Talk:Proportional representation: Difference between revisions
→Dispute - BalCoder/Ontario: long winded answer |
Lead/table location/MMP |
||
Line 649: | Line 649: | ||
[[User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite]] ([[User talk:Bgwhite|talk]]) 00:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC) |
[[User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite]] ([[User talk:Bgwhite|talk]]) 00:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
: Hello [[User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite]], |
|||
: Thank you for your time and consideration. |
|||
: 1. The lead: I have updated the lead with the language you have recommended. |
|||
: 2. The table: It appears we have reached a consensus on the classification of voting systems. The issue then becomes the location of the table, as it has been pointed out that there already is a table in the top right corner which includes a classification of voting system. Perhaps it would be a better compromise to update the existing table (in the top right corner), rather than creating a new redundant one. |
|||
: I have therefore updated the existing table with the sourced classification method we have discussed. The information I replaced on [[Template talk:Electoral systems]] did not have any sources at all substantiating it, and had numerous users disagreeing with its former format. Are we in agreement that this is a better location for this table, and that the changes in categories reflect the sources? |
|||
: 3. MMP paragraph: I am opposed to framing semi-proportional MMP (used in countries like Hungary [Current] or Italy [from 1994-2006]) as "deliberately hobbled", as this creates a bias in favour of PR, and Wikipedia articles must maintain neutrality. The Italian MMP, for instance, had 75% of the seats as FPTP, and only 25% as PR.<ref>{{cite web|title=Electoral Systems: Mixed Member Proportional|url=https://https://aceproject.org/main/english/es/esf03.htm|publisher= Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project|accessdate=11 Dec 2015}}</ref> Likewise, in the [[Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007]], the proposed Legislature would have 129 seats consisting of 90 local members (70% of the Legislature) and 39 list members (30% of the Legislature). There were no compensatory seats to make up for [[Overhang seat]]s. <ref name="PRB 04-17E">{{cite web|last=For timelines, see Library of Parliament|title=Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces|url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0417-e.htm|accessdate=21 April 2014}}</ref> Simply put, the vast majority of nations/regions using MMP, do not have fully-proportional MMP. New Zealand is the only exception. Are we in agreement that MMP can be semi-proportional, and that semi-proportional MMP is more common than fully proportional MMP?[[User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd|Ontario Teacher BFA BEd]] ([[User talk:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd|talk]]) 15:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
Revision as of 15:10, 19 December 2015
Politics B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Deviation from proportionality was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 October 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Proportional representation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd
First part of discussion between BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. Please do not modify this discussion.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: You have re-inserted statements I reverted so I am again reverting them. Here are the reasons.
1, Link between constituent and representative: In your new first sentence, "ridings do not exist" is wrong (you contradict yourself in the next sentence - "half of the electoral ridings" - for this reason alone your revision should be reverted). Ridings exist in all PR systems, they are simply bigger than in an FPTP system. So your claim that "there is no link between voters and their parliamentary representatives" is wrong, only where the district encompasses "larger districts, especially those with a nationwide district" is the point justified but you have deleted that. Why? With STV there are no rules saying Nunavut cannot continue to be a single member district if that's what people want. When STV was used in Alberta and Manitoba all rural districts were single member; in the recent STV plan for the UK mentioned elsewhere in the article the Outer Hebrides would continue to be a single member district. Perhaps I misunderstand the word "ridings" which appears here for the first time in the article. I assume it means electoral "districts" but, not knowing Canada, I am not sure. In WP it is a good idea when a term is used for the first time to provide a link to the appropriate WP article. In "The disadvantage of the proportional representation system..." the first "The" is wrong because, as the rest of the article makes clear, there are other PR disadvantages: you must use the indefinite article. The next "the", in "of the proportional representation system", is also wrong: There is not one PR system but three (see the top of the article). Better would be "of proportional representation..." referring to just the concept. In MMP, you write, "half of the electoral ridings are elected through PR". That too is wrong, in NZ they have 50 list members and 70 districts and are thinking of fixing a 40:60 ratio; Lesotho has a still lower ratio. But you have deleted the words that hinted at this, "up to half". MMP is normally "mixed member proportional representation You have deleted the essay template ({{essay|section|date=May 2015}} at the beginning of the section). Why? The rest of the section doesnt't have an essay-like style? The text you replaced may not have been much good but you have clearly not improved it. What point are you trying to make which wasn't already addressed? Can't you integrate it into the existing text? 2, Party list PR: you have added the statement "Unfortunately, this can result in candidates that appeal more to their respective political bases than to the general public as a whole." That may be so but you haven't provided a source. Please see WP:VERIFY: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." An example too would be good. --BalCoder (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
