|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Pomona College supported by WikiProject United States and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2014 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Result: moved
- 3 Suggest deleting projects and initiative sections
- 4 Would it be correct to say that FairVote has greatly deprioritized its former goal of implementing PR-STV?
- 5 Copyright problem removed
- 6 Multi-member seats and overall proportionality
- 7 IRV (Instant Runoff-Voting) is subject to Duverger's Law (2-party domination).
This needs merging with another in the same category.
Suggest deleting projects and initiative sections
Most of this article seems to have lots of problems with it. It is uncited assertions and doesn't follow WP:NPOV. In fact it looks like it was probably copied from somewhere with phrases such as "our ultimate goal", "One of our most active programs", etc. If no one objects after a couple of weeks, and the article doesn't get cleaned up, I think I'll delete the offending material. Alienmercy 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I second this motion!
Would it be correct to say that FairVote has greatly deprioritized its former goal of implementing PR-STV?
- FairVote never has been an STV-only group, but it still leads with that as its proposal for PR in the USA. See discussion of "choice voting", a synonym for STV, on the site.RRichie (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.fairvote.org/overview. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Multi-member seats and overall proportionality
Fairvotes advoctaes multi-member seats for House elections. However, this does not guarantee that the overall national vote is proportional to votes cast. Their own analysis avoid giving a break-down - which arguably shows the Republicans would still have won the House on a lower vote than the Democrats. House election under "Fair Votes"Indeed, they also advocate "District Plus" to address this problem. Problems with multi-member systems(Coachtripfan (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC))
- See a discussion this topic here [ http://www.fairvote.org/it-s-not-just-gerrymandering-fixing-house-elections-demands-end-of-winner-take-all-rules# ]and related analysis at fairvoting.us..... Of course, in the US, it's not a parliamentary system ,and STV/multi-seat district would create a group of less rigidly partisan House Members. So the standard is different.RRichie (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
IRV (Instant Runoff-Voting) is subject to Duverger's Law (2-party domination).
¿Should mention this. Also, one must buy expensive new voting equipment because IRV uses a ranked ballot. ¿Should we mention that if we eliminate the overvote rule, we can use existing equipment and Approval Voting (the system allowing one to approve multiple candidates) lets 3rd parties and independents win?