Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect to Instant-runoff voting. There is some useful and relevant information to that article here, but this is essentially a POV fork which could be condensed and included in that article. I have redirected; others may merge as they see fit. Black Kite 10:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instant-runoff voting controversies

AfDs for this article:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting
Instant-runoff voting controversies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
  • I have refactored longer comments to the talk page to aid readability of the day's AFDs. Please add long comments to that page while retaining "delete"/"keep"/etc. comments here. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This article was created for POV purposes. There are very few references (10), and all are weak. Of the few references given one is "electowiki", a wiki (which are not considered credible sources per wikipedia policy). Another reference is written by the "Center for Range Voting" a POV group. And another source is "Behind the ballot box: A citizen's guide to voting systems" by Amy, Douglas J. This book has only been cited 3 times, and has no positive reviews, is not an important work, and not considered influencial in the field of political science or international relations. This is also a fork article that draws attention by claiming it's about "controversies". Even the title is misleading, as is the content and purpose of the article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have notified all editors about this AfD, who either voted in the previous AfD, or edited the subject article or its Talk page, who had not been previously notified or commented, and who are not blocked or vanished. That's a total of 12 editors, some of whom may have long been inactive.--Abd (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - for reasons stated above. I should also mention that the creator of this article User:Captain Zyrain has had an administrator express that they believe this editor is a sockpuppet (see editors page). Another strong supporter to keep this article User:Abd has mentioned in the previous nomination for deletion that they are involved with the Center for Range Voting as an advisor. The Center for Range Voting is highly critical of instant-runoff voting. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork, no demonstrated need for a separate article on the controversies, any notable and verifiable controversies can more than adequately be covered at instant-runoff voting. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A POV fork and an obvious OR magnet; a flawed concept for the article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. For all of the reasons listed above. --Endless Dan 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator introduces no new arguments not considered in prior AfD. Article was created with editor consensus (including pro- and con-IRV editors) to allow deeper exploration of controversy on the topic than would otherwise be appropriate and necessary in the main article. However, I'd be personally happy with Merge and Redirect, though it could lead to edit warring in the main article. Defects in sourcing -- there are fewer sources than I remember but I have not reviewed the history -- should be addressed through ordinary editorial process, by removal or proper sourcing of unsourced material, and are irrelevant to notability unless no reliable sources exist. Controversies over voting methods can be quite complex and the necessary depth to report on them inappropriate for the main article; this is a classic reason for a Controversies article, allowing summary style to take back what is most notable to the main article. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Undecided Yes, there was an old deletion debate that failed. I'm not prepared to defend content quality (since I think this article is largely poorly written, 1/3 trash thought, even as I made my small attempts to improve), but needs improvements is not a reason for deletion to me. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup - There are plenty of references to establish notability, and the main article is already too big to merge everything useful from this one. Still needs a great deal of cleanup, though, starting with the currently segregated layout. --Explodicle (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated - POV article now being defended by someone a) with a conflict of interest and b) trying to muddy the waters by accusing people of being sockpuppets. --87.114.34.110 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) I struck this comment, because this IP is the blocked User:Fredrick day. The only sock accusation here was from the nominator. Sock puppetry is irrelevant to this AfD, which would proceed even if, for example, it were proven that the nominator were Yellowbeard, and I don't think that likely.--Abd (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC) IP addressess are commonly used by many individuals, which is why unlike user names they cannot be blocked permanently. You do not know that this is the user you claim it to be. Try something like that again and I'll report you. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Note to closer: the I.P. in question has made no other edits outside of this topic, and, based on I.P. range, is almost certainly indef-blocked user Fredrick Day. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: the article is a POV fork. It's admittedly done better than most POV forks, and I did edit it some time back to nudge it closer to NPOV, but at its heart it is still an essential violation of WP forking rules, and it still shows a good amount of POV bias. The choice of sources perhaps shows this best. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No opinion if it should be deleted or not, but if it is, any npov, referenced, sections left should be merged as appropriate. — xaosflux Talk 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Instant-runoff voting. Do not delete. A decent article could be written, but it hasn’t been done. The target article doesn’t even have a good summary. Improve the controversy section of Instant-runoff voting before trying to expand into a whole article.
While there are occurrences of discussion about controversy associated with IRV, there don’t seem to be reliable independent secondary sources discussing “Instant-runoff voting controversies” per se. Possibly, this article can stand on the basis that it is a spin-off article. Instant-runoff voting is already big. If not, it is still clearly a real topic, with sources, and so merging is appropriate. Whether kept or merged, a fair bit of editorial work is required. The list of pros, then list of cons style is not good, and overall it reads too much like OR. For a controversial topic, in line citations are especially important. NB these criticisms are not reasons for deletions.
