FairVote cited on Bullet Voting wiki


Approval voting works the same way as Plurality-at-large , but allows more votes than winners, which gives the majority even more power to elect all the winners, and reduces the power of bullet voting to help minority candidates.[10]

Hugely misleading, because there’s no such thing as “the majority” in a general sense. If a majority of voters all favor the same candidate, then they can force that candidate to be elected in basically any system.


Wow, and this is just dead wrong.

Election systems that offer no tactical advantage to bullet voting are said to satisfy the later-no-harm criterion.

Later-no-harm is about a marking for Y not being able to hurt X. It can hurt the voter.


I removed that line, citing mathematical proof that bullet voting can be strategically wise despite LNH.

Then Tom Ruen added it back in like this:

But “discourages” is still wrong. In a case where it’s your best strategy, it is not discouraged, by definition!

How do you contest edits like this without outright undoing them?


I don’t know whether it will have much effect, but I suppose people usually debate on the “talk” page.


How do I get to that?


The link to the talk page is at the very top of the page.


Or, instead of /wiki/Bullet_voting go to /wiki/Talk:Bullet_voting (you add Talk: before the page name).

Nice to know a Wikipedia editor is among us.

I am not sure I understand the problem here. What did Tomruen say that is wrong and why?


Yes, that’s where the link is. But what I don’t even understand is, among Wikipedia editors, what is the social process that is supposed to resolve or prevent edit wars.


check out the policies and guidelines page.

some pointers:

you’re supposed to discuss on the talk page.

if a revert war ensues, a moderator will lock the page at the last state.

there’s a are tags such as “dubuios” you can put on the page to inform readers that the content is disputed.


There are a few of us, actually. I really need to get to work on cleaning up the Score voting page, as that would make the method itself look more professional…

psychology is weird