Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong-way elections

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 delete. Nandesuka 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong-way elections

Poorly written and inherently POV article with a title that is a total neologism - the only Google hit for the term outside of Wikipedia is to RangeVoting.org, which is an advocacy site. Contested prod and prod2. Opabinia regalis 18:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum for Warren's sake, a more detailed description of the problems with this article:

1. The idea of a "wrong" winner of an election implies that one or more "right" winners exist, which is inherently biased. The idea that the "right" winner is defined as the one that "most of the populace would have preferred" is also biased, because some voting systems are explicitly designed to use other factors than plain majorities.
2. The text is biased. Wrong-way elections are "pathologies" and "alter history, presumably usually for the worse"?
3. The examples are poor. Other than the Gore-Bush election, which is adequately covered elsewhere, the only example is that of Allende. The article even admits that the sole source cited in this example uses its references inappropriately.
4. The mathematical properties of voting systems are already covered in the articles Voting system and Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances.

I have no objections to the suggested creation of a List of elections in which the winner received fewer votes than an opponent, but such an article would be able to retain so little from this one that I'd suggest deleting this and starting the new one afresh. Opabinia regalis 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

--thank you for this addendum. Let me reply point by point. >The idea of a "wrong" winner of an election implies that one or more "right" winners exist, which is inherently biased. --So if I say that "wrong way Corrigan" flew across the Atlantic in the wrong direction (famous front page fact), then that was an inherently biased statement unacceptable for wikipedia? I don't follow this "logic." Also wikipedia itself does not agree with that logic since it has an article on him. > The idea that the "right" winner is defined as the one that "most of the populace would have preferred" is also biased, because some voting systems are explicitly designed to use other factors than plain majorities. --That is somewhat true if you want to quibble about irrelevant bull. But the reason I call that "irrelevant bull" is we do not actually need to get into the finer points - The fact is, in the examples in the 20-example table, it is pretty obvious to anybody who should have won and why. Also, I did not make this "definition" anyhow; you did. >The examples are poor. Other than the Gore-Bush election, which is adequately covered elsewhere, the only example is that of Allende. The article even admits that the sole source cited in this example uses its references inappropriately. --I gave a table with about 20 different elections. You ignored it. I said I'd be happy to put it in the wikipedia article [rather than 1 click away], provided anybody could show me how. You ignored that. YES, the wikipedia has an article on the Gore-Bush election - but it did not say that it was an election which Condorcet, IRV, etc etc would have given it to Gore. By the way, the fact that is true, is not an "opinion", it is not "biased", it is agreed to by 100% of political scientists, it has been stated in at least half a dozen political science books and papers because everybody regards it as an excellent example, etc. >The article even admits that the sole source cited in this example uses its references inappropriately. --hello? I was not "admitting" that, I was "attacking" that source and "correcting" it. This makes twice so far you have attacked "me" when actually you have been attacking "something other than what I said." >The mathematical properties of voting systems are already covered in the articles Voting system and Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances. --yes, but those articles did not even try to answer the central question addressed here: how often do these problems occur in real elections and how big an effect do they have on history? --So I thank you for your feedback. I merely find it unjustified. -Warren Smith.

---

--uh, hi. I am a new wikipedia user and not very familiar with how to best do things. I also do not know what prod and prod2 and opabinia regalis are. But anyway, to respond to this criticism:

1. if you do not like the title, I would be happy to rename it, assuming you or anybody can think of a better title. I myself was not thrilled with the title but could not think of a better one. On the other hand if you cannot think of a better title I think that hould be regarded as an admission by you my title was optimal.

2. if you do not like the writing, again, improve the writing.

3. I dispute the claim this article either has a point of view (which I assume is what you mean by POV) or inherently has one. My claim instead is, it is an extremely important and interesting question how often different voting systems yield the wrong winner. There is no question this is a more interesting and important topic than a random wikipedia topic, as I proved by hitting the "random article" button 10 times. Also I know of at least two political science professors who told me they had not seen such a collection (as the table) before, and were glad it had been compiled at last. So it is worthy of inclusion.