BalCoder
I agree that WP requires articles to reflect sources. Therefore, I have provided sources below that should clear up your confusion as to what mixed systems are: "Mixed electoral systems attempt to combine the positive attributes of both plurality/majority (or other) and PR electoral systems. In a mixed system, there are two electoral systems using different formulae running alongside each other. The votes are cast by the same voters and contribute to the election of representatives under both systems. One of those systems is a plurality/majority system (or occasionally an ‘other’ system), usually a single-member district system, and the other a List PR system. There are two forms of mixed system. When the results of the two types of election are linked, with seat allocations at the PR level being dependent on what happens in the plurality/majority (or other) district seats and compensating for any disproportionality that arises there, the system is called a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system." [1] "C. Mixed Systems Some jurisdictions have chosen to use a mixture of majority and proportional representation systems in order to achieve the benefits of both. Since the late 1940s in Germany, for example, one half of the seats in the Bundestag (the lower house of parliament) have been filled by plurality, using single-member constituencies, while the other half are filled using party lists, according to the d'Hondt system. Voters mark two choices on their ballot papers: one from among a list of parties, the other from among a slate of candidates for district representation."[2] To conclude, as verified by the above sources, there are actually three voting systems: plurality/majoritarian, mixed, and PR. 'Mixed systems' is a distinct voting system category which shares characteristics of both PR and plurality systems. The fact that mixed voting systems such as MMP share characteristics with PR systems does not negate the existence of this distinct and critical third category. Additionally, a plethora of sources within the article clearly state that the two PR types are STV and party list. It is important not to confuse readers by inserting contradictions into the article. I encourage you to follow WP:VERIFY policy, and thoroughly research mixed systems prior to capriciously denying their existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 11:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Second part of the saga
|
---|
BalCoder I am thrilled we have finally come to a consensus that 'mixed systems' is a distinct voting system. I noticed that you had previously removed the mention of mixed systems from the article several months prior to my contributions "(cur | prev) 11:27, 11 December 2014 BalCoder (talk | contribs) . . (75,151 bytes) (+17,245) . . (Lead: compress (WP:LEADLENGTH), simplify. Body: replace STV; change mixed to two-tier systems, replace MMP, add biproportional rep.; add sortition, some page nos.) (undo | thank)". This critical language has now been restored. I have added three scholarly articles to the already lengthy list of sources on the topic of mixed electoral systems. [3][4][5][6]: 22 [7][8] [9] [10] [11]. Hopefully this ends the contention about the existence of mixed systems. You have argued "some mixed systems (all but one) are not proportional". I encourage you to conduct research to substantiate this opinion and contribute sourced text. You might want to consider adding content to 'Additional Member System', and 'Alternative Vote Plus' in order to clarify why you feel AMS and AVP are less proportional mixed systems compared to MMP; which as a hybrid system is only somewhat proportional. You have previously asserted that "all PR systems use districts". I am relieved that you have now observed that the Netherlands and Israel as well as the Ukraine and Russia (when they used PR) use party list PR without delineated districts. [12][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [14] That is to say, these nations are not subdivided into local constituencies, but rather the entire country is one zone. This fact is particularly relevant to the section 'Link between constituent and representative'. However, I am deeply disappointed by your intentionally abrasive behaviour. Please treat other editors with the same level of respect with which you wish to be treated. Please take the time to practice good faith by researching your claims and post sourced contributions as I have done. Alternatively, if you do not wish to take the time and effort to research the topic and post sourced contributions to the article, you might want to consider pursuing other topics instead. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
BalCoder, I do not have the ability to block or ban users, nor to issue page protections as that is an "Admin user-right" and I am only a regular editor. I will ping a couple of admins that I know, and the admin who previously helped in this dispute for their opinions, or alternatively you can take half of the issue to WP:ANI to see about having Ontario Teacher BFA BEd blocked and get the page re-protected using WP:RFPP after reading WP:PP to find an appropriate protection template. I would first recommend going to a WP:DRR venue such as DRN or Formal mediation. Admin pings:Martin, SpacemanSpiff, EdJohnston; would any of you please be able to review this discussion and provide guidance on how to continue? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Third installment