POV allegations are easy to make, can be fixed. POV as a criterion for deletion is a POV battling tactic and is inappropriate. There is no reason to suppress this information. To the extent that there is a fork of content, POV or otherwise, the duplicated content should be merged, not deleted.
Sockpuppetry is irrelevant to this debate. This is a controversial subject, and POV exists. This means that care is needed, not deletion. We do not censor controversial subjects.
If kept, a serious cleanup is required. I can’t see it being fixed in a week. Perhaps a user is interested in userfying? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Abd's responses moved to talk page by User:Stifle [1]


  • Keep The CRV is an advocacy group, not whatever a "POV group" as nominator wants to portray. Quirky has been several allegations about the title of the article, a book used as a reference without supplying anything substantive, any proof of the allegations. This was a very ill-conceived nomination.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge any relevant content into the main article on IRV, and turn this page into a redirect. Controversy forks are POV/troll magnets and are generally not advised. I haven't seen nor can I think of any reasons why this specific fork should be an exception. Yilloslime (t) 04:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have changed my !vote to Merge and redirect. Yilloslime (t) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP --
    "This article was created for POV purposes." Which POV purposes, pray tell?
    "Even the title is misleading, as is the content and purpose of the article." Please explain to this simpleton exactly how this is all so misleading. --NBahn (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Instant Runoff Voting. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with disputes over what should and should not be included. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Instant-runoff voting (and split the Brown v. Smallwood court case into separate article). The main article lacks sufficient explanation of the pros and cons. The controversies article currently under discussion, though not well-sourced, supplies some of the missing information. (See also my comments on the talk page.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a notable topic and we can't expect to cover everything in a single article. Everyking (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sources don't nearly cover the claims made in the article, and this is inherent to the scope of the article because it's being used as a vehicle for opinions, not facts. It's plausible that there could be some encyclopedic content with this title -- such as about controversies that have occurred in the real world due to implementation of IRV. If this article were given an accurate title, it would be "Arguments about implementing IRV, especially in the United States". And then it would be deleted. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. The IRV article provides the relevant context. The content of this article needs to be condensed to form the "controversy" section of that article. JFW | T@lk 09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Maybe The article is quite defective (sorry I haven't had time to continue working on it), but if it can be brought up to snuff, on balance I think it should exist. It definitely cannot be merged into the main article, as it is ten-times too long to be merged into that article and it would be nearly impossible to settle on what pieces should survive, resuming an edit war. My biggest complaint is that this article gives way too much space to arguments that are outside the discussion actually being conducted on the ground, whcih is contrasting IRV with current voting methods (plurality and two-round runoffs). Some comaprison with other theoretical voting methods (such as Condorcet, Borda and Approval) should be in the article, but these are minor sidelines compared to the real-world controversy over IRV, and should be a minor portion of this article. Some editors want to use this article to show why their favorite theoretical voting method is better than IRV. That sort of "debate" is more suited to an article comparing all voting methods, rather than an article about IRV.Tbouricius (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep needs work, however it is a worthy topic for content Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I would like to remind those thinking about merging that the parent article instant-runoff voting already contains the major praise and criticism about instant-runoff voting, which is why I feel a merge would not be needed. Please consider reading both articles before deciding whether to keep, delete, or merge. Thank you. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I find this puzzling. The main article contains hardly any reference to opinion contrary to IRV, there are few exceptions. The plan was to explore the controversy in detail, in the Controversies article, finding consensus there, then take back a brief summary to the main article. So what argument was there was moved, and replaced with a link to the Controversies article. What is left is specific to a discussion of the method, not, as far as I can recall, to arguments as such. --Abd (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've read both articles and disagree. Instant-runoff voting controversies contains material that goes way beyond the coverage found in any independent secondary sources. It contains too much OR, ie. wikipedian-synthesised material based only on primary sources. This stuff must be trimmed. Much of the rest is in instant-runoff voting, and thus this is a content fork. Merging of the remaining acceptable material (perhaps there is little) and converting of the article to a redirect is definately appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, this puzzles me as well. The controversies article contains detailed material covering notable arguments that is probably too much detail for the main article. There is a problem with summary presentations: it is difficult to accomplish the summarization without resulting in a POV slant. Consensus is generally easier to find -- at least it has been on this topic -- when freed from the argument that "this is too much