FairVote cited on Bullet Voting wiki


#1

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.


#2

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.


#3

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?


#4

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


#5

How do I get to that?


#6

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


#7

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?


#8

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.


#9

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.


#10

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