Now you may say that the fact anybody was a "wrong" election winner is always an opinion... and while I guess I agree there is always some element of opinion or guesswork in there, in many cases it is pretty darn clear. The table the article hyperlinks at

 http://www.rangevoting.org/FunnyElections.html

of about 20 wrong-winner elections, backs up every claim it makes with pretty solid evidence and while I suppose it is conceivable a few entries could be disputed by some devil's advocate, the vast bulk of them are surely correct. Incidentally, I would not object if this table were included directly in the article rather than hyperlinked, but I do not know how to do that.

I mean, you claiming that table is an "opinion" is like claiming the "Jim Crow" era in American politics is merely a "POV opinion" - maybe it did not really exist - and hence the wikipedia should not cover that topic. In fact, just about everything in political science would by that logic be excluded. So I can't agree on that.

4. rangevoting.org is an advocacy and EDUCATIONAL site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarrenDSmith (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Inherently POV article. To answer Warren's questions, "prod" means "Proposed for deletion" WP:PROD, and "prod2" means that proposal was endorsed by another editor. Tevildo 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

--Warren again. Hi, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to an attack which simply expresses an opinion with zero supporting evidence. I mean, am I supposed to do the same and then we just say "is! isnt't! is too!" for a while?

It is well accepted by 100% of political scientists, or at least 100% of all the ones I ever saw, that wrong way elections exist and are an important topic. I suppose you could say this is an opinion, in which case you dismiss statements 100% of all political scientists agree with, as not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, because they are "opinions."

To return to my Jim Crow example, it is well accepted Jim Crow laws were passed to disenfrachise blacks. Probably not as well accepted as the fact that wrong-way elections exist and are important, but well accepted. But these laws all were written in a way not mentioning "blacks" per se. Therefore that was only an "opinion"? Well, no.

Now one can cite a ton of statistics proving that after JC law passed, suddenly black voters and elected rep counts dropped like a rock, but, hey, there are a ton of statistics in the table in my article too, and you aren't paying any attention to them either, so I guess such statistics are considered by you irrelevant. The point I'm making is, I do not see why Jim Crow is accepted for wikipedia and Wrong-way elections is not. As far as I can see, the sole reason is your POV or unsupported opinion.

I also continue to suggest improving the writing or the title. I have seen wikip articles myself with poor writing, but I tried to improve it if so, rather than recommending it be deleted. That seems counterproductive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenDSmith (talk • contribs)

• Comment try not to take the criticisms of the article personally, because some of them are valid. The statement "wrong winner" or variations of it are inherently POV; as a suggestion, the topic could be changed to something like "Elections where the winner received fewer votes than an opponent" or something of that nature. HumbleGod 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Rename and keep The concept of "undesired" voting results and of the imperfectness of voting systems has been covered mathematically and deserves its own article. --Huon 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename, keep, and rewrite per above. It's poorly written and POV (especially the name), but with a rewrite I think it could be an interesting and relevant article. HumbleGod 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

--Warren again. OK, a slightly different title would be

  "Wrong way" elections.

The point is that by putting the quote marks in the title, it somehow is made clearer that the author is acknowledging that there is a certain amount of arbitraryness to the concept. It is kind of like newspapers using the word "alleged." Do you agree this is a superior title? if so, go ahead and change the title. (I do not know how to change titles myself.)

--I also did a certain amount of writing-improvement.

• It's a decent article, but the entire concept that winning an election under the guidelines in place for that election produces the wrong result does not sit well with me. Weak delete and replace with the proposed list of elections in which an opponent of the winner has received more votes. Within that list, there could be a brief explanation of what electoral system/rules were in place for each example given that caused the winner to be the winner over the cited opponent. However, anything remotely implying that the result is "wrong" is pushing the POV that direct democracy is the "right" way, and that obviously will always be a debated opinion, not a fact. GassyGuy 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

--response by WarrenSmith - hi, you are correct that the whole "wrong way election" concept I speak of, involves a valid winner under the rules of that election, whom we nevertheless contend is somehow wrong.