|
---|
Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Azerbaijan Bahamas Bangladesh Barbados Belize Bermuda Botswana British Virgin Islands Canada Cook Islands Dominica Ethiopia Gambia Ghana Grenada India Isle Of Man Jamaica Kenya Liberia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Micronesia Myanmar Nigeria Pakistan Palau Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands Swaziland Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Uganda United Kingdom United States Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe[32]
User:BalCoder, YOU have violated the WP:3RR rule. I have contacted User:Øln, and User:Reallavergne to provide assistance on this article. Judging by the archives, you have previously engaged in edit wars with these two editors. User:Reallavergne has mentioned on User:Øln's talk page: "I'm afraid I am going to have to launch a formal complaint against BalCoder, as all he can do is revert and criticize. He has now reverted everything I have contributed en masse three times now, and has not contributed one edit himself in response to our discussions. At least if he was selective in his reversions or offered some text of his own to try to address the concerns I have expressed, I could understand. It seems he is incapable of considering any changes at all to what he wrote back in August - not even stylistic errors - and so no progress is being made on the page. However, I know you have been reading at least some of our discussion, so perhaps before I launch a call for dispute resolution, you have a comment offer on the talk page?Reallavergne (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)". In fact, you have previously been part of a dispute resolution Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854 "24. Mass reversion and disrespectful language - Proportional Representation" on this same topic for the same unacceptable conduct! It seems you have routinely engaged in edit wars in the past on this article where you mass reverted content. You should have selectively removed only the areas of disagreement. These other editors also noted that you did not provide sources to back up your opinions. You were also extremely rude to these other editors as well. For example, on September 24th, 2014, User:Reallavergne noted "I don't find that you are being respectful here. Let us please try to avoid accusations such as the above and assume that we are working in good faith." To sum up, you have been repeatedly told by other editors (on this very same article) that mass reversions are unacceptable, that you need to provide SOURCES, and that you must act in a civil manner. Moreover, there is nothing incoherent about pointing out the OBVIOUS difference between the numbers 47 and 3! How could you possible expect people to believe that only 3 nations use FPTP? I am reverting this blatant vandalism.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted all Ontario's changes again. Changes must be discussed and consensus achieved before changing the article. Improvements are made by adding to a coherent article, not by slowly pruning a grossly mutilated one. This is the way WP:BRD works which I invoked on Aug.24. Ontario has yet to engage in a good faith discussion, for example see his response to that BRD proposal: "Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text...", this tone in only his second talk post ever! Reallavergne (no hard feelings, Real) may not know that there is a WP:DRN dispute open, to which Ontario agreed. I would question the propriety of helping Ontario edit the article while this dispute is in progress. While the dispute is in progress the article will remain in its coherent state, a state which has not seen any substantial changes for eleven months (that's some "flawed text"). --BalCoder (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC) User:BalCoder pretends to be reverting the article to a former state. However, he/she has repeatedly inserted that A. plurality voting system are used only in Canada, the USA, and the UK. This is incorrect. I have provided a sourced list above of the nations using FPTP, and B. Proportional representation is used in the majority of countries. This is incorrect. PR is used in 36% of the world's nations. [40] User:Reallavergne and User:Øln, I appreciate your assistance in working positively and collaboratively to reach a consensus. BalCoder believes his/her agreement is always necessary to reach a consensus. Consensus can be reached through Near-unanimous consensus, which is "Unanimity Minus One (or U−1), or Unanimity Minus Two (or U−2)" or through a Supermajority (two-thirds rule). Moreover, the verbally abusive manner in which this user has behaved in the past, such as calling me an "unscrupulous liar" (27 Sep 2015) or calling User:Reallavergne's edits "garbage" (04 Sep 2014), as well as the mass reversion of content (including minor edits) without providing sourced rational, is counterproductive to reaching consensus. Therefore, we may be able to reach a consensus without necessarily reaching a unanimous vote. In this way, we can avoid a filibuster. To be clear, are we all in agreement that: - MMP is a "Mixed system" (occasionally called a hybrid system or a two-tier system)? - FPTP is used in more than 3 countries? - PR is not used in the majority of nations? - Some list-PR nations (like Israel and the Netherlands) don't use delineated districts? - closed-list PR candidates are selected by party leaders, and not by voters? - respectful etiquette is to be used at all times while in discussions on the talk page? I look forward to a positive and respectful discussion.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You have repeatedly reinserted that FPTP is used only in the UK, the USA, and Canada, as well as the claim that PR is used in the majority of countries. Do you believe these two claims to be true? Please clarify your position by voting on the following 5 issues:
