[EM] Wikipedia

[James Green-Armytage]

"Tom Ruen" <tomruen at itascacg.com> writes:
>Reading some of the replies here, it would appear what is apparent to me
>is not apparent to others. The separation of "single vote" methods and
>"multiple vote methods" would seem a clear one at least to me.

	I think I understand what you're getting at, Tom, but I just don't think
that this is necessarily the *first* distinction that you want to make
between single-winner systems. 
	My own opinion is that you would want to divide them by ballot structure
first, and then talk about the tally process after that. (I just posted
another message on taxonomy which attempts to classify ballots structures
in a more bare-bones objective kind of way.)
	The reason that this is logical to me is because it follows the practical
order that is relevant to people in the actual process of voting.
Chronologically first is the actual act of voting, when you want to know,
"what does the ballot look like?" The tally procedure comes after that. It
is very difficult to understand a tally procedure effectively unless you
first understand how the ballot works. 
	So, my concern is mostly a pedagogical one, which is appropriate because
the page is intended as a teaching resource. The way you have laid it out
now, while of course there is a rationale to it, seems like it will be
confusing. The terms themselves "single vote" "multiple vote" "pairwise
vote" do not make it clear just what is single or multiple about them. To
me, it would make more sense to call a two-round runoff election a
multiple vote, because each person votes more than once, whereas any one
round system would be a single vote system. So I think that the terms are
misleading to anyone who doesn't already know how all of the methods work.
	Also, the sentence "Single vote methods are used exclusively in political
elections based on the democratic 'one person, one vote' ideal" seems to
rather imply that the non-single vote methods are somehow less democratic.
I don't know if you are an IRV fan or a Condorcet fan or what, but the
heading reads as a tacit endorsement of IRV over Condorcet. 
	On the other hand, the following sentence "Multiple vote methods give
voters more flexibility where tactical voting is less of a concern" is
dubious in another way. You list Borda among the multiple vote systems,
and I think that pretty much everyone agrees that tactical voting is a big
concern in Borda.
	So, for these reasons, I respectfully request that you change the page
back to the way it was, while of course you are welcome to publish your
own ideas on a separate web page.
	

my best,
James