Talk:Proportional representation/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd

First part of discussion between BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. Please do not modify this discussion.

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: You have re-inserted statements I reverted so I am again reverting them. Here are the reasons. 1, Link between constituent and representative: In your new first sentence, "ridings do not exist" is wrong (you contradict yourself in the next sentence - "half of the electoral ridings" - for this reason alone your revision should be reverted). Ridings exist in all PR systems, they are simply bigger than in an FPTP system. So your claim that "there is no link between voters and their parliamentary representatives" is wrong, only where the district encompasses "larger districts, especially those with a nationwide district" is the point justified but you have deleted that. Why? With STV there are no rules saying Nunavut cannot continue to be a single member district if that's what people want. When STV was used in Alberta and Manitoba all rural districts were single member; in the recent STV plan for the UK mentioned elsewhere in the article the Outer Hebrides would continue to be a single member district. Perhaps I misunderstand the word "ridings" which appears here for the first time in the article. I assume it means electoral "districts" but, not knowing Canada, I am not sure. In WP it is a good idea when a term is used for the first time to provide a link to the appropriate WP article. In "The disadvantage of the proportional representation system..." the first "The" is wrong because, as the rest of the article makes clear, there are other PR disadvantages: you must use the indefinite article. The next "the", in "of the proportional representation system", is also wrong: There is not one PR system but three (see the top of the article). Better would be "of proportional representation..." referring to just the concept. In MMP, you write, "half of the electoral ridings are elected through PR". That too is wrong, in NZ they have 50 list members and 70 districts and are thinking of fixing a 40:60 ratio; Lesotho has a still lower ratio. But you have deleted the words that hinted at this, "up to half". MMP is normally "mixed member proportional representational" even with an appended "system". You have deleted the essay template ({{essay|section|date=May 2015}} at the beginning of the section). Why? The rest of the section doesnt't have an essay-like style? The text you replaced may not have been much good but you have clearly not improved it. What point are you trying to make which wasn't already addressed? Can't you integrate it into the existing text? 2, Party list PR: you have added the statement "Unfortunately, this can result in candidates that appeal more to their respective political bases than to the general public as a whole." That may be so but you haven't provided a source. Please see WP:VERIFY: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." An example too would be good. --BalCoder (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: Please discusss your concerns about these sections here on this talk page so that we can come to an agreement about what to change and how. Simply re-introducing text which has been reverted for the reasons given above, as you have now done (21 Aug), will only result in it being reverted again. Party list PR section: "The parties each list their candidates according to direction from the party leader": that may be so in Ontario but elsewhere in the world lists are usually determined by party conferences or primaries. If you add a statement like that you must cite a reliable source for it, I refer you again to WP:VERIFY, a core Wikipedia policy. But better would be something more general which the text you replaced was. --BalCoder (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 1. BalCoder The use of the term "accusation" as opposed to disadvantage implies that the disadvantage is false. Please avoid using biased terms! It is important to preserve wikipedia's net neutrality policy. In fact, this same article has previously had the term "accusation" replaced by "concern". You have also confused proportional representation with mixed member proportional representation. In a mixed member proportional representation there are electoral ridings, however, they are approximately half the size as the equivalent FPTP system. The smaller ridings affect rural residents the most. In a proportional representation system, candidates DO NOT represent ridings. In a FPTP system, not only do candidates represent ridings, they live in their respective ridings. Moreover, in the Canadian House of Commons, elected officials address the Speaker of the House and refer to each other by their riding names. For example, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is referred to as the Member from Papineau. This ensures regional representation. In the PR system, all candidates for a political party could reside in one city. This results in regional exclusion. 2. In a closed list system, the party leader selects the order of the list; as is the case in selecting a cabinet. The result is members that appeal more to their party base. This is similar to how in the United States democratic and republican primaries, where candidates only need to secure support from their respective parties, candidates appeal to their political base. Only the primaries are complete, the same candidates change their campaign style to win the support of the general public. This is one of the fundamental disadvantages of a closed list PR system. There is no mechanism for voters to eject candidates, so long as these candidates are supported by the senior leadership of their parties. Contrarily, is a FPTP system, party leaders themselves can lose their seats. In the 2011 Canadian general election, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe both lost their seats. This would have been impossible in a PR system. 3. "District" is an American term. "Congressman" is also an American term. The United States of America does not have a parliamentary democracy. "Riding" is the term used in parliamentary democracies. "Member of Parliament" is the term used for an elected official in parliamentary democracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 02:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC) At least we are now communicating. One or two of your changes from Aug.23 are OK, but most are wrong, confused or confusing, or contain wild claims, as I have already pointed out. So I am reverting them all again. Please read WP:BRD, we are now in the discussion stage so do not re-apply them until we have finished discussing them here. What "Proportional representation" is, is discussed in the article lead. There are five citations there, in paragraph 2, supporting the article. One of them, ref.6, is Canadian. This is what it says on p.22: "Proportional representation includes three basic types of systems, List PR, STV, Mixed member PR". When you write "In a proportional representation system, candidates DO NOT represent ridings" to which of these 3 systems does your term "proportional representation" refer? Once we understand what "proportional representation" means to you we can clear up why you think "candidates DO NOT represent ridings". "The use of the term 'accusation'..." OK, now I understand. For me the word is inoffensive but I have no problem with changing it to "concern", "criticism" would be better (stronger). "they are approximately half the size as the equivalent