User:Reallavergne and User:Øln, when you have an opportunity, please also vote on the aforementioned 5 issues. (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Some changes prompted by the recent extended disputeThe section "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems" has recently been the source of confusion so I have deleted it. Specifically because:
I have also added a Template:Multiple issues to "Party list PR" section to make clear it needs work, rewritten the "Link between constituent and representative" section to make clearer that this is a particular advantage of single member systems, and added some refs. --BalCoder (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC) |
- As I have repeatedly pointed out, there are not 2, but rather 3 distinct families of voting systems. These are: proportional representation, mixed electoral systems, and plurality/majoritarian systems. The vast majority of experts, from around the world, and from a variety of different professions, use this simple-to-understand classification. For instance, political advocacy groups such as the Electoral Reform Society of the UK, journalists such as Aaron Wherry from Maclean's Magazine, and academic scholars such Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law Claudio Martinelli from the University of Milan-Bicocca, all follow this widely used classification. [3] [45] [42] This globally used classification is used by both proponents and opponents of PR. The retention of this classification must not be misconstrued as favouring any particular category. Nor would it be reasonable to portray its inclusion as having anything to do with me as it was already in the article years prior to my contributions. In brief, there is no possible legitimate reason why this extremely well sourced classification should be removed.
- I have, in good faith, retained all of your minor edits and have integrated your contributions to the "Link between constituents and representative" with existing text. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I hoped Ontario had gone, but no. So, since the "dispute" continues, I have moved "Some changes prompted by the recent extended dispute" and Ontario's response to that into this "Edits and revertions" section. I have reverted his changes again.
I have also opened a new WP:ANI complaint against Ontario. --BalCoder (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- BalCoder,
- You have incredulously claimed in the most recent WP:ANI complaint that none of the sources I have provided list MMP/AMS as semi-proportional, and that I do not seek to reach consensus with other editors.
- As notes in the Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR) website,
- "Mixed member systems differ slightly from country to country. In AMS (The UK term for MMP) the number of MPs in the parliament is fixed, and as a result AMS is sometimes called a semi proportional system. With MMP additional MPs may be required to achieve the required degree of proportionality. The degree of proportionality varies depending on the ratio of MPs elected by FPTP to the number of party list MPs, and the rules by which the party list MPs are appointed." [46] I have added this source to the list substantiating the phrase "This has led to some disagreement among scholars as to its classification.". This phrase has been added under the suggestion by, and consensus with, Øln on November 4th, 2015.
- Additionally, I would also ask that you stop suggesting that I am somehow against MMP as this is not the case. Additionally, I would like to ask you to stop referring to me as he/him as I am female. I have previously informed you that I find this gender assumption to be sexist, and you have not yet apologized.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have reverted back to a neutral third version of the article while this dispute is in progress. I have subsequently added only minor edits such as wiki-links, subtitles, and a sourced table which does not change the meaning of the article. This neutral third version can be used as a starting point for any future additions to the article.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have reverted the massive deletion of the extremely well sourced "PR in the broader family of voting systems" section. This deletion of an entire section of sourced text from the article is completely unacceptable. Please note, this section was not created by me, nor is it controversial.
- BalCoder, please discuss why you feel the sources don't classify voting systems into three groups: PR voting systems, Mixed Member voting systems, and Plurality/Majoritarian voting systems. If the sourced do in fact use this classification method, you must stop trying to delete this section.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Reference list
|
---|
|
Page protection
Ok, I'm confused as it looked like I went to the wrong page and it mentioned an RFC.
There's an edit war going on. Don't know who is "right" and don't care because all of you are acting bad. Page is protected for one week from all editing. I suggest you start with small changes and work your way from there... No more big huge changes. Also, Ontario, you are making alot of mistakes in your changes, by doing small change you will also limit your mistakes. Bgwhite (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ontario as in a user called Ontario, or the province? There is a very heated debate going on here in Canada as our new PM Trudeau has promised electoral reform, and everyone is fighting over which system is best, and which system might be snuck in to maintain party majorities. moeburn (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is Ireland on the List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation but not Scotland?
