Jump to content

Talk:Plurality voting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Closed Limelike Curves (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 24 April 2024 (→Merge from FPTP: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samarodeh0, Liammarkhauser, LoganM123 (article contribs).

Isn't "two-round voting" much more common?

E.g., mayoral elections in Germany use it ... --User:Haraldmmueller 10:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either one is much more common than the other. –Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mentioning of "election inversion" - why?

Similar question to Talk:First-past-the-post voting: Election inversion is a standard term; and a phenomenon mainly occurring with FPTP (albeit not only: Rounding procedures can produce them also in proportional systems). Why isn't this even mentioned here, let alone discussed - see of course 2000 and 2016 in the US (Michael Geruso, Dean Spears, Ishaana Talesara. 2019. "Inversions in US Presidential Elections: 1836-2016." NBER paper, slides by Nicholas R. Miller). It would nicely fit into the "wasted votes" section, because different amounts of "waste" for each selection directly imply the possibility of election inversion. --User:Haraldmmueller 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not included because nobody's added it. Feel free to add it! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles

Plurality (voting) and this article seem to have same topic. Suggest merge. HudecEmil (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I am proposing Plurality (voting) be merged into Plurality voting. The articles have overlapping information and are about the same subject. Plurality voting is the longer article, is slightly higher quality, and receives more monthly pageviews (Plurality (voting) versus Plurality voting). -- Primium (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HudecEmil: Previously brought this up. -- Primium (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primium the two topics are different, but the article you've linked is badly-named; I think we definitely don't want an article called "Plurality (voting)" that's different from "Plurality voting".
Plurality just means "the biggest share" (in British English, this is called a relative majority). It contrasts with a majority (in British English, an absolute majority), whch is a fraction bigger than 50%. Plurality (voting) could either be kept, turned into a Wiktionary entry, or merged into the majority page.
On the other hand, I just found out the page on first-past-the-post voting exists. That page is 100% a duplicate, since these are two names for the exact same system, and they need a merge. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with a merge, but I think it should be to First-past-the-post voting (or simply First-past-the-post), which is the WP:COMMONNAME. Number 57 16:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google n-grams seems to suggest plurality is slightly more popular but I have no strong opinion on this. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, there is a slight difference; first-past-the-post is the single-member version of plurality voting, which also includes multi-member versions. So merging into First-past-the-post doesn't make sense. Either merge into Plurality voting or shrink Plurality voting down to an overview of the different types of plurality voting, with a referral to First-past-the-post for a more detailed article on single-member plurality.174.67.226.163 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
Just, I oppose it. It's just obvious why
Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons stated above: it is a distinct concept, and in particularly common use among political-science discussion in the USA (it's far more common of a term). A merge would add confusion, not remove it. Denzera (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I also oppose it but I didn't have a concrete reason, so I guess I now have a solid reason, and it's interesting how it's a common term across the globe. Arotparaarms (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Talk:Plurality voting § Merge from FPTP

Merge from FPTP

FPTP and Plurality are the same system. FPTP should be merged into this article with a redirect. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A brief summary of his beliefs can be found in not-very-authoritative source here: [1] on p. 331 ("Plurality system with additional conditions"). Sorry, I do not have Duverger's book handy and cannot check his terminology immediately.

  1. The text doesn't seem to quote Duverger himself directly, it just talks about Duverger's law.
  2. The text is, as mentioned, a not-very-authoritative source.
  3. The text also seems to be confusing the use of a single non-transferable vote in the first round of a runoff (which can arguably be called "plurality voting") with the two-round runoff as a whole, which is not a kind of plurality voting.

This is not the only PoV; many authors use FPTP and plurality system synonymously and drop the single-member/simple qualifiers—but many retain them.