FPTP system." Not half, twice the size of the equivalent FPTP system. At least, "approximately" is an improvement, the original, "up to half", was better. "The party leader selects the order of the list". You are welcome to add that but only if you can find a reliable source that says that. If you had written "leaders" you could cite the Electoral Reform Society and Fairvote USA, then it would be OK. But the original text said parties determine the order and that is sufficient, the more important point, as you have written, is that with closed lists voters have no say. That party leaders can be ousted under FPTP is not so generally true as you think. In Britain leaders usually occupy safe seats and are not at the slightest risk of losing them. This is even more of a problem in the US. Only under STV and some open-list PR systems are there are no safe seats. But you write "This would have been impossible in a PR system." Quite wrong. "'Riding' is the term used in parliamentary democracies." Oh, really. Ever heard of England, "mother of parliaments" etc.? There they use "constituency", "riding" in this sense is completely unknown. Australia uses "electorate" or "electoral district" or "electoral division". "Riding" is only used in Canada. All these words are jargon, except "district" which is plain English meaning an area of a country so we use that. That the US uses it is irrelevant. Please answer the question about PR above. --BalCoder (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC) BalCoder 1. One of the primary reasons the article was edited was that the tone of the article did not follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. For instance, terms "accusation", "barely", and "according to their parties determination of priorities" are highly problematic. An article on proportional representation must not read as an essay supporting proportional representation. Language must be concise and accurately written. 2. To be clear, orange is not a type of yellow nor is it a type of red. Orange is a mixture of two colours. Likewise, mixed member proportional representation is NOT a type of PR system nor is it a type of FPTP system. It is a hybrid system that combines the two aforementioned voting systems. Similarly, single transferable voting (STV), and instant-runoff voting (IRV) are types of alternative voting, which are distinctly different than both pluralistic voting and proportional representation. In order to be inclusive, I have included both STV and IRV is the most recent update of the article. 3. Different nations use different terms for district. In order for the article to be most accurate, the appropriate term will be used when referring to each respective country. For instance, it would be problematic to refer to Canadian provinces as states. Likewise, it would be equally inaccurate to refer to Canadian ridings as districts. 4. Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text without substantial corrections to tone and content, it will be removed immediately. Please voice any and all concerns you have to the talk page prior to making any further changes. While the feedback you have provided is well-intentioned, please use a spelling and grammar check prior to posting on the talk page in order to engage in a more productive discussion. For instance, avoid starting sentences with "but", and ensure all sentences include both a subject and a predicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC) OK. You use "proportional representation" as a synonym for "party list PR". This blatantly contradicts the literature, plenty of which you can find cited in the article, and just confuses readers. In the Party list PR section you start: "In a proportional representation system, parties each list ...". This is a wrong statement, STV is also a PR system and does not use lists. What you mean is "In a party list PR system...". In the "Link between constituent and representative" section you begin "A criticism of the proportional representation system is as districts do not exist...". This is wrong - as I wrote in my first Talk posting to you all PR systems use districts. Even if you just mean party list PR systems you are wrong. Two list PR systems are discussed in the article, Denmark and Zurich, both of which use small districts; Zurich had to change its electoral rules because some of its districts were too small, preventing smaller parties from being elected. Further on you write "While PR does not have districts, other forms of alternative voting such as mixed member proportional, single transferable vote (STV)...". This is hair-raisingly wrong, MMP and STV are not "alternative voting" (which is not a PR system so not of interest in this article), they are PR - see article lead and refs. Text like this will only bemuse or baffle readers. Your contributions have to reflect reliable sources, your personal opinions are not of interest, read WP:VERIFY again: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". One place you could start looking for sources might be the Ontario citizen's assembly which recently chose MMP (http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca). Before saving your changes to WP spend time revising them to avoid unfelicitous formulations (like "parties each list their candidates according to direction from their political parties"). There is no hurry (WP:NORUSH). I am reverting your edits. If you continue to add unsourced statements they will be reverted. --BalCoder (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC) BalCoder 1. This is a table listing the major categories of voting systems: PR, Mixed, and Plurality as well as the subcategories. Please study the following table: Voting Systems: Proportional Representation Mixed Systems Plurality Systems Single Transferable Vote Additional Member System First Past the Post Party List PR(closed/open/local) Alternative Vote Plus Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting Mixed Member Proportional Block Vote Limited Vote Supplementary Vote Two-Round System Borda Count Notice MMP is NOT a type of PR, but rather a Mixed System. 2. I have included more sources and subtitles in order to make the article more readable. 3. I have included closed list, open list, and local list PR systems in the list PR section. The STV system is not listed in the List PR section as the following section of the WP article is dedicated towards STV. 4. DO NOT continue to re-post the same erroneous text which includes personal opinions, poor sentence structure, missing or incorrect content, little or no sources, and alarmingly biased tones. It will be removed immediately. If you wish to contribute, consider EDITING the text in order to correct the mistakes in tone and content, and post it to the talk section only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) MMP is not PR but a "mixed system" (the table above is from the ERS -see ref.5): Well, yes, but there is actually little disagreement here: there are basically only two PR systems, but MMP being "mixed" (by which is meant hybrid) and using list PR, its results are proportional, it produces proportionally representative parliaments, so it is PR, like it or not, and the ERS agrees: MMP "is broadly proportional." You can't ignore the sources. And to delete the words "is also usually considered a distinct PR method" from para.2 of the lead leaving an incomplete, meaningless sentence borders on vandalism. Link between constituent and representative: Progress. You finally seem to be getting a grasp on what PR is. And now it is only open and closed party lists that do not have districts, but still