I couldn't help but notice that even though Scotland is mentioned twice on this page about PR, it isn't in the list of countries using PR. Now some might say that is because it only uses PR for its own local elections and not UK elections, but the same could be said about Ireland, and yet they are on the list. Why was Scotland omitted? moeburn (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Moeburn, you need to be aware of the fact that there are actually two Irelands. The UK's Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic of Ireland. I believe this is what is causing the discrepancy as obviously, one is not actually it's own country and the other is its own separate, self-governed country. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Dispute - BalCoder/Ontario
Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder
I asked Ontario to do a small edit so things can be more easily discussed. While the latest edit isn't small enough, lets go with it. I want discussion only about the addition Ontario did to the "==PR systems in the broader family of voting systems==" section. I've put page protection on the article why discussion is ongoing.
- BalCoder, please say what you don't agree with. Please say why and give refs.
- Ontario, please respond to BalCoder's comments.
- I'll then read what you two have said, probably ask questions and then give what I think. Remember, I'm an admin... I'm not too smart, so please keep things so a dummy would understand.
- Then we see what is next, hopefully to another section.
Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- User:Bgwhite: I am surprised that Ontario's "Reverted to a neutral version" edit (of course, it is neither a reversion nor neutral) was seemingly at your request. If I had known I would have asked you to revert it instead of doing so myself (Dec.6), which has now brought me an accusation by Drcrazy on ANI of "edit-warring". My first priority is to get Ontario banned/blocked and the current forum for that is the ANI incident. Until that is finished I do not intend to spend time elsewhere, most especially because I don't want to give anyone on ANI an excuse to say "OK, they are discussing on the TP so there is no more need for this ANI, we can close it". I am also surprised that you fell for Ontario's spiel on your TP and choose the "PR in the broader family" section. The question posed in the two DRNs and the ANI ("basic dispute") would seem to be a more obvious topic, one that Ontario is intent on avoiding until I drop. Having said all that I will point out that I have already criticized Ontario's table, on Sep.23 here. --BalCoder (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- BalCoder Sorry, but you are edit warring as is Ontario. Your priority of getting Ontario blocked is misguided as the priority should be the article. There has been copious amounts of discussion all over the place and about everything. But, it very confusing. I'm trying to start small and work on one paragraph at a time.
- Making accusations about me is not helping your cause. I wanted to choose just a paragraph and that is the one I choose. I specifically asked Ontario to write something small and they sort of did. I wanted it up so we can discuss, not be reverted. The ball is in your court. Bgwhite (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Bgwhite,
- On 05 Dec 15, I reverted to a version which included none of my, and none of BalCoder's edits. That is why I described it as neutral. I subsequently added only minor edits such as the addition of wikilinks, subtitles, and a table. The decision to start with minor edits only, was made based on your request to start small.
- The aforementioned table is not only sourced, but it is a graphical representation of information which already existed in the article, using a source which also already existed in the article. The existing information I am referring to is the three families of voting systems: PR voting systems, Mixed Member voting systems, and Plurality/Majoritarian voting systems. [1] Does this table accurately represent the information in the source? If not, how so?
- BalCoder is against including "mixed" as an electoral system, but has not provided any sourced rational as to why. Furthermore, this user has refused to provide a single source to justify any of his/her edits/reversions. Contrarily, I have provided approximately 50 sources on the talk page alone substantiating my edits/reversions. This user has previously stated, "Apart from hitting the undo button from time to time, I do not intend to spend any more time on User Ontario" (15 Sep 15). Therefore, I believe this user is engaging in bad faith by refusing to provide sources to discuss the content, engaging in ad hominem attacks, and mass reverting content. Thank you for your time,Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Stop it you two. Don't talk about who did what or the past. I don't care what has gone on the past unless you keep repeating it. I only want to talk about the one paragraph and keep it to the one paragraph. Ontario sort-of did what I asked (should have been smaller). The ball is in Balcoder's court. Balcoder, make sure you add refs to your arguments. Ontario, please don't respond until Balcoder has a chance. If Balcoder doesn't respond, I'll have to decide based on what Ontario has given me. Remember, I'm an admin, so you will have to dumb it down for me. I will probably be asking questions.
- User:Bgwhite: OK, but I do this under protest. The following concerns Ontario's changes to the "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems" section, I compare the current, Ontario, version (Dec.7) with the Bgwhite version from Nov.7 (diff). To understand all this you don't need any more than is explained in the lead. This stuff is not difficult.
