[Election-Methods] RE : Re: peer-reviewed work that is critical ofIRV

[James Gilmour]

> --- James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> a écrit :
> > Kevin Venzke  > Sent: 28 September 2007 15:23
> > > 
> > > What are the best articles or books that can be cited here?
> > > Voting Matters is not highly respected on Wikipedia.
> > 
> > Kevin, could you please elaborate on your comment about "Voting 
> > matters" and Wikipedia?
> > 
> > I ran a search for "Voting matters" on Wikipedia and found 11 
> > references.  I looked at all the main pages, but did not see any 
> > comments about the journal.  Perhaps the comments are on the 
> > Discussion pages?
> > 
> > It must always be remembered that "Voting matters" is exactly what it 
> > says and nothing more: "For the technical issues of STV".
> > 
> > Articles in "Voting matters" are peer-reviewed, by anonymous referees.

Kevin > Sent: 28 September 2007 18:17> 
> References that I would be thinking of would be on article 
> discussion pages, yes.

Kevin, I have now looked at the Discussion pages for all 11 Wikipedia article references to "Voting matters".  I found
only one comment, on the Discussion page for "Plurality Criterion", where "Voting matters" is described as "an on-line
IRV advocacy publication".  That is a gross misrepresentation of "Voting matters".  It is not an advocacy publication of
any kind.  It is a technical journal only.  It is very unusual in that it is dedicated to technical aspects of the STV
voting system  -  as it makes very clear.  It also concentrates on STV-PR, i.e. multi-winner STV elections, because that
is what is most relevant in the UK, where "Voting matters" grew out of technical discussions within the Electoral Reform
Society.  Most of the contributors to "Voting matters" wish to see technical developments in STV (to correct "defects"
or bring about "improvements"), so I suppose an opponent of STV might choose to describe that as "advocacy", but
promotional and campaigning articles are not accepted.  Although "Voting matters" is not a general journal on voting
systems, I do know that the Editor has tried to persuade some well-known critics of STV to contribute relevant technical
articles, but so far without success.


> I am aware that "Voting matters" has some peer review, but I 
> also have the impression that it isn't considered very authoritative.

I can assure you, from personal experience, that articles for "Voting matters" are rigorously peer-reviewed by relevant
referees.  "it isn't considered very authorities" is a value judgement, and I suspect some of such judgements (like the
one on the Plurality Criterion discussion page) are based on:    
1. opposition to STV as a voting system, and    
2. a mis-understanding of the stated purpose of "Voting matters".

A very narrowly focussed, highly technical journal like "Voting matters" is never going to be considered "authoritative"
alongside some heavy-weight academic journal in political science or pure mathematics with an international editorial
board, but it sets out to fulfil a different role.  "Voting matters" provides the only forum for the discussion of some
very highly specialised aspects of the STV voting system that, understandably, no other journal would publish.

James