no source provided for this wildly incorrect statement - Denmark and Zurich, mentioned in my previous post, both use open lists and, of course, districts. The original text is all gone, that with STV there are counter arguments and its sources, and the questioning of the importance of the link, with its sources. That is not acceptable, you can't delete sourced text, you can only add your text. Subtitles are inappropriate and unnecessary: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." (MOS:LAYOUT). "Plurality voting systems" are not PR so shouldn't be in the article, although I freely concede the original text should have made clearer the advantage of single member districts for the constituency link. The section "Wider benefits to society" is gone, by mistake?. Again, it was sourced - not acceptable. Party list PR: This section needed rewriting and sources added, but this is not an improvement. Open list: "Voters can then rank..." Rank? I don't think so. Unsourced. Local lists: All unsourced. Many of your edits are careless, e.g.STV "retains the same constituencies as FPTP. Multi-seat constituencies are used, ..." and ".. as multiple districts are combined"!. I refer you again to WP:NORUSH - do your editing in your sandbox (WP:ABOUTSAND) and take your time. OK, I wont revert. But now I challenge you to restore the sourced text you deleted, to correct the above errors, and to integrate your changes into the original text, which is what WP requires you to do. --BalCoder (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC) BalCoder 1. Thank you for not reinserting the same erroneous text. I appreciate the olive branch. That being said, please review Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Civility policy. Section 1.D. 'Direct rudeness' states "The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")". In the past, you have made uncivil comments such as "like it or not", "many of your edits are careless", "this is hair raisingly wrong", "most [of your changes] are wrong, confused or confusing, or contain wild claims", and "You finally seem to be getting a grasp on what PR is". A civil dialogue will help the progression of collaborative contributions. Similarly, please consider using a spelling and grammar check on a word processor, and carefully review your talk page text prior to posting it. It is difficult for readers to decipher your contributions when sentences lack a subject or a predicate. 2. I appreciate that you have confirmed that there are only two PR systems: party list and STV, and MMP is not a PR system but rather a mixed/hybrid system. This is also consistent with the introduction of the WP article. The subtitles in the article are necessary as they clearly distinguish the subcategories for the reader. For example, party list PR can either be a closed list, open list, or local list. In my prior edits, I made the mistake of grouping Party List PR together and some of the assertions I made should have been more specific. For example, I made points about PR in general when I should have specifically mentioned closed-list PR. Similarly, you have made assertions about open list PR, when you actually meant local list PR. 3. Although the article is about PR systems, and not specific mixed systems, or plurality systems, PR systems can be greater understood when compared to other voting systems. An article that excluded any mention of MMP or FPTP, for example, would be missing these comparative qualities. 4. The section about STV that was incorrectly located in the party list section was removed. STV is the following section of the article. I briefly considered transferring the information there. However, it was only slightly sourced, poorly worded and most importantly it was redundant as the same information was already present in the STV section of the article. 5. You have mentioned that the article required more sources and examples to substantiate some of the information that has been presented. I agree. I have now included the example of Israel, with 2 sources, as a closed list PR system where the entire nation is one district. Therefore Israel does not have districts where parliamentary representatives are elected to represent constituencies. Your previous assertion that "all PR systems use districts (plural)" is therefore empirically incorrect. I will continue to add more sources and examples to strengthen the article. In the mean time, do not revert to the previous specious text as this will only slow down the correction process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: 2, " and MMP is not a PR system": that is not what I wrote, MMP is undubitably a PR system, a fact confirmed by 3 sources in the lead, one of which I quoted to you in my 24 Aug.post. You can't ignore these sources just because you don't like them. "you have made assertions about open list PR, when you actually meant local list PR." Nope, I didn't. 3 "Although the article is about PR systems": No, to be pedantic it is about PR period. MMP is a hybrid system and a PR system, to imply that Germany and NZ, both MMP users, do not use a PR system is fatuous. I think Ontario has recently chosen MMP; that will not have been because it is not a PR system but because it is. 4, The STV text was deleted from the "Link between constituent and representative" section, where it made the germane point, with sources (slight(!) or not), that multi-member districts are not without advantages for constituents. In your point 3 you write "PR systems can be greater understood when compared to other voting systems" and then here you delete a valid comparison! That the importance of this link can be questioned remains deleted, probably because you don't like it. 5, Israel is an exception and was already mentioned in text you deleted (see my first post to you on 20 Aug, para.1). That it has a single nationwide district is uncontentious, more useful would be a source confirming that Israelis "do not have parliamentary representatives to meet their specific regional needs" - perhaps they have another mechanism for that. Even more important is that you should source your general claim "The disadvantage of both the closed list and open list proportional representation systems is as districts do not exist" but you can't because such a source doesn't exist. In the lead I demand that you restore "is also usually considered a distinct PR method" which you deleted from the sentence beginning "Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component", and that the 3 sources supporting that statement be preserved. As it stands the sentence is missing verb and predicate (and you complain to me about missing predicates - chutzpah). --BalCoder (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC) BalCoder 1. You have stated that Ontario used MMP. This is incorrect. There was a referendum in 2007, however Ontario voters chose to retain the FPTP system. Please take the time to verify your assertions prior to posting them. 2. We have reached a consensus that there are only two types of PR: STV and PR List. This is consistent with the article, which clearly states there are only two types of PR. However, you have contradicted yourself (and the introduction of the article) in suggesting there are three types of PR (MMP being the third). To be clear, MMP is a mixed/hybrid system as it shares components of both plurality and PR voting systems. While this article is primarily focused on PR, other electoral systems, i.e. mixed or plurality systems, are well within the scope of the article. 