Jump to content

Talk:Instant-runoff voting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 13, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed


Definition of the word vote

[edit]

I don't particularly want to make a big deal of this, Nardopolo, but conventionally the term "runoff", when discussing "instant runoffs", refers to "the process used of transferring votes according to a ranked ballot from earlier to later preferences" and "vote" (n.) refers to "the thing that is being transferred in a single transferable vote system". Arguing in the edit summaries that such usage is abus[e], misuse, or mistaken without explaining your problem with the conventional definition is not particularly helpful at getting your point across. Alpha3031 (tc) 09:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting methods criteria

[edit]

@Affinepplan: as I read it, the voting methods criteria paragraph you removed was intended as an introduction to just what criteria are and why they matter, to familiarize readers who haven't read other voting method articles. As such, I think it would be useful to have some intro paragraph in the article. Do you have any opinion on what level of detail it ought to have? Wotwotwoot (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main article: Voting criteria
anything further would be plainly off-topic... this is an article about IRV. Affinepplan (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, per WP:OBVIOUS (among other reasons). There needs to be some contextual prose provided as an intro to a jargon filled list. Even if one doesn't like the old intro, this intro to the "Voting method criteria" section of the IRV article should have something more than a link to Voting criteria, and provide a little context for why the section is there. -- RobLa (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are you suggesting to add such a section into every single article on every single voting rule? Affinepplan (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's possible to make judgments on an article by article basis without falling down a slippery slope. For instance, it may be more useful to recap what criteria are in a relatively popular article like this one, than on say, an article about CPO-STV.
I'll make it short, though. Wotwotwoot (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that works, thank you. Affinepplan (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes, although as mentioned above it should be kept short. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]