Talk:Wright system

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

The page does not seem to cite any sources to the Wright system itself, only to Meek's princliples and to the Gregory method, so it is difficult to verify that the explanation is correct.

Reply

It is a refinement of existing systems. It introduces a reiterative count where the vote count is reset and restarted on each iteration following a candidates exclusion from the count. The flow chart is self explanatory. Anyone who understands or has basic understanding of the various counting systems can understand it.

The current systems were designed to facilitate a manual count, They are outdated. The time required to undertake a reiterative manual count was prohibitive but with computer aided counting this is no longer a limitation. It better reflects the voters intention. No vote with a full value that expresses a preference for a continuing candidate skips that candidate or is transferred to lower preference candidate. You could, and I would recommend it. even scrap the Droop Wasted Quota. In counting the Australian Senate election it tales approx 5 mins per iteration. The number of iterations being the number of candidates minus the number of position to be elected Only the last Iteration counts in determining the election result. Try counting an election. And e it can and ooes produce s differnt result. Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.46.45.243 (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a ref to the system itself, but the article is still lacking any demonstration of notability (though I have seen comments elsewhere, so they should exist). Another problem is that much of the article is a cut-and-pasted from the original ref. Adpete (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison Table

Should the Wright system be included in the comparison table template at the link below?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Comparison_of_Schulze_to_preferential_voting_systems

1.126.108.98 (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is better than the outdated and flawed Hare-Clark system which was designed to facilitate a manual counting process. It uses the same method of distributing surplus votes as describe in the Gregory Weighted transfer system. Based on the value of the vote not the number of ballot papers. Currently used in the Western Australian Upper house elections. The main difference is the method of redistribution of Voters preferences from excluded candidates(s) It is more accurate and reflective of the voters intention than Meek. It accommodates Optional preferential voting where the vote exhausts by default. The number of iterations equals the number of candidates minus the number of position to be elected. It is designed for a conputerised count by removing a number of processes and distortions in the count that were introduced to facilitate a manual count. The Droop Quota being once such distortion. Totally unnecessary and undesirable. - Author 112.141.32.58 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]