3. I have continued to add sources to strengthen the WP article. It is worth pointing out that many of the sources which exist in the article are from websites advocating for electoral reform. You have recommended the Citizens Assembly for Electoral Reform in Ontario and FairVoteUSA as reliable sources. However, these are actually advocacy groups for electoral reform whose goal is to replace plurality voting systems with PR voting systems. Therefore, the information contained in many of these sources may require omission or In-text attribution (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) in accordance with WP's Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. 4. The STV section was removed from the "Party List" section as it was redundant and out of place. However, it is relevant to the "Link between constituent and representative" section. You mention that there are advantages to multi-member districts. This is accurate as some constituents feel more comfortable speaking to someone from their own party. This omission will be rectified. That being said, please take the time to consider why some opinionated material had to be rewritten from a clean slate. Just like building a castle, sometimes it is easier to build it on solid ground than to repeatedly rebuild the same castle on a swamp-- I understand this was a stretch for a Monty Python reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "We have reached a consensus that there are only two types of PR" - you are here knowingly misrepresenting my position. But that is irrelevant, I refer you for the forth time to WP:VERIFY which requires articles to reflect sources. Three sources saying MMP is PR are provided in para.2 of the article, so you have no choice in the matter, MMP has to be treated as a PR system, an entirely uncontroversial position. Since you have not responded to my demand from my previous post, I have restored the truncated sentence preceding the citation of those three sources. --BalCoder (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC) BalCoder I agree that WP requires articles to reflect sources. Therefore, I have provided sources below that should clear up your confusion as to what mixed systems are: "Mixed electoral systems attempt to combine the positive attributes of both plurality/majority (or other) and PR electoral systems. In a mixed system, there are two electoral systems using different formulae running alongside each other. The votes are cast by the same voters and contribute to the election of representatives under both systems. One of those systems is a plurality/majority system (or occasionally an ‘other’ system), usually a single-member district system, and the other a List PR system. There are two forms of mixed system. When the results of the two types of election are linked, with seat allocations at the PR level being dependent on what happens in the plurality/majority (or other) district seats and compensating for any disproportionality that arises there, the system is called a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system." "C. Mixed Systems Some jurisdictions have chosen to use a mixture of majority and proportional representation systems in order to achieve the benefits of both. Since the late 1940s in Germany, for example, one half of the seats in the Bundestag (the lower house of parliament) have been filled by plurality, using single-member constituencies, while the other half are filled using party lists, according to the d'Hondt system. Voters mark two choices on their ballot papers: one from among a list of parties, the other from among a slate of candidates for district representation." To conclude, as verified by the above sources, there are actually three voting systems: plurality/majoritarian, mixed, and PR. 'Mixed systems' is a distinct voting system category which shares characteristics of both PR and plurality systems. The fact that mixed voting systems such as MMP share characteristics with PR systems does not negate the existence of this distinct and critical third category. Additionally, a plethora of sources within the article clearly state that the two PR types are STV and party list. It is important not to confuse readers by inserting contradictions into the article. I encourage you to follow WP:VERIFY policy, and thoroughly research mixed systems prior to capriciously denying their existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 11:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Comment - I have moved the comments into indents and put the "table" into an actual table. I hope that this does not upset either Balcoder or Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. This was made to simply allow the comment thread to be more easily read, not to particularly help either editor. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Second part of the saga

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: "'Mixed systems' is a distinct voting system category": well, which is it, a voting system, as you write in the lead, or a voting system category? A good faith editor, comparing O'Neal with the other sources, would realize that a researcher in the Canadian parliament's research service in 1993 does not trump the world's academics, and would not use the source, especially as O'Neal does not mention "mixed member" or "MMP" at all. A good faith editor would avoid the inconsistency of questioning the reliability as sources of advocacy groups such as Fairvote USA, and then using the Electoral Reform Society's classification of voting systems to set aside Forder at Oxford UK, Amy at Mt.Holyoke College, Mass., and the Law Commission of Canada. A good faith editor would realize that voting system classifications are irrelevant in the lead because the concern there is to summarize ways to produce a proportional result - two of the methods mentioned are not even voting systems. In the body a classification, two tier systems, is used as a section title to add structure. The term is particularly appropriate because two tier apportionment exists specifically to improve proportional representation, the subject of the article. So a good faith editor would realize that re-naming the "Two tier systems" section to "Mixed systems" is inappropriate, since some mixed systems (all but one) are not proportional, and some of the following sub-sections (all but one) have nothing to do with mixed systems. Placing "Mixed systems" at the same level as "PR electoral systems" as if it were something other than PR, is wrong and will mislead readers. In the same way, a good faith editor of Template:Electoral systems would not re-name "Semi-proportional representation" to "Mixed systems" because most of the following sub-sections, e.g.cumulative voting, have nothing to do with mixed systems; in fact, a good faith editor would be in no doubt that such a crude change would be tantamount to vandalism. A good faith editor with not even the most tenuous understanding of party list systems would refrain from changing the article's party list PR section, regardless of how bad it is, and if nonetheless tempted would provide sources for any outlandish claims - arguing from the specific (Netherlands/Israel) to the general (open & closed lists have no districts) is a logical fallacy and no good. Understanding that the article concerns PR, a good faith editor would realize that an extensive discourse on closed party lists in single nationwide districts would be more appropriate in the Party list article (the Template:Main link to which you deleted). A good faith editor, especially a beginner, would respect WP rules and guidelines when they are pointed out, and take care not to delete a section ("Wider benefits to