[EM] Why is wikipedia so biased pro-IRV?

[Bob Crossley]

I defer to Walabio's point about "Fair Votes" as I know nothing about US politics but I strongly suspect that they are currently getting a lot of support from across the Atlantic. 

You may have heard that in May the UK will have a referendum on introducing IRV (we call it AV, as you probably know), this being one of the trading-chips in the current Conservative/Liberal-Democrat coalition agreement. Since the election last year the IRV piece in Wikipedia seems, to me at least, to have  been revised extensively in favour. 

For example, the assertion that IRV eliminates the need for tactical voting was given a lot of prominence in the intro the last time I looked; oddly enough this claim was being made by prominent proponents in the press over here at the same time. 

Looking the piece up again when I saw your post I notice it has been re-written again taking out the laudatory intro. Perhaps, now the campaign for the referendum is under way, the No faction will start revising the piece in the opposite direction. They almost certainly have the resources to do extensive "astro-turfing" as their support comes mostly from the super-rich fan-base of the Conservative Party.

(PS. I'd be interested in links to good research contesting the claimthat AV makes tactical voting redundant - although I will vote Yes, I think the false claims being made by the Yes camp are dangerous and counterproductive).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110224/8431fd95/attachment-0003.htm>