[EM] "wrong way elections"

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

I have very little time, but I will respond briefly, in the faint 
hope that Warren will wake up and recognize what quite obviously 
others were trying to say to him as well. I know it is hard to do 
this when one has become so invested in an issue, but such 
flexibility is essential if one hopes to change the system. If 
political life, which Warren is attempting to enter, is unforgiving 
of one thing, it would be inflexibility.

At 04:18 PM 7/16/2006, Warren Smith wrote:
>The list of 4 reasons were:
>
> >    * The idea of a "wrong" winner of an election implies that one
> > or more "right" winners exist, which is inherently biased. The idea
> > that the "right" winner is defined as the one that "most of the
> > populace would have preferred" is also biased, because some voting
> > systems are explicitly designed to use other factors than plain majorities.
> >    * The text is biased. Wrong-way elections are "pathologies" and
> > "alter history, presumably usually for the worse"?
> >    * The examples are poor. Other than the Gore-Bush election,
> > which is adequately covered elsewhere, the only example is that of
> > Allende. The article even admits that the sole source cited in this
> > example uses its references inappropriately.
> >    * The mathematical properties of voting systems are already
> > covered in the articles
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system>Voting system and
> > 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_different_voting_systems_under_similar_circumstances
>
>the replies to these are
>1. nonsense

it was not expressed accurately. The term "wrong" implies a 
judgement, there must be a standard for what is "right" and "wrong." 
What is the standard? If the standard for the right winner is that 
the one with the most votes wins, we have plurality. But apparently, 
Warren (and many others, including myself), think that this can be 
the "wrong" winner. We do this because we think there is a better 
standard. We are, essentially, biased. Now, everyone is biased. But 
some of us learn to set aside bias, and writers of encyclopedias are 
expected to do this. They will not call a plurality winner the 
"wrong" winner, because this is a judgement, not a fact.

>2. pathologies is a standard word

It is a standard word in what sense? If I say that "The thinking of 
the Republicans is pathological," I have used a standard word 
betraying a Point of View, an opinion of Republicans. Absent a 
standard and accepted definition of "pathologies," the term really 
becomes polemic. It is another way of saying "wrong."

>3. actualy there were over 20 examples, not just these 2, and I did not
>"admit" this, I "pointed it out to correct Saari's error"

I have not gone over the article to confirm either side of this. It's 
not important, in my view. The alleged defect would not have been 
sufficient to warrant removal of the article.

>4. those other articles did not give any list of historical 
>examples, my article did.

The Wikipedia remedy for this would have been to either add the 
historical examples to the other articles, not to create a new 
article, unless that new article is "Election Methods History." Or 
"History of Plurality" or "History of Range Voting," or other neutral title.

Warren, you are dealing with a large community that has developed a 
consensus about what is encyclopedic and what is not. You can create 
your own wiki if you like! Your article might be just fine on the EM wiki.

I do think that your article is archived on Wikipedia, but I did not 
research enough to find out where it would be. You might ask, you 
know. I'm pretty sure they would tell you.

(I've never dealt with a deleted article before....)