detail for this article." And this is why actual editorial decisions, and whether to merge and how to merge and all that, are not made ordinarily by AfDs. It's complicated, and WP:FORK specifically suggests content forks when they are a result of editorial consensus. Consensus can change, but I'm a bit puzzled as to who, exactly, is going to accomplish the merger. We started with it all in one article, and our experience with that is why the controversies article were started. This is absolutely not a "POV Fork," explicitly and clearly, even though it might appear to some not familiar with the topic. There are two editors who have voted here who are explicitly IRV advocates. The voted "Keep maybe" and "Undecided" and the latter vote was, in its explanation, clearly a "Keep" while not approving of some of the actual content. And I'm a critic. The three of us have been major editors of the main article, recently, and we frequently disagree there, strongly. We came to agreement about the subject article. The suggestion I've seen above that the main article doesn't have a decent summary and that the summary should be done first is actually bizarre. How can what we have not agreed upon be summarized? It is true that there is a lot of material in the controversies article that pushes the boundaries of OR and reliance on primary sources. But, again, the solution to that is pretty simple. Take out, or, preferably, tag questionable material. I haven't done that myself because I don't, as a matter of personal policy, remove material that I believe to be true, and verifiably so, based on technicalities of Wikipedia guidelines. Call it WP:IAR, if you like, but I do not apply this selectively. I don't take out material that can be seen as pro-IRV based on imperfection, or even lack, of sourcing. And, frankly, I don't think anyone else should either; and the old wiki way was to ask for sources when the material was doubtful. Not to delete for lack of sourcing; that's why tagging is more civil than simply deleting. The alleged problems of this article are editorial problems. The controversy exists, there is secondary source, and, with time, it will be so referenced or removed. --Abd (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARY provides major guidance on this; the level of notable detail requires a separate article, so what must be done is to (1) tighten the controversies article per sourcing standards, POV balance, etc., and (2) restore a summary of the arguments to the main article. These are ordinary editorial decisions. Merger, while far better than deletion, would be much more difficult, because the main article is already long. If we find consensus, or at least stability, in the subarticle, we then have a source from which to derive what goes back in the main article. Finding consensus on summaries is far more difficult than finding consensus on a detailed description. And where the articles deviate, Keeping articles synchronized suggests the {{sync}} tag. --Abd (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Instant runoff voting. This article is quite poorly sourced at the present time. The article has long stretches that read like a personal essay, and are sourced only to proponents or objectors to IRV. We need outside commentary by third parties who are not partisans of any of the voting methods and can be thought of as experts in political science. Given how unlikely it is that any such sources will be found in the near future, I suggest a Redirect until whatever time such sources are found. Since there is so little good sourcing in the present article, it is hard to argue that there is too much material to fit into Instant runoff voting. There is too much personal-essay-like material, that's all. The sourcing in Instant runoff voting is much better. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Prune, Merge and Redirect the concept is notable and has been discussed in reliable sources and that can be discussed in the parent article. It's also probably a good search term, although I'm not so sure about the hyphen. There are significant OR issues here and I think that once those are addressed, there isn't going to be enough to warrant a separate article but rather enhance the main article. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Just so you understand: this article was created because the necessary detail was, in fact, burdensome in the main article. Personally, whatever POV "agenda" I have would be better served by having the critical material back in the main article, but *consensus* is better served by focusing on the debate in detail *first* and then summarizing in the main article. I'm aware of *many* sources that are available, and the decision of what sources are appropriate, once notability and the existence of some RS is established, is not for an AfD at all. It's an editorial decision. If the "fact" is that an argument is being presented, yes, primary source is an attributed statement from an official web site of a notable advocacy organization. But for this I've seen primary source used many times. It is clearly verifiable. Yes, again, reliable secondary source is generally better. The problem, though, is a balance between the requirements of RS and NPOV, and there is a very good reason we set up guidelines and leave the actual decisions to a consensus of the editors. Just today, I inserted some material into the controversies article without sourcing it. I know that what I inserted, to those who know the subject, is not controversial. If I'm wrong, the other editors will take it out, they are not shy. I did add cn tags, though. I'll come back and provide sources, and what is not properly sourced will ultimately be removed, but I consider article writing a process, they do not arrive lotus-born. Old style Wikipedia, I guess. It's what built this place. --Abd (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge the sourced controversies, and start over. It should be noted that most of the "CON" arguments apply to any voting method, so, even if they were sourced, they shouldn't apply to this article or the parent article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect or Delete. The sourced statements were already included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I just found an Australian site, apparently a reliable secondary source, with