But you are confused in saying there are elections in which an opponent received more votes. Obviously if the rules were that the winner is the one with the most votes, then no such example exists under those rules. Furhter, I never argued in the article that "direct democracy is the right way" (nor even mentioned direct democracy) - you did that. So your entire comment is just ludicrous, makes no logical sense, and attacks something I never said (which makes the third time that has happened).

The problem, which "does not sit well with you" that somebody could be a wholy legitimate winner under the rules, but nevertheless the rules were flawed, is your real stumbling block. Suppose the rules are "no matter what the votes are, Adolf Hitler is elected." Then the election is carried out under those rules. Well, according to you, that was a wholy legitimate election under those rules and it is merely an "opinion" that Hitler maybe was a "wrong winner." But a more productive view would be, some election rules are less good than other rules, and that can cause problems, which we can document via 20 historical examples.

• Delete - Poorly written, inherently biased article on a subject with better, balanced coverage elsewhere on Wikipedia. Adding quote marks to the title draws attention to the fact that the title is not an established expression, and requires clarification. If further coverage of the topic is required, it needs a more accessible title. This is not the place to popularise new expressions. Warren, your reference to 'wrong way' Corrigan fails on this count, if on no other - the term is well-established in reference to sailing and aeronautical feats, whereas in voting, it certainly isn't. AlexTiefling 12:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

--Look, I was reposnding to the attack which said the veyr use of "wrong way" implied bias unacceptable in wikipedia. The attack was not saying "wrong way" is unacceptable because it is not a common enough expression. I responded to the attack. Then you complained I should have responded to a different, not-stated, attack. But how could I do that?

But anyway, since you raise the point, "wrong way" is a very common expression. I do not think I am plunging into new incomprehensible territory with it. And so far nobody has proposed a better title.

• Delete. The article is an argument - a thesis for (say) a political science paper. The citations are essentially to individual elections; the concept holding them together is more-or-less solely in the author's head. If the author wants to argue for or against Instant-runoff voting, for example, let him participate in editing those articles. Or, perhaps, take the matter to a political science journal. John Broughton 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original prodder, for all the reasons already mentioned. --Jamoche 04:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

--This is not an "opinion", it is based on "facts".

And I was not explictly arguing against instant runoff voting, although the Chile 1970 and Peru 2006 elections bith are examples of its failure.

--Let us look at the big picture. 1. Wrong way elections are important and change history resulting sometimes in enormous changes. 2. they happen fairly frequently. So far, nobody here has disputed those things.

OK, given that this is an important and tolerably frequent phenomenon, which has considerably more effect on humanity than most wikipedia topics, and also given that nobody has compiled my big table of wrong winner elections before that I know of (although of course all the data was out there - I have merely compiled it which is exactly what encyclopedias are supposed to do), then it is irresponsible of wikipedia not to include it. By not including it, wikipedia does a disservice to humanity, and possibly causes thousands or even millions of more deaths. That is the downside of deleting it. OK, what is the downside of keeping it? Well, gee, it does not "sit well" with some people who just don't have the time to bother improving the article themselves, and who attack it for a bunch of things that it never said, and gee, the title seems a bit funny even though they can't think of a better one. Aaaah, big bummer.

