Talk:Proportional representation

Lithuania

Doesn't Lithuania have some sort of proportional representation system?

Edits by user REH7

REH7: I have kept the shorter paragraphs in the lead but undone all your other edits because there is very little which is an improvement.

• Lead Paragraphs: I agree with you about the long paragraph but a WP rule-of-thumb is four paragraphs in the lead (WP:LEADLENGTH) so longer paragraphs are normal, check out any featured article.
• Bullet lists: WP prefers prose to bullet lists (WP:USEPROSE). You can change coalition arguments to a bullet list but there is no need to so don't. Why didn't you change the next para to a bullet list too?

• PR systems in the broader family of voting systems: You have changed 'plurality' to FPTP but that is not correct, FPTP is just one plurality system (explore the 'Voting Systems' box at the top of the article).

• Advantages and disadvantages: "removed a wild claim that was not backed up by the citation provided". The citation provided, Forder, says on p.53 "Michael Pinto-Duschinsky - a rare academic opponent of proportional representation- has...". The text you deleted is a reasonable paraphrase (WP:PARAPHRASE) of that (or do you think Mill wasn't talking about PR?) It also adds the useful reminder, the article being about representation, that english-speaking democracies use representative democracy (which is what Mill was also on about). It is uncontroversial, so leave it. The line you added in its place ("Most arguments against PR are based on concerns ..") is stating the obvious. At least it is nice to have the Lovink ref, a rare anti-PR article.

• Coalitions: "Moved content around so that the FPTP argument was not presented as a straw dog ...": You write "One of the objections to PR systems .." No, you are misrepresenting the sources - they say it is not just one but THE principle objection. IDEA p.58 (p.59 is wrong): "Most of the criticisms of PR in general are based around the tendency of PR systems to give rise to coalition governments and a fragmented party system." Forder, p.58: "One of the few things on which both sides of the PR debate seem to agree is that it almost surely makes coalition more likely..". You have removed this emphasis and so are misrepresenting the sources which you can't do (WP:DUE). The not unimportant point that coalitions do not necessarily form at the centre has disappeared. In "In a Westminster parliamentary system, minority governments can be (and are) voted out..", for Forder the most important argument, you have removed his emphasis ("Most importantly..") and added a series of unnecessary rewordings. The point is not restricted to Westminster systems. The para "Nevertheless, on average, compared to.." has gone; I didn't particularly like it but it is sourced. There are a number of other unhelpful, wooden, rewordings: "Objections to having many coalitions..", "Coalitions can have difficulty creating some policies ..". You also say "Supporters of PR" "..also argue that the US experience shows.." No, supporters of PR don't argue that, that was one politician in one Guardian article, you have changed the meaning. Personally I think the sentence should go but it's sourced.

• Link between constituent and representative": "An accusation against PR is .." has been changed to "Another concern about PR is .." Is that really necessary? You have added text which doesn't reflect (WP:DUE again) your source.

• Measuring proportionality: "Deviation from proportionality" denotes rather obviously a degree of malapportionment ("malapointment" is presumably a typo) but you call that "inflammatory"!. It's a technical term used by political scientists. The para.was a separate article and was recently merged here. It's incomplete but inoffensive. --BalCoder (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits by user BalCoder Aug 2015 reverted by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd

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 representational" even with an appended "system".

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)

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: Please discusss your concerns about these sections here on this talk page so that we can come to an agreement about what to change and how. Simply re-introducing text which has been reverted for the reasons given above, as you have now done (21 Aug), will only result in it being reverted again.

Party list PR section: "The parties each list their candidates according to direction from the party leader": that may be so in Ontario but elsewhere in the world lists are usually determined by party conferences or primaries. If you add a statement like that you must cite a reliable source for it, I refer you again to WP:VERIFY, a core Wikipedia policy. But better would be something more general which the text you replaced was. --BalCoder (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

1. BalCoder The use of the term "accusation" as opposed to disadvantage implies that the disadvantage is false. Please avoid using biased terms! It is important to preserve wikipedia's net neutrality policy. In fact, this same article has previously had the term "accusation" replaced by "concern". You have also confused proportional representation with mixed member proportional representation. In a mixed member proportional representation there are electoral ridings, however, they are approximately half the size as the equivalent FPTP system. The smaller ridings affect rural residents the most.

