From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This needs merging with another in the same category.

I agree with the proposal to move; one or the other, not both, and Center for Voting and Democracy is likely to be ambiguous. Septentrionalis 21:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Result: moved[edit]

I move it, others can do the merge. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest deleting projects and initiative sections[edit]

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?[edit]

Tisane talk/stalk 02:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they have "de-prioritized" STV, and talk also of "District Plus"(Coachtripfan (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC))

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[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: 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[edit]

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 [ ]and related analysis at 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).[edit]

¿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?