OK, comparing the cost versus benefits, it seems to me, there is something to be said for keeping the article. I can't believe you guys don't have anything better to do with your time. 14:36, 11 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.114 (talk • contribs)

• 'Comment - The preceding anonymous poster, who is presumably the main page author, does his case no favours with his liberal use of scare quotes, and his preposterous hyperbole in suggesting that Wikipedia will be responsible for thousands or millions of deaths. That claim, plausibility aside, promotes the same biased point of view as the article itself - namely, that there is a true and right path of history, which is distorted into a wrong version by disputed elections, unreasonable Wikipedia policies, and other such affronts to rightness. Too bad. AlexTiefling 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The anonymous poster above does not understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This essay has no place here. Violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Satori Son 17:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

--Look, you are going to have to be more clear than NOR NPOV. I repeat for the gazillionth time I do not understand your copious weird abbreviations. (This is WD Smith again). Now concerning the "scare quotes" and "preposterous hyperbole." Again, my critic seems to be missing the entire point of the article. Wrong way elections change history. In some cases those changes cause the deaths of thousands. Is my critic seriously disputing those facts? I shall assume not. (If he is, please give refutations election by election in order that you can be counter-refuted.)

Now given that is the case, my question is - should wikipedia make its readers aware of a phenomenon which changes history and causes the deaths of thousands or even millions? Or should it pretend the phenomenon does not exist and/or is not worthy of coverage?

I DID NOT say there is a right and wrong path of history. You did. I am very tired of being attacked for things I never said but the critic did say. This is at least the 4th time such an attack has happened. As far as I can see, in such cases the "bias" is in my critics' minds, but not in my article.

My article *did* make the incredibly far out opinionated statement that "presumably" in cases where the voting system delivers an election result contrary to what the voters wanted, that usually affects history for the worse.

If the critic wants, I am perfectly fine with putting in to the article (to null out that horribly opinionated statement) the claim that

  This has been disputed.  Critic XXXX (name here) believes that voting 
  systems delivering results different
  from what the voters want, usually changes history for the better.

Then we can proceed.

However, since I doubt any such XXXX exists, and if so this will not happen, I guess the statement is undisputed and therefore not an "opinion."

What am I missing here? -wds (18:23, 11 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.114 (talk • contribs) )

• Comment: First of all, these are not just "weird abbreviations": WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. They are active hyperlinks to the relevant Wikipedia official policies. If you click on them with your mouse, you can read them. Please do. Second, my purpose here is not to engage in a spirited debate in a futile attempt to convince you, personally, of my position. I am simply voicing my opinion to the Admin who will eventually make a decision as to whether this essay violates those polices, which I believe it does. I applaud your efforts and enthusiasm, but this is just not the proper forum for such an article. --Satori Son 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

--hi (warren again) look. WPNOR stands for "original reserach." You are the first critic ever to complain my article was "original research" and (as appears to be usual with wikipedia critics) you cite zero examples. But I am rather surprised to learn that "looking up data in almanacs and reading newspapers" is "original research". It appears I've done a great deal of original research in my life without even knowing it. Golly.

Next, I am attacked for WPNPOV, which stands for neutral point of view, me supposedly not having one. Well, as usual, zero actual quotes from my article are presented to justify this accusation, where it can join the large number of accusations which actually do cite fake pseudo-quotes by me which, however, never existed.

I must say, I am not impressed by the quality of the know-it-alls at wikipedia based on all this.

I was just looking at

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002

which is another wrong-way election, by the way, and golly, sure looks a hell of a lot more opinionated than my article, but I do not see you objecting to it. Let's see. That article says Le Pen was "unexpected" (with no support), says it led to "serious discussions" (with no support), says Le Pen had "harsh rhetoric" (whatever that is) according to "many observers" (not one of which is actually named) and Chirac I see was "suspect".

Well, ok. Why is this fine, and mere mathematical facts as in my article, supported by a table of about 20 elections worth of data (i.e. way more facts) are somehow bad? Answer: that was written by one of you. I don't get it. As far as I can see, the idea is to try to divide the world into wikipedia "insiders" vs not, and then try to attack the outsiders perhaps because you don't have anything better to do? Anyway, I recommend as a startlingly original new policy, attacking articles by actually quoting them and saying what is wrong, and/or suggesting fixes.