a whole list of pro and con arguments about preferential voting, so some of the argument sources will be moving to that site; some are already sourced elsewhere. It confirms, by the way, some arguments that some have, on the face, considered contradictory and preposterous. Which goes to show.... And there is a lot to be sourced from Gaming the Vote, by William Poundstone, newly published and widely reviewed (and thus there is more from the reviews, including one just published in the The Nation). The statement that most of the con arguments apply to any voting method simply is not true, though. I'll discuss this in Talk for the article. In any case, the specific arguments are, in fact, being raised specifically regarding IRV, and that they apply to "any voting method" is a synthetic conclusion that is itself one of the arguments (a "defense") raised for IRV, don't recall if that is in the article, but we see it all the time ("They say that IRV has problems, but Arrow proved that all voting systems have problems." But Arrow did not prove that, it's an incorrect popularization of Arrow's Theorem, which only applies to certain kinds of voting systems.) --Abd (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Instant-runoff voting - unnecessary POV fork. It may be that little if any of the material on this page is worth keeping, in which case this is effectively a Delete. Terraxos (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete or stubify. *Maybe* we may have an article on the controversy but this is not it (except maybe a bit of the intro, and the court cases - thus the stubify option). This is merely a reiteration of each voting system, already covered in their articles, and as such a needless duplication of content. - Nabla (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting more and more puzzled by the latest comments. The Controversies article isn't about the voting system, as such, it's about the debate over it. That debate is mostly not in the main article on the voting system, and we are only considering one system, for the most part (there is a section in the IRV article about similar systems). Some of what is in the Controversies article could go back into the main article, but much of it, though notable (I claim, sources are in the process of being provided, a little day by day -- this article grew gradually, with a number of different editors working on it), would be peripheral to the main article. Instant-runoff voting is what it is regardless of court cases over its constitutionality, or arguments being made about its expense, for example. What is specifically about the method is timeless. Note that there are also articles about the History of the method, and about the recent Implementations in the United States. All of these go into detail that is not appropriate for the main article. This was why a consensus of editors -- not just pro or con editors -- agreed on setting up subarticles. They weren't intended to be POV Forks, and that alone disqualifies them as such (even though any article can take on a POV color.) --Abd (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is (mostly) *not* about the debate. The article is the debate. Those are quite different things. If it were about the debate I would get to know who, when, where, why, with what consequences, etc.. We have nearly nothing of that. What we have is the debate, the alleged pros and cons of one (or several) voting systems, which is merely a restatement of their characteritcs and thus a duplication of the main article(s). - Nabla (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This comment is not based on a clear reading of the article. Not every argument has been sourced, but if an argument can't be sourced as Nabla thinks it should, then it should be taken out. Because the article was written by editors with knowledge of the debate, much was put in as skeleton text, unsourced. There were also some sources taken out by editors not understanding that sourcing requirements for arguments differ subtly from sourcing for other kinds of fact. We can't source a fact to a biased source, but we may, in some cases, source an argument in that way. FairVote, for example, is a notable proponent of IRV, and thus can be a source for arguments. But not for facts about the voting system, nor for facts about other systems. Yes, there is material in the article that duplicates what is in other articles. That's necessary, in fact, and would happen wherever the arguments are examined. Here, such material is presented in relation to arguments that are being made. So the fact that IRV is not monotonic is a fact, NPOV. It is not an argument, it's just a fact. However, then, it is asserted as an argument, as a reason not to use IRV. This is what brings it into the article. Then, in the plan, we source the argument. Is it actually being made, notably? Then we have what can be found in reliable source regarding the argument. Is the argument a fact? I.e., is IRV actually monotonic, or is this some deceptive claim? RS shows that it is true (and the fact of it can be verified by anyone who looks at sample elections). What, then, does this mean? Is it important for a voting system to be monotonic. There are various views on this, and they should be noted in the article. That's it. The article does not come to conclusions, generally. There might be a section in the article about conclusions. I.e., RS that draws conclusions about IRV, overall. Some of the sources currently in the article do that, but this hasn't been a part of the organization of the article, so far. It should be. The pro and con sections are *not* mere restatements of voting system characteristics, and there is no detailed analysis of arguments in the main article. Whenever that was attempted, it was taken out, with the argument that it was too much detail. And, ultimately, I came to agree with that, and *all* the editors actively working on the article agreed, and, so far, none of them have come down on the side of merge and redirect. Only editors relatively unfamiliar with the topic, coming to an easy conclusion that this is a POV fork, which it most certainly is not (I'd be at a loss to decide what POV this article favors), have voted for merge or delete. And who is going to do the work of merge? If arguments from this article should be in the main