society") and other sourced text inadvertently, or without explanation. A good faith editor, knowing that Canada is not the only FPTP user, would hesitate to claim for FPTP the universal benefit of facilitating the removal of party leaders from parliament when the Canadian example is probably due more to the weak identification of Canadians with political parties. Your edits (to say nothing of your Talk posts) have not demonstrated good faith so, since no admin has deigned to respond to my WP:ANI request to block you, I have no alternative but to revert. (As a final tip I refer you to Help:Show preview about avoiding clogging up the change log). --BalCoder (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Perhaps Admins haven't responded since they may end up blocking you both due to WP:BOOMERANG? You're argument of "Admins haven't done what I wanted anything, so I'll take matters into my own hands" (paraphrased) is very weak grounds for an WP:EDITWAR and reverting, though I do agree with your mention of using the "Preview" button to avoid "clogging up the change log" as you put it. Too be completely frank, this needs either several RfCs for each section of disputed content, or a few WP:3O's from interested editors, or perhaps simply going to WP:DRN. Have either of you actually sought any of these options? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC); edited 10:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Dr Crazy 102: Thanks for your comments. I was prepared, almost expected, to be blocked too, at least that would have been a response. I reject your characterization: my grounds for reverting are documented repeatedly and at length above. Having tried reasoning on the Talk page, invoking WP:BRD, invoking WP:ANI and asking for help or suggestions on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics page (which is what a RfC would have done) I think I have done enough. So I am back to simply reverting again. I wasn't aware of WP:3O and WP:DRN but if you or anyone else want to try them you are welcome. --BalCoder (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC) BalCoder, I was perhaps a bit harsh with the wording of your reasoning for reverting (and have changed it), but what you wanted was for a response and for someone to be blocked (either Ontario, yourself or both). I would also like to point out that there is no onus on outside participants to mediate unless they are acting as volunteers for one of the above services, or they are an Admin volunteering their time. An RfC actually goes out to a lot more people than a single WikiProject. Have a look at the Feedback Request Service (a.k.a. RfC Members list) for what I mean, though it is good that you also put up a notice at the WikiProject Politics page. If you want me to, I can attempt to help with any resolution attempts you and/or Ontario want to make (through technical help or suggestions), or I can ask for an Admin to either mediate themselves or WP:PING another Admin who has more experience or inclination. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Dr Crazy 102: Thanks again for your help - you are the only one to have offered any. I would be delighted if you could involve an admin. Unfortunately, if they do not know a little of the subject it might cost them a little time. Apart from hitting the undo button from time to time, I do not intend to spend any more time on User Ontario - his latest post below "I am thrilled..." etc (01:08 15 Sep) shows how pointless it is - but of course if any admin asks for clarification I will provide it. --BalCoder (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC) BalCoder I am thrilled we have finally come to a consensus that 'mixed systems' is a distinct voting system. I noticed that you had previously removed the mention of mixed systems from the article several months prior to my contributions "(cur | prev) 11:27, 11 December 2014‎ BalCoder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75,151 bytes) (+17,245)‎ . . (Lead: compress (WP:LEADLENGTH), simplify. Body: replace STV; change mixed to two-tier systems, replace MMP, add biproportional rep.; add sortition, some page nos.) (undo | thank)". This critical language has now been restored. I have added three scholarly articles to the already lengthy list of sources on the topic of mixed electoral systems. . Hopefully this ends the contention about the existence of mixed systems. You have argued "some mixed systems (all but one) are not proportional". I encourage you to conduct research to substantiate this opinion and contribute sourced text. You might want to consider adding content to 'Additional Member System', and 'Alternative Vote Plus' in order to clarify why you feel AMS and AVP are less proportional mixed systems compared to MMP; which as a hybrid system is only somewhat proportional. You have previously asserted that "all PR systems use districts". I am relieved that you have now observed that the Netherlands and Israel as well as the Ukraine and Russia (when they used PR) use party list PR without delineated districts. That is to say, these nations are not subdivided into local constituencies, but rather the entire country is one zone. This fact is particularly relevant to the section 'Link between constituent and representative'. However, I am deeply disappointed by your intentionally abrasive behaviour. Please treat other editors with the same level of respect with which you wish to be treated. Please take the time to practice good faith by researching your claims and post sourced contributions as I have done. Alternatively, if you do not wish to take the time and effort to research the topic and post sourced contributions to the article, you might want to consider pursuing other topics instead. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Umm, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, what are you saying in your second sentence? I think you may be wanting to use a Wikipedia:Diff link instead of showing the text of the said diff as the diff link shows far more information as well as the relevant content changes. At any rate, this seems to be the diff Ontario is referring to. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Dr Crazy 102 Thank you for your mediation. I am disappointed that BalCoder has chosen not to research the topic and post sourced contributions, and instead has decided to periodically and arbitrarily revert the WP article. That being said, he/she has claimed that "some mixed systems (all but one) are not proportional". Although there was no sourced research to substantiate this opinion, it does bring up a valid point; if the article includes some Semi-proportional representation systems such as MMP, why not others such as Alternative Vote Plus, Additional Member System, and Majority bonus system? I have therefore included other mixed electoral systems, and included them in the article. So far, I have simply transferred existing content from their respective WP pages. I have also restructured the article to reposition 'Two-tier party list systems', 'Biproportional apportionment', and 'Sortition' into the 'Party List' PR section as these are not types of mixed electoral systems. I would welcome a fellow editor who is willing to put the time and effort into researching the topic and post sourced contributions.