• Comment Warren, please sign your edits in the same way as other users, by putting four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. As to your continued advocacy of your position: Nothing can be said to change history. You are promoting the biased (not to mention inaccurate) position that there is a true future history from which we are diverted by things like disputed elections. If you cannot understand why this is inaccurate, you may need to think again about what you mean by concepts like "history" and "future". History is the past. It is a record of things that happened, and an attempt to explain them. It is in no way altered by disputed elections, or by the fact that it records them. There is no right winner of an election; an election may be regarded as debatable because of overt or covert manipulation, or because it is specific to the use of a specific electoral method. What it is not is "wrong". Your article is an essay promoting the opposite of this point of view, and is irretrievably biased. And your claim that Wikipedia will cause thousands or millions of deaths by removing that article would make a fine illustration of what is meant by hyperbole. AlexTiefling 10:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

--Again you continue to attack a position I never have held, and never said. That makes at least the 5th time that has happened. What is the matter with simply quoting what I did say???

Now about my "hyperbole". OK, there are 2 claims here, and from them a conclusion:

1. wrong way elections alter history and can cause thousands of deaths. For example, Bush got elected not Gore even though the voters wanted Gore more both in the USA-wide and in Florida 2000. Gore claimed the Iraq war was a mistake and he would not have done it. The Iraq war directly and indirectly caused 100,000 deaths according to a study in The Lancet. OK. Note, I did NOT claim Bush was better, or Gore was better, or wars are wrong, or wars are right, or deaths are wrong, or history was untrue, and more generally I did NOT say 1000 other things I did not say. Let us stick to the facts and the things I did say. I'm saying this because I realize you really really like inventing things I never said.

2. Wikipedia is the world's largest and most widely read encyclopedia. It therefore follows that somebody might pay attention to an idea in wikipedia, and change a voting system, whereas, if wikipedia remained silent, they might not. For example, the Chileans have changed their voting system to now employ a top-2 runoff, whereas in the famous wrong-way 1970 election my article discussed, they did not do that. Actually, this improvement would not have sufficed to fix their 1970 problem, but thanks to the fact my wikipedia article was not around, they did not realize that. Also, thanks to the fact my wikipedia article was not around, the French also did not realize it, and therefore encountered (what the wikipedia article on the French 2000 election calls) an "unexpected" problem. If my article had been around, then it would not have been "unexpected" it would have been "predictable as a repeat of the Chilean 1970 events."

3. Combining (1) and (2) we come to the conclusion that Wikipedia, by having this article, may well prevent thousands of deaths.

Now. Was this "hyperbole"? If so, then you dispute either (1) or (2). Are you the first-ever person to dispute 1? Or do you instead believe Wikipedia is not widely read and has little effect on anybody? Which is it?

I am now signing off as Warren Smith by putting 4 tildes as you told me, despite the fact I see this whole attack on me was started by some anonymous coward who calls her or himself "opabinia regalis." But I guess you all have no sense of irony.69.123.66.114 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete As it stand the article is a deeply POV and OR essay. As Opabinia regalis points out most of this is covered elsewhere so there is no need to retain this article. Whether or not this article would save "thousands of lives" is not a relevant argument per wikipedia policy since Wikipedia is not a soapbox it is an encyclopedia. Eluchil404 07:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Warren, you've proved my point. There is no such thing as changing history. To rebut both your points above: 1) History records that George W Bush was the winner of the 2000 presidential election. History was not altered to say this; it has been true since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in 'Bush vs Gore'. We only have Gore's opinion as to how he would have acted had he been in power. Personally I trust him; but his view is just an opinion, and the Iraq war is a matter of historical fact. Nothing was changed or altered. 2) Wikipedia may be one of the largest encyclopedias, but it's surely not the most widely read, because relatively few people have the internet, compared to the numbers who can use 'Britannica' at public libraries, for example. Your claim that your article, had it existed, would have influenced entire nations to alter their voting systems, is astonishingly arrogant and frankly worrying. AlexTiefling 09:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I (Greg Wolfe) am wikpedia newbie so please forgive me if I do not follow the correct conventions in this comment. The article seems to be very interesting and useful to me. The criticism of others here seems to be destructive - focused on the need to delete the article for various (to me) marginal reasons. I would very much prefer to see the article and the information of Warren's chart remain in a perhaps editted form. Since none of the critics could come up with an improved title for the article, may I suggest "Examples of election results that would have had different results under different voting methods". The article could indicate what voting system was used and suggestions (& evidence) of how it would have turned out under an assortment of alternative voting methods (including range, approval, IRV). I follow several forums that discuss election methods and I can tell you that having ready references to to actual elections with results that arguably would have been different under different voting systems is extremely important and useful. GregWolfe 08:45, 13 July 2006 (PST)

