle and preference of one grope of people is no issue. Thus if for example 30% of voters had been created Majority Conservative government of Harpper - of course 30% (minority group) would prefer the FALSE MAJORITY government, but potentially 70% DID NOT! The preference of minority group :) does not has a democratic quality. So it is not my personal opinion but democratic principle, which seems to me, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd :), has no importance for you. It seems to me you prefer the system despite of democratic value for YOUR VERY PERSONAL PREFERENCE --New Speech Killer (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It is nonsense to mix two names which do not represent the character of all members of legated group. My proposal is Constituency level elections.--New Speech Killer (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:New Speech Killer,

1) You have incorrectly asserted that the sources either use the term plurality or majority, but not both, to describe this group of electoral systems. The following is a chart from the ACE Network, which clearly uses the term plurality/majority jointly as one category of voting systems.

File:Electoral Systems.png

^[21]

2) You have made many assumptions about voter preferences in Canada, and my own preferences. I will use as a case study the Ontario electoral reform referendum of 2007. An Ontario electoral reform referendum was held on October 10, 2007, in an attempt to establish a mixed member proportional representation (MMP) system for elections to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. However, the resulting vote, expressed as Yes or No, was heavily in favour of the existing plurality voting or First-past-the-post voting (FPTP) system.

^[22]

I, along with 36.9% voted in favour of the referendum (although my preference, and the preferences of other editors, is irrelevant). 63.1% of Ontarians voted against the referendum. Therefore, your assumption that A. the majority of Canadians are against the current Plurality voting system is flawed, B. your assumption that only supporters of the Conservative Party of Canada support FPTP likewise has no merit, and C. your assumption of my preferences is complete fiction. Lastly, I'm going to ask you again to keep this discussion on this talk page, and not on my talk page as this is the more appropriate location to establish consensus. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)