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC) I am hardly mediating compared to some of what I have seen, though I suppose I am in a small way. I have discussed BalCoder's reversion behaviour above, though I can understand where they are coming from; 'no one seems to have noticed or acted to mediate, they decided to attempt to solve the problem themselves'. While this is highly discouraged outside of exceptional circumstances, per WP:BRD and WP:IAR, it is understandable. To be frank with you as well, you seem to be a bit passive-aggressive with your own posts. Do not call out conduct unless absolutely needed, and try to do so in a productive way, not an "I don't like it" statement, as this can inflame the situation and just leads to general enmity. To be honest, I don't understand much of the political systems and can hardly remember how I came to this page (fuzzy memory of perhaps WP:ANI, rather ironic really). I have little opinion on the inclusion or exclusions of the content as I don't understand the systems. However, your statement: "I have simply transferred existing content from their respective WP pages," does raise some concerns as that typically needs a Template:Copied inserted to maintain a level of credibility and to show that it isn't actually your own work but, in fact, is someone else's (likely several someone else's). I'm not too fussed as your edits do seem to be in good-faith and you are still new to Wiki according to your account logs, so this is to inform you not reprimand. I will try to find an Admin to try better mediation, and to review the ANI posts. I will also start a new RfC about the disputed content, if that is still desired. Please remember to use indents (a.k.a. :) when posting comments that are in reply to something (preferably under what is being replied to), Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC); minor edit 09:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Proposition - Would either BalCoder or Ontario Teacher BFA BEd be opposed to moving this discussion to WP:DRN? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC) Dr Crazy 102: Thanks again for your perseverence. A pity that no-one with understanding of the subject seems willing to help, but understandable. I have looked at a few WP:DRN items and am dismayed by the amount of input required from the protagonists so I prefer User:Abecedare's talk page suggestion to User:Ontario, which amounts to WP:BRD: Ontario has been bold, I have reverted, now we discuss item by item. I am waiting for Ontario to propose the first change he wants to make. --BalCoder (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC) DRN only requires as much or as little input as you wish to provide. Considering how much you have discussed above, I didn't think this would be much of a problem. If BalCoder (you) and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd want, I can attempt to act as a mediator here instead of moving to DRN for discussion of each "item"/section, but I would have to act in a similar way to DRN volunteers/mediators and have you both agree and respect the same type of "rules" (I promise nothing stringent and restrictive). Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Dr Crazy 102: You will have noted that in his response Ontario ignored your proposition. I expect him to continue to avoid discussion, because he dosen't have a leg to stand on. So I prefer to play his game and have provided some proposals as he requested. He will avoid answering, perhaps with the excuse I haven't provided sources (he wants sources that say his fanciful statements are wrong?) Please continue to keep an eye on this. --BalCoder (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC) The approach of User:BalCoder to revert all edits Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, in particular minor edits Help:Minor edit such as: spelling and grammar errors, the addition of Wiki-links Help:Link (for closed, open, and local list PR), formatting that does not change the meaning of a page (such as adding a table based on existing data or creating subtitles for closed, open and local list PR), obvious factual errors (such as updating that Russia uses MMP now instead of PR), and fixing layout errors, has been counterproductive. The Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary states: "Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest.". The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle also states: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.". In order to avoid Wikipedia:Edit warring, please follow the BRD cycle which states "A bold change during an edit war should be an adaptive edit to discourage further warring and not to escalate it; it should never be another revert.". This means mass reverts of another editor's content is unacceptable; it causes edit warring. Instead, reversions must incorporate minor edits, and only revert the specific areas of disagreement. Adaptive edits are how Wikipedia:Consensus is built. Once the updated version is restored, I look forward to User:BalCoder's proposal of specific adaptive reversions he/she wishes to make substantiated by sourced information. Any sourced information will be considered. Adaptive edits are a method of avoiding a Filibuster by striving to reach a consensus. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC) I am aware of BalCoder's actions, and this has been discussed above. I have assumed good-faith on both parts considering the edit-war between both you and BalCoder. I have also assumed that both you and BalCoder are wanting to actually help the article but have come to loggerheads. Please see my above reply to BalCoder about whether you and BalCoder would appreciate Talk-Page moderation instead of DRN. For now, I would suggest starting a sub-section (i.e. === [area of article] ===) for each area of contention but to keep the section intro brief. This at least allows talk-page discussion of the contested edits. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: My proposals for specific reversions? Here are three, which seem to be the basic misunderstandings on which your ideas are built (please supply the citation and the exact words you refer to): In your "Party list PR" section: "Pure proportional representation systems such as closed and open list do not use delineated electoral districts". Please provide two solid sources, one academic, for this. I first asked for these sources on Aug.26. You still have not provided one and are now spreading this mistake to other WP articles. I'll make it easier for you: ignore the "pure" bit. (NB. www.proportional-representation.org is not acceptable because it concerns only its own specific "one zone" system). MMP is semi-proportional. You don't actually say this in the article in so many words, but you have done on the Talk page, in Template:Electoral systems and in the MMP article, and you have moved MMP from "PR electoral systems" to a new "Mixed electoral systems" section and added there a link to the semi-PR article. You did that despite the three sources (one of which you deleted) in para.2 of the article as currently protected (refs 6,7,8) that contradict this. Please provide three solid sources for this including two academic sources, just like the sources you choose to overlook. You wrote in User:Abecedare's talk page : "The principal point of contention is User:BalCoder's belief that mixed electoral systems do not exist." Please identify one place anywhere in WP where I say this, and my exact words. If you can't provide these sources (they don't exist) please revert all related changes. --BalCoder (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC) BalCoder 1. You are required to follow the Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary policy. The onus is on you to provide sources (ideally scholarly) to substantiate your reversions. You must also target only the areas of contention without