Note - this comment was manually signed; it was actually posted by User:68.121.163.239. John Broughton 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--warren again. Glad to see my essay is "deeply POV and OR" but as usual for these attacks not a single example is given, and indeed all the attacks so far COMBINED have not given a single OR example. Why is it so hard? How am I to reply to attacks that are non-attacks? Yawn. Moving, on, I see that I am "rebutted" because "History records that George W Bush was the winner of the 2000 presidential election. History was not altered to say this". great. BUT (AND THIS MAKES THE SIXTH TIME this has happened) I never said history had recorded something different. I also never said history was altered. Therefore, these two sentences do not "rebut" me. I even told my critic not to make up things I did not say. I warned him. I continue to await with bated breath the day when this critic will actually quote me for real and attack something I actually said, as opposed to his own fantasies. By the way, since I consider attacks on articles without mentioning a single valid example, and repeatedly, even after being warned, also making up false fantasies, to be wikipedia "vandalism," I would like AlexTiefling to be expelled from wikipedia as a clear vandal. How do I go about making a formal complaint against this vandal? And oho, I see GregWolfe with a note of sanity. Yes, the man is exactly right. And unlike the vast majority of my critics he shows signs of knowing what he is talking about. How refreshing. cheerio - Warren Smith.69.123.66.114 02:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the phrase "alter history" is right in your article. Opabinia regalis 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Warren, go and read how Wikipedia defines vandalism. I have not touched your article. I have not altered your comments here, except to interpolate my own clearly labelled comments. You said, above, "1. Wrong way elections are important and change history resulting sometimes in enormous changes....So far, nobody here has disputed those things." - and later, "1. wrong way elections alter history and can cause thousands of deaths." So you clearly state that history is altered, contrary to your claim in your last comment. Your difficulty in sticking to the facts even about your own statements is not my problem. Please do not accuse me of vandalism and "making up false fantasies". AlexTiefling 09:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

--(wds again) aha, I see your point. (So I retract my claim AlexT is a vandal, but I do wish he'd use actual quotes. Or anybody else. And I repeat that I never said Bush had not won and I never said history had recorded anything different.) Very well. I guess I was thrown by AlexT's claim that I claimed that either history did not record Bush won (my article said, quote, "Bush won") or that history was "altered" to say this.

Obviously any election alters history from what it would have been if the election had produced a different winner. But AlexT keeps attacking some goofy philosophy of his that supposedly is mine that history has "one true course" or something I never said. I really couldn't care less about his stupid philosophy that isn't mine anyhow.

Now to GregWolfe's suggestion of a new title, I like his title better in the sense it is more informative and also clearer. However it is worse in the sense it is not as short and snappy. So I would suggest Title: "Wrong way" elections of Wrong way elections or Wrong-way elections Subtitle: Examples of elections whose results would have differed under different voting methods or another possibility is Title: Method-dependent elections

I am now about to alter the article a bit to add some new sources and some new WW elections have been added to the table. -wds69.123.66.114 18:58, 14 July 2006 (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.