The synonymous usage seems to be by far the more common use in social choice theory. With regards to the other two terms you mentioned:
  • "Single-member" means the combination of plurality with single-member districts, i.e. local elections. The term "single-member" is used to distinguish plurality voting from its multi-member (multi-winner) variant, called SNTV.
  • "Simple plurality" has the same meaning as in "simple majority" (which means a majority, ignoring abstentions). In other words, it's a plurality of votes, ignoring abstentions: if the largest number of votes is for "abstain", this option is ignored, rather than leading to a do-over election. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 15:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO for authors that consider plurality synonymous with FPTP, the qualifiers "single-member", "simple" would be excessive and unnecessary, their very use underscores that differences do exist. SNTV seems to me like one more plurality system. Викидим (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNTV is one of several minor variants of FPTP/Plurality, yes, which is why it has a separate article. But as the article itself says in the opening, SNTV is a kind of FPTP.
IMHO for authors that consider plurality synonymous with FPTP, the qualifiers "single-member", "simple" would be excessive and unnecessary,
Yes, they would be, because this is how everyone understands the term "Plurality"! If the term was this ambiguous, nobody would use it; they'd just say FPTP. As mentioned, the current article says nothing about these other systems, because nobody uses the term plurality like this.
In all my years reading the social choice literature I have never seen anyone use "plurality" to mean "instant-runoff voting", and the source you provided is at best ambiguous as to whether it's even doing that. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 19:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily agree with you on instant runoff. For the purposes of this discussion, it is enough to establish that FPTP and "plurality" are not the same thing (SNTV does that), and I am way out of my depth to provide any suggestions on where the evolution of Plurality voting should go. Викидим (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of this discussion, it is enough to establish that FPTP and "plurality" are not the same thing (SNTV does that),
OK, so how about :
1. Redirecting "FPTP" to "Plurality" (which is the most common use), and then
2. Putting up a "For the multi-winner variant of plurality, see SNTV".
I am way out of my depth to provide any suggestions on where the evolution of Plurality voting should go.
That's fair. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 20:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert on the issue. However, (1) FPTP is a colloquial, but very well-known - and easy to understand - term. Few people would understand the plurality correctly. Correspondingly, the sheer volume of information on FPTP is much larger than that on other forms of plurality combined. So, if redirecting, it would be expedient and historically correct, to go other way, explaining the non-FPTP plurality as a deviation from (or an improvement of) the simple one. (2) I do not think this would be the best approach. Instead, this article can become an overview of the voting systems that are rightly or wrongly described as plurality systems, with a list of actual use. (3) The main dichotomy, IMO, is between the proportional / plurality systems, and this might be a good place to expound on their differences. Викидим (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose
Plurality voting is a broader concept, which includes:
- SNTV - a multi winner system with very different results than FPTP
- bloc voting, general ticket, the multi-winner version with similar effects. Because of it's widespread use, FPTP deserves a seperate article which doesn't include these
- limited voting, approval voting (of course, not PAV, and of course, even single winner is not often called plurality voting since it would be confusing)
it is important to contrast plurality voting to:
-majority voting - usually IRV and TRS would be considered so as they have the principle of having next rounds if there is no majority. otherwise, majority and plurality are similar rules, so highlight that not everywhere they have the same linguistic usage - "relative/absolute/simple majority/plurality
-proportional representation, completely different principle Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if you're right, we'll need to merge this page into FPTP instead of the other way around, and then turn this page into a disambiguation directing people to choose SNTV or FPTP. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 16:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rankedchoicevoter the term "Majority voting" in social choice theory has a much more restrictive meaning (see Condorcet winner criterion, often called majority-rule in the social choice/voting theory/welfare economics literature). IRV and two-round would be considered to fall under the sequential-loser or core support umbrella instead, alongside plurality.

Approval voting would never be considered a variant on plurality voting. (On the other hand, TRS might actually be counted as a variant of FPP/Plurality.)

"Plurality" without qualification excludes all the systems you mentioned. FPTP also includes SNTV (the proportional-representation form of FPTP). The phrases FPTP and Plurality voting are synonymous. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 23:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology sources

Trying to list the works that can be used as references for terminology. Feel free to expand or object.

  • Ross, James F. S. (1955). "Preface". Voting in Democracies. A Study of Majority and Proportional Electoral Systems. Faber & Faber. Retrieved 2024-04-24. Recommended in [2]

Викидим (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plurality_voting&oldid=1220569854"