[EM] "Instant-runoff voting" article renamed to "Ranked-choice voting" on English Wikipedia

[electionmethods at votefair.org]

Here's what's being overlooked about the actual meaning of "ranked 
choice voting."

A word or phrase can have two or more definitions.  Specifically, in a 
dictionary (rather than an encyclopedia) the entry for "ranked choice 
voting" might look like this, with two definitions:

"ranked choice voting (1) a voting method that uses ranked choice 
ballots on which a voter ranks the options to indicate an order of 
preference (2) a voting method that counts ranked choice ballots in 
rounds where a ballot counts as support for the highest-ranked option 
that has not yet been eliminated, and during each counting round the 
option with the fewest supporting votes is eliminated"

In other words, the broader definition covers any voting method that 
uses ranked choice ballots, and the narrower definition refers to IRV.

I'll call these definitions RCV[1] and RCV[2].

FairVote actively promotes RCV[2] as if it's the only available option, 
and yet also they pretend they are promoting RCV[1].  They pretend 
Condorcet methods do not fit within RCV[1] and instead are a separate 
category worthy of criticism for being too complex.

STAR fans attack RCV[1] using criticisms against RCV[2].  Quietly some 
of them advocate the RCV[1] method named "ranked robin" when they know 
they will be criticized for recommending STAR.

Fans of cardinal ballots, such as the Center for Election Science, 
criticize RCV[1] as if RCV[2] is the only kind of RCV[1].  (IMO they too 
pretend Condorcet methods do not fit within RCV[1].)

The standard way for an encyclopedia to handle this duality is to have 
two encyclopedia articles.  In this case one article named "ranked 
choice voting" will explain RCV[1], and the other article named "instant 
runoff voting" will explain RCV[2].  Of course the beginning of the 
RCV[1] article will refer to RCV[2] as a well-known subset of RCV[1].

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should follow this convention.

Whoever is vandalizing Wikipedia pages about election methods, please 
stop.

To anyone who is tempted to suggest "you should directly edit Wikipedia 
pages," years ago I tried that for several years.  Alas, a few people 
with a bias for specific election methods (previously Schulze and 
FairVote, now STAR, approval, score, cardinal methods, etc.) have much 
more time than I do.  (Also I wasted too much time battling antagonistic 
Wikipedia admin editors.)

(Wikipedia has a similar problem with the articles named "vote 
splitting" and "spoiler effect" and "independence of irrelevant 
alternatives."  Apparently some STAR fans are trying to support their 
recent claim that IRV is vulnerable to "vote splitting."  This 
misleading claim appeared a few months ago in the supposedly "academic" 
article about STAR voting.)

If anyone disagrees that a word can have more than one meaning, look at 
the many meanings of the word "set":

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/set

Currently my response times in this E-M forum are slower.  That's 
because I'm now accessing this email account using a web browser instead 
of my email "client" (Thunderbird).  Hopefully that will change when I 
get more time after this election.

Richard Fobes

On 2024-10-18 13:12, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:

> But, in any case, my main comments on this are that Wikipedia policy is 
> actually very clear on this issue.
> 1. Wikipedia requires using the common name for a thing, even if it's a 
> misnomer or less-than-ideal. For example, the articles are titled 
> "morning sickness" and "Panama hat" instead of "Nausea and vomiting of 
> pregnancy" or "That hat from Ecuador sometimes called a Panama hat". 
> This helps both with search results and with ensuring neutrality in 
> naming disputes: the San Francisco Board of Elections would argue "RCV" 
> is accurate because voters do rank the candidates, but that "IRV" is 
> inaccurate because the results aren't instantly available.
> 2. Wikipedia requires following the lead of a majority of reliable 
> sources. Overwhelmingly, reliable sources (e.g. media, academic papers, 
> and so on) use and explicitly define RCV to mean IRV, not ranked voting 
> methods in general.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 10:05 AM Closed Limelike Curves 
> <closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Electowiki article covers this. The name IRV is a promotional name 
> pushed by FairVote in the early 2000s. The name never really caught on 
> and was never used by anyone but FairVote and Wikipedia, because the 
> first place to adopt it (San Francisco) renamed it "Ranked-choice 
> voting" because they thought the name IRV would confuse people into 
> expecting the results to be released "instantly" (immediately after 
> polls closed). The term IRV has never seen much widespread use outside 
> voting theory circles and FairVote.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 9:09 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm 
> <km-elmet at munsterhjelm.no> wrote: On 2024-10-18 17:38, Chris Benham 
> wrote:
>> 
>> I gather that "Instant Runoff Voting" was originally a promotional 
>> name
>> in the US that after being used for a long time was changed (for some
>> reason I forget) to Ranked Choice Voting.
> 
> From what I understand, one of the public-facing organizations (might
> have been the LWV) suggested the name because, to the voter, the
> characteristic feature is that you rank the candidates. And then
> FairVote found out that it helped their advocacy, so it stuck.
> 
> -km
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list 
> info

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list 
info