- Concerning the other refs: Ref 6, p.22, does not list these categories, it lists the 3 PR systems which Ontario insists are only 2 (p.20 which would be a more sensible ref also does not support Ontario). Ref 7, Forder, an anti-PR academic, does not discuss categories - Ontario has simply copied these 2 refs from the lead, presumably to bulk up the list. Ref 21 (twice): ERS "Voting systems made simple" is the source for the table and supports Ontario's 3 categories. Ref 22, ACE, concerns only mixed systems. Ref 23, O'Neal, only mixed systems again. Ref 24, IFES, says there are 4: plurality, majority, PR, and mixed. It then discusses 3, combining plurality and majority, so I'll give it half a point; it is a very superficial piece, a poor ref. Ref 25, MacLeans, is about MMP only. Ref 26, Martinelli, does list the same 3 categories in the Abstract. So 2.5 out of 9. Poor.
- The classification table. Ontario copied it from ERS, where it is copyright. I have little against the table as such - I cited it in the lead (ref 5) - except that it is "made simple" and misses out rather obvious systems like parallel voting (aka MMM). (With "In Britain today there are several voting systems..." the ERS may be saying the table is limited to systems in use/consideration in Britain). It is unnecessary because the Template:electoral systems already provides a classification. In any case, there is the elementary point that a classification like this, which basically just helps us bring some order into the discussion, does not necessarily have any bearing on the election results produced. Ontario has copied the table here because it is the hook on which Ontario hangs the whole "MMP is not PR" story (which refs 6,7,8, in the lead demonstrate is wrong - ref 6 is discussed more below). Ontario has also copied the table to several other electoral systems articles where it is just as superfluous.
- "Discussions about PR...": Ontario has added "comparisons between PR and mixed systems" which is original research (i.e.Ontario's own invention intended to underline that MMP (a "mixed" system) is not PR). Consequently "or among different types of PR and mixed member systems" (also original research but not Ontario's) has been changed to "and among different types of PR systems" - pointless. "Party list PR and STV are usually considered PR systems" has been changed to "are considered to be the only two PR systems" which is wrong as the lead has demonstrated (again: lead refs 6,7,8).
- "The extent to which mixed ...": Ontario has removed "highly" from "MMP has the potential to be highly proportional". This is wrong, see ref 6, Law Commission of Canada, p.24: "The overall results in these systems are highly proportional". In any case, the proportionality of MMP is determined by the party list vote (also LCoC, p.24), which is a closed party list vote using a single nationwide electoral district (IDEA - ref 2 in the article - p.95, para.133). Such a vote produces "highly" proportional representation of parties (IDEA, p.82, para.116), therefore MMP will also be "highly" proportional. The correct (if weak) statement: "and some categorizations include it as a PR system", which echoes the lead, has been replaced by "[seats are distributed] like other a mixed systems". Ignoring the careless 'a', this is right only if "other mixed systems" refers only to AV Plus, which has never been used in an election (ERS [4]), but wrong if it refers to the more prominent and widely used parallel voting - see IDEA, p.104. Unlike MMP, parallel voting does not compensate for single seat disproportionalities so it is not considered a PR system (IDEA p.112, and LCoC, p.24).
- "However, the ratio of FPTP seats to PR seats, the quantify of overhang seats, and the threshold needed to acquire PR seats are contributing factors as to ..." All these points and how they affect proportionality are discussed in the article, in the sections "Mixed member proportional representation" and "Minimum threshold". Like any parameters in any electoral system, they are weighed against practicalities/aims when the system is introduced. Chile is mentioned in the article as an example of an open party list system (not MMP but straight party list) that is not proportional, but no-one concludes from this that party list PR generally is not proportional. Plenty of people say STV is not proportional and this too is mentioned in the article. So to say flat that "MMP produces semi-proportional results" is wilfully misleading, as the 13 refs "supporting" it show:
- Ref 22, ACE, contradicts Ontario. Ref 23, O'Neil, nothing at all. Ref 6, LCoC, see p.24 ("highly proportional") above, and further on on p.24: "The distinguishing feature that separates these [MMP] from semi-PR..", so it contradicts Ontario comprehensively. Ref 7, Forder, says nothing about semi-proportionality. Ref 27, a very poor ref, nothing. Ref 28, Kassem, nothing (363 pages and Ontario doesn't provide a page no., are you kidding?). Ref 29, Geometric Voting, some systems "deliberately allocate relatively few wide-area seats so that outcomes are semi-proportional". But we are not talking about "deliberately" hobbled MMP systems but MMP generally. Ref 30, Mexico, is in Spanish, seems to be a kind of forum, and requires a registration. No thanks. Ref 31, Prensa Latina, couldn't find the article (why use Spanish articles?). Ref 32, 404 not found. Ref 33, Guardian and Hungary. The Hungary 2014 election is already discussed in the article as an example of gerrymandering "and other tricks", with sources, and this has survived a TP attack [5]. And Ontario presents it as an example of how "MMP produces semi-proportional results", suppressing the fact that this was due to gerrymandering and other tricks - outrageously deceitful (the same here too). Ref 34, Nepal, nothing, just a table of results. Ref 35, Encyclopedia Britannica, I don't have access. So 0 out of 13.
