Jump to content

Talk:History and use of instant-runoff voting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chafe66 (talk | contribs) at 08:29, 18 January 2018 (→Why was IRV/STV abandoned in the past?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconHistory Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Why was IRV/STV abandoned in the past?

In historical cases where IRV or STV have been tried then abandoned, why was it abandoned? What problems occurred, who did not like it and why? E.g.: "The Northern Ireland Parliament continued to use the combination until the late 1920s when it switched to the 'first past the post' plurality system" -- why? DBrnstn 14:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhhh.... Don't ask! (whisper) politics.... I'd guess. Someone could and should do the research.
It is political, largely because the introduction of STV was never popular with the Unionists who controlled the Parliament (under whatever voting system) for its entire history. Contrary to myth it wasn't abolished to restrict the Nationalist voting/Catholic part of the population but instead in response to challenges to the Unionists from other sources such as Independent Unionists and the Labour Party who both won seats off the Unionists in 1925. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on the initiative that rescinded Preferential Voting in Ann Arbor, MI. Basically, the Republicans lost the mayor's office because the Democrats and a progressive party stopped splitting the vote by implementing PV, so they ran an initiative campaign, special election with low attendance, I think, and killed it. Probably similar reasons existed for getting rid of Bucklin voting in various states. Proportional representation was dumped in New York because, horrors, it was electing a few BLACKS and COMMIES! What else would you expect? --Abd (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation as well - plurality holds sway because it usually gives advantage to those who already have the power. And YES - definitely worth getting more history here! (AND FairVote has done more on that regard (for U.S.) than any other source I know.) At least one page here - [1]. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is IRV not Described or Lined to??

It's really quite remarkable: the article manages to get through many sections without actually describing what IRV is! And not a link to any other wikipedia article either. I would not have thought it possible to right an article on "The history of X" without actually saying what X is, and yet, here it is. Chafe66 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article badly needs a write-up of Australia and also more on Papua New Guinea and Fiji

The glaring hole in this article is the 80-year history of IRV in Australia and recent uses in Papua New Guinea and Fiji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRichie (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This remains true as of May 2011. I'll put in a couple links, but some Aussie should jump in...RRichie (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History and use of instant-runoff voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History and use of instant-runoff voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_and_use_of_instant-runoff_voting&oldid=821084693"