In a proportional representation system, candidates DO NOT represent ridings. In a FPTP system, not only do candidates represent ridings, they live in their respective ridings. Moreover, in the Canadian House of Commons, elected officials address the Speaker of the House and refer to each other by their riding names. For example, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is referred to as the Member from Papineau. This ensures regional representation. In the PR system, all candidates for a political party could reside in one city. This results in regional exclusion.

2. In a closed list system, the party leader selects the order of the list; as is the case in selecting a cabinet. The result is members that appeal more to their party base. This is similar to how in the United States democratic and republican primaries, where candidates only need to secure support from their respective parties, candidates appeal to their political base. Only the primaries are complete, the same candidates change their campaign style to win the support of the general public. This is one of the fundamental disadvantages of a closed list PR system. There is no mechanism for voters to eject candidates, so long as these candidates are supported by the senior leadership of their parties. Contrarily, is a FPTP system, party leaders themselves can lose their seats. In the 2011 Canadian general election, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe both lost their seats. This would have been impossible in a PR system.

3. "District" is an American term. "Congressman" is also an American term. The United States of America does not have a parliamentary democracy. "Riding" is the term used in parliamentary democracies. "Member of Parliament" is the term used for an elected official in parliamentary democracies.

At least we are now communicating. One or two of your changes from Aug.23 are OK, but most are wrong, confused or confusing, or contain wild claims, as I have already pointed out. So I am reverting them all again. Please read WP:BRD, we are now in the discussion stage so do not re-apply them until we have finished discussing them here.

What "Proportional representation" is, is discussed in the article lead. There are five citations there, in paragraph 2, supporting the article. One of them, ref.6, is Canadian. This is what it says on p.22: "Proportional representation includes three basic types of systems, List PR, STV, Mixed member PR". When you write "In a proportional representation system, candidates DO NOT represent ridings" to which of these 3 systems does your term "proportional representation" refer? Once we understand what "proportional representation" means to you we can clear up why you think "candidates DO NOT represent ridings".

"The use of the term 'accusation'..." OK, now I understand. For me the word is inoffensive but I have no problem with changing it to "concern", "criticism" would be better (stronger).

"they are approximately half the size as the equivalent FPTP system." Not half, twice the size of the equivalent FPTP system. At least, "approximately" is an improvement, the original, "up to half", was better.

"The party leader selects the order of the list". You are welcome to add that but only if you can find a reliable source that says that. If you had written "leaders" you could cite the Electoral Reform Society and Fairvote USA, then it would be OK. But the original text said parties determine the order and that is sufficient, the more important point, as you have written, is that with closed lists voters have no say. That party leaders can be ousted under FPTP is not so generally true as you think. In Britain leaders usually occupy safe seats and are not at the slightest risk of losing them. This is even more of a problem in the US. Only under STV and some open-list PR systems are there are no safe seats. But you write "This would have been impossible in a PR system." Quite wrong.

"'Riding' is the term used in parliamentary democracies." Oh, really. Ever heard of England, "mother of parliaments" etc.? There they use "constituency", "riding" in this sense is completely unknown. Australia uses "electorate" or "electoral district" or "electoral division". "Riding" is only used in Canada. All these words are jargon, except "district" which is plain English meaning an area of a country so we use that. That the US uses it is irrelevant.

Please answer the question about PR above. --BalCoder (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BalCoder 1. One of the primary reasons the article was edited was that the tone of the article did not follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. For instance, terms "accusation", "barely", and "according to their parties determination of priorities" are highly problematic. An article on proportional representation must not read as an essay supporting proportional representation. Language must be concise and accurately written.

2. To be clear, orange is not a type of yellow nor is it a type of red. Orange is a mixture of two colours. Likewise, mixed member proportional representation is NOT a type of PR system nor is it a type of FPTP system. It is a hybrid system that combines the two aforementioned voting systems. Similarly, single transferable voting (STV), and instant-runoff voting (IRV) are types of alternative voting, which are distinctly different than both pluralistic voting and proportional representation. In order to be inclusive, I have included both STV and IRV is the most recent update of the article.

3. Different nations use different terms for district. In order for the article to be most accurate, the appropriate term will be used when referring to each respective country. For instance, it would be problematic to refer to Canadian provinces as states. Likewise, it would be equally inaccurate to refer to Canadian ridings as districts.

3. Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text without substantial corrections to tone and content, it will be removed immediately. Please voice any and all concerns you have to the talk page prior to making any further changes. While the feedback you have provided is well-intentioned, please use a spelling and grammar check prior to posting on the talk page in order to engage in a more productive discussion. For instance, avoid starting sentences with "but", and ensure all sentences include both a subject and a predicate.

