Talk:Vote pairing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Contents |
[edit] moved article to "vote pairing," updated with info on manipulation, IRV, the 2000 legal debate
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)
[edit] Article needs some bias adjustment
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.
[edit] corrected typos and grammar and noted that 9th Circuit decision is on appeal.
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)
[edit] added IRV section back in
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)