- Hello User:Bgwhite,
- Firstly, I must point out that the Nov 7th version includes several problematic changes made by BalCoder. Specifically: BalCoder renamed the voting system “Plurality/Majority” to “Single Member Systems” despite the fact that the latter terms is not used in any of the sources. Moreover, BalCoder inserted POV language favouring PR by claiming it is used in most nations (PR is actually only used in 36% of the world’s nations), while disfavouring Plurality/Majority by claiming it is only used in Canada, the USA, and the UK (which is used in 76 nations). [2] [3] This unsourced POV language is unnecessary, and inaccurate, which is why it was removed. Simply put, the Nov 7th version is BalCoder’s version, not the ‘original version’, nor is it your (User:Bgwhite ‘s) version as BalCoder has suggested.
- Secondly, I am relieved that BalCoder has announced "I have little against the table". This table is based on numerous sources, it is not an uploaded graphic, and is therefore not subject to copyright. Hopefully we can put this matter to rest and leave the table in place.
- In terms of the sources:
- 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”. [4]
- 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”.[5]
- 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”. [6]
- 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). [7]
- 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).[8]
- 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). [9]
- We agreed to discuss one issue at a time. The first issue is: does this table generally reflect the classification of electoral systems already present in the article, and listed in the sources? If not, how can this table be improved? As a follow-up, are scholarly and reliable sources used? Once we have agreed to leave the generally accepted classification system (which was not created by me) as well as the table in place, we can focus on BalCoder’s second issue: Does MMP always yield fully-proportional results, or does it often yield semi-proportional results? We can then provide sources and examples to answer this second question.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder: Thank you both for your replies. Give me a couple days to go over this. I try to take weekends off from Wikipedia and spend Monday's usually catching up. I'm trying to mini-steps... For example, I won't go over all the refs at once, but just a few at a time. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder: Sorry for the delay. I've been fighting with WMF and gotten discourage (see my talk page). I will look at it tomorrow. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder: Thank you both for your replies. Give me a couple days to go over this. I try to take weekends off from Wikipedia and spend Monday's usually catching up. I'm trying to mini-steps... For example, I won't go over all the refs at once, but just a few at a time. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder: This is going to get messy.
- Table is not copyrighted. It's too general and same idea (ie graph) is in other refs.
- We have competing "tables". 3 columns[6] vs 4 columns[7]. In effect, both are right. There are 3 general categories, but what about the "other" thrown in?
- It comes down on how to classify Limited Vote, Borda Count and Single Non-Transferable Vote. Are these "other" or "Majoritarian systems"?
- [8] (p.24) and [9] calls Single Non-Transferable Vote a PR or semi-PR system not part of the 3 general categories.
- Borda is semi-majoritarian and semi-consensus
- A ref that neither used.
- One ref said, "Three systems do not fit neatly under any one of the above-mentioned categories." I think this sums it up in that they don't fall into the 3 main categories.
- I'd dump the table and go back to the list of Nov 7.
- Say three general categories as there are only three
- Mention there are "other" that are hybrids, that don't completely fall into the categories. Do a separate listing.
- Expand on the main listing. Add wikilinks and give a couple of example systems and countries that use it. Add refs. I don't think a listing of every system should be included (such as in the table). This is supposed to be general overview and the wikilinks take people to more specific info.
- "majority of democratic countries" on the Nov. 7 page, along with the countries ("only in Canada, UK and USA") are not referenced. As they don't have refs, I can't tell if these are true or not. Ontario does give a ref where 62 countries use Plurality (FPTP). However, Plurality FPTP is defined as using PR and Plurality/Majoritarian systems,[10] so Ontario's statements isn't entirely correct.