article, have any editors started to put them in? I haven't noticed. What is preventing them? Note the different opinions in this Afd. (1) there is nothing worth saving in the article. (2) there is plenty worth saving. (3) what is here should be merged. (4) what is here is separately notable and deserves an article. I'm not terribly disturbed by a merge decision, it is far better than delete, precisely because it is easy to undo if, when we actually try to merge, we find it isn't working. Note that my political POV would suggest Merge. That makes the arguments more visible! But I'd suggest that such a decision would be using an AfD to make content decisions. Not good policy. Editorial consensus should make content decisions, once it is established that an article is on a notable topic and that there is sufficient reliable source for that. Consensus makes decisions through detailed discussion, and detailed discussion here has partly been moved to Talk, because it is, allegedly, out of place. I'd agree, in part. We shouldn't be making content decisions here, beyond notability and possible verfiability. Merge/Redirect, properly, is a recommendation to editors that they do not have to follow, it is not binding. The deletion guideline notes that, if a merge recommendation is not followed, the article may come up again for AfD. So Merge is really quite like Keep or "no consensus." --Abd (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I should add that, IMHO, most of the arguments should be moved to a general article on controversies in (single-winner) voting systems, as they compare and contrast multiple voting systems, rather than ephasizing IRV. The list of arguments might be mreged into IRV, with the detailed arguments moved to a new (well, at least, I can't find it) article. Perhaps then that article could be broken up by argument, rather than by voting system. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there should be an article contrasting voting systems in general. But most voting system debate in the U.S. involves instant-runoff voting, at the present. That is why there is an article on it, there is plenty of reliable source, with detail that probably doesn't belong in the main article. As to merging the "list of arguments" into the IRV article, the present article is not merely a list of arguments, and the arguments (the brief summaries presented in the section headings) can be quite misleading by themselves. They make claims that may not be true. We did have a list of arguments in the main article, and it was constantly being shifted when editors would see an argument they thought false and they would change it or take it out. But an *argument*, if attributed, is a fact even if the content of the argument is false. Now, if we do what Mr. Rubin suggests, with detailed arguments moved to a new article, how would that article be different from the one being considered here? That is exactly what happened. We moved the list of arguments that used to be in the main article into this article, so they could be clearly presented and each argument explored in the light of what is known about the arguments. Obviously, ultimately, everything should be properly sourced. That isn't always done at the beginning, people write what they know because there often is not time to add sources at first. Should material be added without sources? Well, actual practice, it was done from the beginning and it is how the project grew. It's efficient. Somebody thinks the material, unsourced, should not be there? They can take it out and, perhaps, the one who put it there, then, being familiar with the topic, finds and adds a source. Or someone else adds a source. Or no source can be found and it stays out. (But, rereading what Mr. Rubin wrote, it seems he thinks we should do exactly what was planned, and Talked about, take the list of arguments and put it back into the main article. The problem was that doing this without having consensus on the topic of the controversy was extraordinarily difficult. The controversies article was the place to find that consensus, and then there is something coherent to summarize. It still won't be easy.--Abd (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the major voting systems used in the US are plurality and runoff voting, with most cities using plurality-at-large for multi-member districts. (Although, I'm forced to admit I don't understand why approval voting is not considered a simplified alternative to plurality-at-large. But I digress.) I don't see IRV as significant enough to have an article on controversies, which, for the most part, apply to other alternative voting systems.
This article should either be folded back into IRV or expanded into a general voting system controversies article. The present, and probably proposed, status is that of an inappropriate WP:FORK of IRV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
On your digression of Approval as alternative to plurality-at-large, overvoting is reasonably restricted for the case of primaries to reduce the field. Often plurality-at-large elections have a primary with N votes where 2N candidates progress for N seat elections. Overvoting would allow some voters to get their favorites in AND allow extra votes try to knock out their strongest competitors via insincere voting for candidates expected to lose in the general election. Also, allowing overvoting would further risk harm voters forced to bullet vote (or limit their votes) in the primary for fear of losing their favorite(s). SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the idea of context of controversies not exclusive to IRV. Most of my attempts to edit this article tried to categorize what problems existed in other system, i.e. properties that exist in IRV that also exist under any runoff system, or plurality. The most confusing part of the article to me (as someone who has explored EVERY issue perhaps) is criticisms come from opposite sides - (1) those who fear moving away from plurality (most of the public criticism of IRV), and (2) those who think IRV is too small of a reform (EM hacks who want Approval or Range voting or whatever magic trick that is even more drastically different from what we have.) Grouping arguments both critics together is rather confusing to say the least! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.