OK. You use "proportional representation" as a synonym for "party list PR". This blatantly contradicts the literature, plenty of which you can find cited in the article, and just confuses readers. In the Party list PR section you start: "In a proportional representation system, parties each list ...". This is a wrong statement, STV is also a PR system and does not use lists. What you mean is "In a party list PR system...". In the "Link between constituent and representative" section you begin "A criticism of the proportional representation system is as districts do not exist...". This is wrong - as I wrote in my first Talk posting to you all PR systems use districts. Even if you just mean party list PR systems you are wrong. Two list PR systems are discussed in the article, Denmark and Zurich, both of which use small districts; Zurich had to change its electoral rules because some of its districts were too small, preventing smaller parties from being elected. Further on you write "While PR does not have districts, other forms of alternative voting such as mixed member proportional, single transferable vote (STV)...". This is hair-raisingly wrong, MMP and STV are not "alternative voting" (which is not a PR system so not of interest in this article), they are PR - see article lead and refs. Text like this will only bemuse or baffle readers.

Your contributions have to reflect reliable sources, your personal opinions are not of interest, read WP:VERIFY again: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". One place you could start looking for sources might be the Ontario citizen's assembly which recently chose MMP (http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca). Before saving your changes to WP spend time revising them to avoid unfelicitous formulations (like "parties each list their candidates according to direction from their political parties"). There is no hurry (WP:NORUSH).

I am reverting your edits. If you continue to add unsourced statements they will be reverted. --BalCoder (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

BalCoder 1. This is a table listing the major categories of voting systems: PR, Mixed, and Plurality as well as the subcategories.

Please study the following table:

Voting Systems:

Proportional Representation: - Single Transferable Vote - Party List PR(closed/open/local)

Mixed Systems: - Additional Member System - Alternative Vote Plus - Mixed Member Proportional

Plurality Systems: - First Past the Post - Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting - Block Vote - Limited Vote - Supplementary Vote - Two-Round System - Borda Count

• Notice MMP is NOT a type of PR, but rather a Mixed System.

2. I have included more sources and subtitles in order to make the article more readable.

3. I have included closed list, open list, and local list PR systems in the list PR section. The STV system is not listed in the List PR section as the following section of the WP article is dedicated towards STV.

4. DO NOT continue to re-post the same erroneous text which includes personal opinions, poor sentence structure, missing or incorrect content, little or no sources, and alarmingly biased tones. It will be removed immediately. If you wish to contribute, consider EDITING the text in order to correct the mistakes in tone and content, and post it to the talk section only.

MMP is not PR but a "mixed system" (the table above is from the ERS -see ref.5): Well, yes, but there is actually little disagreement here: there are basically only two PR systems, but MMP being "mixed" (by which is meant hybrid) and using list PR, its results are proportional, it produces proportionally representative parliaments, so it is PR, like it or not, and the ERS agrees: MMP "is broadly proportional." You can't ignore the sources. And to delete the words "is also usually considered a distinct PR method" from para.2 of the lead leaving an incomplete, meaningless sentence borders on vandalism.

Link between constituent and representative: Progress. You finally seem to be getting a grasp on what PR is. And now it is only open and closed party lists that do not have districts, but still no source provided for this wildly incorrect statement - Denmark and Zurich, mentioned in my previous post, both use open lists and, of course, districts. The original text is all gone, that with STV there are counter arguments and its sources, and the questioning of the importance of the link, with its sources. That is not acceptable, you can't delete sourced text, you can only add your text. Subtitles are inappropriate and unnecessary: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." (MOS:LAYOUT). "Plurality voting systems" are not PR so shouldn't be in the article, although I freely concede the original text should have made clearer the advantage of single member districts for the constituency link.

The section "Wider benefits to society" is gone, by mistake?. Again, it was sourced - not acceptable.

Party list PR: This section needed rewriting and sources added, but this is not an improvement. Open list: "Voters can then rank..." Rank? I don't think so. Unsourced. Local lists: All unsourced.

Many of your edits are careless, e.g.STV "retains the same constituencies as FPTP. Multi-seat constituencies are used, ..." and ".. as multiple districts are combined"!. I refer you again to WP:NORUSH - do your editing in your sandbox (WP:ABOUTSAND) and take your time.

OK, I wont revert. But now I challenge you to restore the sourced text you deleted, to correct the above errors, and to integrate your changes into the original text, which is what WP requires you to do. --BalCoder (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)