- I think this will add a better understanding for the reader. Giving a table of voting systems causes me to go blank. Giving me info and an example country helps me associate the two better.
- "Discussions about PR..." paragraph
- Remove the "Discussions about PR often include comparisons between PR and Plurality/Majoritarian systems, ..." sentence. There are whole books about comparing systems. It isn't needed and it is a "given" that people will compare systems. The other two sentences in the paragraph would be folded above into the listing?
- "Party list PR and STV are considered to be the only two PR systems." This needs a tweek. Add maybe, "only two fully PR systems". MMP is hybrid as it has a component of PR, so its partially PR.
- Mixed member proportional representation (MMP) paragraph
- "highly" can be debatable. The word "potential" before it causes the problem. Yes, it can be highly proportional, but also not. Sentence gives why it can be, introduce why it can't be too. Why it can't is in the Nov 7, but is in Ontario's version. An example ref is [11].
- "... are contributing factors as to why MMP produces semi-proportional results". I didn't see this in a ref that was given, but I could have missed it. Ontario, you did throw up "ref spam". Keep to the point and only a few refs. Makes it confusing.
- Lede
- "a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, is also usually considered a distinct PR method." The first part is true. Second isn't. Some refs say yes. Some refs say no. Keep the first half in, not the second. Add the second half into the "Discussions about PR..." paragraph. Mention some people consider this a distinct PR method while others do not, thus it is in the mixed member systems category.
- Could you respond directed at me. What did I did or didn't screw up? What needs tweaking?
Bgwhite (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Bgwhite,
- Thank you for your time and consideration.
- 1. The lead: I have updated the lead with the language you have recommended.
- 2. The table: It appears we have reached a consensus on the classification of voting systems. The issue then becomes the location of the table, as it has been pointed out that there already is a table in the top right corner which includes a classification of voting system. Perhaps it would be a better compromise to update the existing table (in the top right corner), rather than creating a new redundant one.
- I have therefore updated the existing table with the sourced classification method we have discussed. The information I replaced on Template talk:Electoral systems did not have any sources at all substantiating it, and had numerous users disagreeing with its former format. Are we in agreement that this is a better location for this table, and that the changes in categories reflect the sources?
- 3. MMP paragraph: I am opposed to framing semi-proportional MMP (used in countries like Hungary [Current] or Italy [from 1994-2006]) as "deliberately hobbled", as this creates a bias in favour of PR, and Wikipedia articles must maintain neutrality. The Italian MMP, for instance, had 75% of the seats as FPTP, and only 25% as PR.[10] Likewise, in the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007, the proposed Legislature would have 129 seats consisting of 90 local members (70% of the Legislature) and 39 list members (30% of the Legislature). There were no compensatory seats to make up for Overhang seats. [11] Simply put, the vast majority of nations/regions using MMP, do not have fully-proportional MMP. New Zealand is the only exception. Are we in agreement that MMP can be semi-proportional, and that semi-proportional MMP is more common than fully proportional MMP?Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b "Voting Systems Made Simple". Electoral Reform Society.
- ^ "Comparative Data". ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. Retrieved 2015-11-07.
- ^ "Electoral Systems". ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. Retrieved 2015-11-03.
- ^ "Electoral Systems: The Systems and their consequences". Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project. Retrieved 11 Dec 2015.
- ^ "Electoral Systems and the Delimitation of Constituencies". International Foundation for Electoral Systems. Retrieved 12 Dec 2015.
- ^ Brian O’Neal. "Electoral Systems". Parliament of Canada. Retrieved 12 Dec 2015.
- ^ Claudio Martinelli. "Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective" (PDF). University of Milano-Bicocca. p. 3-10. Retrieved 12 Dec 2015.
- ^ Pippa Norris. "Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian, and Mixed Systems" (PDF). Harvard University. Retrieved 12 Dec 2015.
- ^ "Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Best of Both Worlds?". Oxford University Press. p. 1-2. Retrieved 12 Dec 2015.
{{cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
(help) - ^ "Electoral Systems: Mixed Member Proportional". Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project. Retrieved 11 Dec 2015.
{{cite web}}
: Check|url=
value (help) - ^ For timelines, see Library of Parliament. "Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces". Retrieved 21 April 2014.