inadvertently reverting minor edits Help:Minor edit. 2. Pure Proportional Representation does NOT include delineated districts. As requested, here are three sources (including two which are scholarly) as evidence. References 12-18 also cover this content. "pure proportional representation… This means that there would be: no districts, or zones of multi-member districts” “Systems of representation can be conceived in territorial terms: legislators represent territoriality defined constituencies or districts at one end of the spectrum and the whole country in systems of pure proportional representation.” “the classic proportional systems are the “pure” forms, such as those in Israel and the Netherlands, where there is effectively one electoral district (the whole nation) whose vote totals determine the allocation of all the parliamentary seats” 3. MMP is a Mixed Electoral System, not a PR System. Reference 3 through 11 covers this content (References 9-11 are scholarly). You have previously stated: "so it is PR, like it or not" (26 Aug 15) "MMP is undubitably [you mean indubitably] a PR system" (27 Aug 15) "Placing "Mixed systems" at the same level as "PR electoral systems" as if it were something other than PR, is wrong and will mislead readers" (14 Sep 15). Mixed systems definitely exist and they are a distinct category separate from PR systems. 'Mixed Electoral Systems' is a critical third category in between majority/plurality systems and PR systems. Please provide scholarly sources to substantiate why you believe MMP is not a mixed system, or who you feel mixed electoral systems do not exist.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: As I expected you have not answered the questions, and true to form employ smoke and mirrors by changing them. The question concerned "Pure proportional representation systems such as closed and open list...". Closed and open list PR are not pure in the sense used by the cited sources, except in the exceptional cases of the Netherlands and Israel, already pointed out in the article, and one or two others. All others use multiple districts, most of Europe uses only open lists with multiple districts, two examples of which, as I pointed out before (25 Aug.), are already discussed in the article and which you simply ignore. As to the word "pure", which you introduced only recently, why not say what you mean by it? Most readers would probably guess it distinguishes the basic mechanisms, party list and STV, from the hybrid. The question concerned "MMP is semi-proportional" not "MMP is mixed" which is uncontroversial and unimportant. You have no sources but that doesn't stop you from using the fantasy to drastically change the articles structure. Biproportional apportionment and sortition? They don't fit under "Party list PR" but put them there anyway, no-one will notice; and with a careless copy/paste you propagate this nonsense to other articles. You petulantly repeat that I think "mixed electoral systems do not exist" although you know it's untrue, and anyone can check. You add a dozen sources for no obvious reason other than to convince me that "mixed systems" exist - why so many? more smoke and mirrors. I reject the term because it causes confusion, as one of your sources (Massicotte) confirms: "Numerous scholars use the concept but do not agree on what it means exactly". But you know better: "mixed systems" are "critical". Why? No reason given. You do not grasp the elementary distinction between the means to an end: hybrid (or "mixed" if you insist), and the end itself: proportional representation. This article is interested in PR, whatever the means used to achieve it. So we can call these claims of yours what they are: lies. You cannot find sources for them but require me to find a source to refute them? Risible. And you don't even respect the sources that are already in the article as I have repeatedly demonstrated, e.g.refs 4, 5, and 6 6,7,and 8 (the most immediately accessible source so you deleted it). Even your own sources: You maintain FPTP enables even party leaders to lose their safe seats. But your source says that Ignatieff's seat was "expected to produce a tight race – as it did in 2008 and 2006", not safe at all, decidedly marginal. You go on a bit about WP:Revert only when necessary, overlooking that it says "revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration". I have demonstrated repeatedly and at length that your edits are not "in good faith" so the article doesn't apply. For whatever reason, you are unscrupulously sabotaging the PR article (and other political articles). --BalCoder (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC) BalCoder, You have stated that the results of MMP are “produces proportionally representative parliaments” (26 Aug 15). However, the results of MMP are almost always semi-proportional. Sometimes the FPTP seats greatly outnumber the list-PR seats (Mexico uses 32 list-PR seats, and 128 FPTP seats). Other times, approximately half of the seats are distributed through party-list PR, and the other half are distributed through FPTP. Occasionally, there are Overhang seats which make the results slightly more proportional, but not every nation with MPP uses overhang seats (in fact, most don't) and the quantity of overhang seats are almost always insufficient to achieve full proportionality. Furthermore, many MMP systems require a minimum threshold of 4 or 5% in order for smaller parties to acquire seats, further distorting proportionality. Here are five modern examples of MMP electoral results which were semi-proportional: In the Bolivian general election, 2014, the Movement for Socialism received 61% of the popular vote, and received 67% of the seats. In the Egyptian parliamentary election, 2011–12, the Nationalist Party received 37% of the popular vote, and 46% of the seats. In the Hungarian parliamentary election, 2014, the Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Union received 44.5% of the popular vote, and 67% of the seats. In the Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008, the Communist Party of Nepal received 29% of the popular vote, and 38% of the seats. In the Romanian presidential election, 2014, the Social Democratic Union received 37% of the popular vote, and 50% of the seats. That being said, regardless of whether or not you still believe your claim that MMP always achieves fully proportional results (which I have proven is false) nothing can possibly justify your persistent denial that MMP falls under mixed electoral systems. You have been unable to find a single source disproving this fact, yet continue to object to its inclusion in the article. You even incredulously portray my inclusion of mixed electoral systems in the article as “sabotage” even though the term mixed electoral systems was already present in the article prior to my contributions. Furthermore, it was you who renamed mixed to two-tier systems (11 Dec 14) several months prior to my edits without providing any sources to explain this nonsensical change. If you wish to demonstrate good faith you must A: follow Wikipedia’s Wikipedia:Civility policy and desist from making personal insults such as calling someone a liar, B: follow Wikipedia’s Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary policy and discontinue reverting Help:Minor edit such as the update that Russia now uses MMP instead of list-PR and the addition of Wiki-links Help:Link (for closed, open, and local list PR), and C: conduct research and provide sources Wikipedia:Citing sources for all of your reversions editing only the specific areas you strongly disagree with. This will require you to follow the Wikipedia:There is no deadline policy and take the time to conduct research, provide sources, and conduct an adaptive edit incorporating all of the minor edits and agreeable material which makes up the vast majority of the content that I have added to the article.