User talk:RRichie

NPVIC

Hi RRichie,

Thanks for contributing to the NPVIC page. That article could definitely use improvement and I hope you feel free to make additional contributions. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. People have done a lot of good work on this page, but tracking all the states is a big job. RRichie (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw in a recent edit comment of yours at the NPVIC page that Congress has 30 session days to decide on DC proposed laws, instead of 30 calendar days. Could you tell me where you got this information? The DC website does not specifically mention session days, so I was assuming calendar days...

(BTW, you may want to archive or refactor part of your talk page, this very long discussion of two years ago is probably not so relevant anymore.) KarlFrei (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link about DC -- http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/faq.aspx#6 RRichie (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! KarlFrei (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I want to avoid an edit war, I think we should work out what to write to make clear that the winner of the national popular vote will become the winner of the presidency. I personally believe that "nationwide" makes intuitive sense because territories don't vote to begin with (so in a way, even if they are included, their vote totals are 0, which still makes sense, but I digress). However, I understand wanting to make abundantly clear that territories are not included, but I think the way you put it makes it less clear, as it could easily be interpreted as winning the popular vote in each of the 50 states, as well as DC.

As a solution, I propose to write something to the effect of "the presidential candidate who garners the highest vote total from votes cast in the 50 states and the District of Columbia", and, to preserve the link to the "Plurality Voting System" page, link "highest vote total" to that page. This is much less smooth, but it avoids both possible areas of confusion. Blippy1998 (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to avoid an edit war. See my note in the talk section of the article. I think the word "overall" clearly avoids any sense you have to carry every state. Hope that makes sense. RRichie (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

LNH failure for certain IRV-variant

Hi RRichie, due to the recent changes at the LNH article: Could you please explain (to me), what you mean by "reduction of field to one"?

Is that another characteristic of the system or just a prerequisite for the counter-example? Thx. --Arno Nymus (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I follow instant runoff elections closely, and I have never seen one with the rules you describe -- e.g, a required second election if the final candidate is not ranked on a majority of all ballots cast in the race after the field is reduced to one candidate. The norm is continue eliminating candidates in last place and retallying the vote until a candidate has a majority of active ballots or the field is reduced to two, and declare the one with more votes the winner. If you set a standard of a majority of first round ballots to avoid a runoff (something I've not seen in practice either, although I suppose it may have been done somewhere for something), the sensible way to do ito would be to stop when the field is reduced to two and have that runoff between those two. Doing that would avoid the LNH violation you describe -- and avoiding LNH violations is key for a system to function and is central to why IRV is used in so many NGO and governemntal elections.

In other words, you're making a big deal out of something I've never seen done and which I think IRV experts would strongly counsel against. RRichie (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I copied this discussion to the LNH talk page. Homunq (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History and use of instant-runoff voting may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• at least one office include [[Minneapolis, Minnesota]]; [[Oakland, California]]; [Portland, Maine]] [[St. Paul, Minnesota]]; [[San Francisco, California]]; [[Takoma Park, Maryland]]; [[Berkeley,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ranked voting systems

Hi. First, I wanted to thank you for editing ranked voting systems. I did have a question about the IRV section however. I'm not sure if you're the best person to direct it to as another editor may have made the addition. Anyway, I did have question about the following recent addition to the IRV section of that page.

"...this system fails the monotonicity criterion, where ranking a candidate first can cause that candidate to lose if this ranking allows a strong candidate to avoid being in last place and defeated."

What is meant by the underlined portions?

Sorry to be a bother, but I do hope you can shed some light on this. Fleetham (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think your edit on the page works. i was trying to briefly explain the convoluted math behind how IRV can fail the nonmonotonicity standard -- that is, raising a candidate's ranking only can hurt that candidate if the new votes come from voters who otherwise would have given a top ranking to a candidate who, with those extra votes, would have defeated a candidate who would be able to beat the IRV winner in a one-on-one race (like a Condorcet candidate). It's convoluted, hard to predict and a strategy never done in real elections that I've heard of. (Note that we have studied the complete rankings in all California elections with IRV in the past decade, including more than a large number that have required multiple rounds of counting, and in every singe one, the Condorcet candidate has won.)RRichie (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Lol, okay. I'm still not sure I understand. The first example (green box) on this page seems to suggest that you're correct; the voters who "up-ranked" candidate C (and caused him or her to lose) would have otherwise voted for A, who defeats B in a head-to-head election. Up-ranking, in this example, causes C to lose and B to win. However, the second example (green box) has voter who would have chosen candidate A up-ranking C. In this example, A is the Concordet loser. So I'm unconvinced that your explanation really gets to the heart of the matter. Fleetham (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 6 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the FairVote page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, RRichie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RCV

I understand the interpretation of the advisory opinion you are using, but the entire situation is unclear because the law may be repealed outright. Best not to equivocate on the election pages, perhaps just on the Q5 article. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll add that it seems extremely unlikely that the Legislature will permit two different election systems for statewide elections. The Senate, being led by the GOP, has voted to repeal the entire law and given no indication they would support keeping it even just for federal elections. The Democratic-led House has voted for a constitutional amendment(but not by the needed 2/3). Secretary of State Dunlap has also not made any moves towards implementing the law, waiting for the Legislature to act and relying on the advisory opinion.(He would have to be sued to force him to implement the law, even just for federal elections) I don't know how this is going to be resolved, but the whole situation is unclear for all elections. I would have no issue with this being explained in the Question 5 article, but I don't feel that the election articles need that much detail. 331dot (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you have decided to not respect BRD and discuss this further, but I've tried to clarify the situation from the very charitable pro-RCV position you've put. I am still more than willing to collaborate with you on this if you would engage me. 331dot (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Your language is misleading and you should not just put it back in when that was pointed out. And your explanation above is not accurate. First, a majority of all Maine state legislators in June voted for a statute to keep RCV for 2018 elections for US Senate and US House races and primaries. Second, Matt Dunlap is on record recently saying he's now going to start preparing for it. Third, there never was a proposa to use RCV for everything -- e.g, Question 5 as passed didn't change plurality eletions for president, so the state was always gonig to use "two different elections systems." My edit says that folks stil may try to repeal, it, and that's accurate. But as of now, the law is the law, and nothing in my improved language (and useful additional reference) is wrong -- not in the way that the language is wrong that you keep putting back in. Okay?RRichie (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please link to where Dunlap said that. I don't believe the Senate voted to support RCV as Thibodeau is opposed, but please link to that as well. Note that it says in this that "the law is in question" and criticizes the dual systems potential. House speaker Gideon also references the uncertainty. It is not deceptive to say there is uncertainty. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)