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: More of the same: half-truths, misrepresentations, and a total absence of any attempt to discusss the arguments. You still don't get WP:VERIFY: it doesn't matter how unproportional specific MMP results are, important is only what reliable sources say. Refs 4, 5 & 6 6,7,& 8 in the protected article are the sources for the statement that MMP "is also usually considered a distinct PR method". Your new ref 26 is another, it does not show what you purport, except when the system is "deliberately" designed to compromise proportionality. With your MMP examples you again argue fallaciously from the specific to the general. Germany and NZ? - you ignore them and hope no-one notices. Overhang seats by definition impair, not improve, proportionality, and are discussed in the article. Minimum thresholds, too. The Hungarian 2014 election is also mentioned. I dont claim MMP produces fully proportional results, nor do I deny MMP is a mixed system (how many times must I say that?). You mis-represent (by qualifying it) my use of the word "sabotage". "Two tier" is most certainly supported by sources. Anyone can inspect my WP contribs and judge my good faith. If you don't want to be called a liar answer the questions, which you asked for, "in good faith". Once you have been banned from WP I will change the line for Russia in the "List of countries" to "MMP". --BalCoder (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) BalCoder has stated "I dont (he/she means don't) claim MMP produces fully proportional results, nor do I deny MMP is a mixed system (how many times must I say that?)". Therefore a consensus has been reached that A. MMP is in fact a mixed electoral systems, and B. MMP does not produce fully proportional results. BalCoder has cited (without sources) that Germany is a rare exception of a fully proportional MMP system. This is incorrect. In the 2013 German federal election, the Alternative For Germany and Free Democratic Party received approximately 2 million votes each and received no seats whereas the Christian Social Union in Bavaria received approximately 3 million votes and received 56 seats. Additionally, I have, in good faith, given BalCoder an extra 3 weeks after the article was locked temporarily to provide sources to substantiate his/her arguments. So far, this user has not provided any sources whatsoever to justify his/her reversions. If any users would like to contribute to the article, please remember that edits and reversions are expected to be sourced. Users are also expected to follow the Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary rule be performing adaptive edits in order to avoid deliberate Wikipedia:Edit warring. Users are also expected to avoid violating the Wikipedia:Civility policy, which specifically forbids personal attacks Wikipedia:No personal attacks (such as calling someone an unscrupulous liar or resorting to ad hominem attacks). Users are expected to use strikeout tags (HTML strikeout tags) and apologize for uncivil comments. I look forward to engaging in a civilized discussion with other editors on this topic. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC) User:Drcrazy102: Can you help again? Please stop user Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. Either again fully protect the article as from Sep.17 - Oct.13, or block User:Ontario. His edits are politically partisan, in support of the Conservative Party of Canada, no doubt in connection with tomorrow's Canadian national election. At least one CPC opponent ([1]) supports introducing mixed member proportional representation, so that article, too, should be protected. There is nothing "good faith" about him, from his first edit on this page he has employed attack rather than discussion. If you are still unpersuaded check out his reverting as "vandalism" an edit citing a New York Times editorial in Environmental_policy_of_Canada. --BalCoder (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC) BalCoder, I do not have the ability to block or ban users, nor to issue page protections as that is an "Admin user-right" and I am only a regular editor. I will ping a couple of admins that I know, and the admin who previously helped in this dispute for their opinions, or alternatively you can take half of the issue to WP:ANI to see about having Ontario Teacher BFA BEd blocked and get the page re-protected using WP:RFPP after reading WP:PP to find an appropriate protection template. I would first recommend going to a WP:DRR venue such as DRN or Formal mediation. Admin pings:Martin, SpacemanSpiff, EdJohnston; would any of you please be able to review this discussion and provide guidance on how to continue? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC) My suggestion at this point is to use WP:DRN first. There's too much reading and understanding for me at this point to suggest any other course of action. If another admin has followed this discussion earlier then they'd have a better opinion. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks. As suggested, I have opened a WP:DRN incident. --BalCoder (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) I have reverted User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd's edits. While we wait for something on WP:DRN to happen the article should be in a state that has been generally accepted for a year. It is at the level before Ontario's changes and as protected by User:Abecedare. --BalCoder (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks for starting the DRN discussion. That is the right venue to resolve the current content dispute. In the meantime, while I am leaving the article unprotected so that routine, unctroversial edits or ones that have consensus can be made, I hope that the previous edit-war over the disputed changes will not be resumed. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Third installment

Mixed Member Proportional is a mixed electoral system. ALL mixed electoral systems share elements of both PR and Plurality voting systems. Sharing an element with either end of the spectrum does not mean that MMP is somehow on one end. It is, quite frankly, in the middle. This fact is confirmed by sources 1-11. Additionally, User:BalCoder has agreed that MMP is a mixed electoral system (Oct 3), and therefore a consensus has been reached. In order to prevent Edit warring, users are encouraged to perform ADAPTIVE EDITS. In adaptive edits, only the content that editors disagree with is removed, and the remainder of uncontroversial content is left unmolested. Moreover, in order to display good faith, editors are encouraged to provide SOURCES on the talk page to substantiate their positions. I hope BalCoder will perform an adaptive edit, and provide sources for the specific points of disagreement so the previous edit-war will not resume. Additionally, I hope this "131.104.138.174" IP Address is not BalCoder editing while logged out. This user has posted the dubious phrase "PR systems (in overwhelming majority of countries pretending to be democratic)" under the "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems" section on October 29th.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: I take you at your word, some twelve hours ago here, that you are still willing to participate in a WP:DRN dispute so I have opened a new dispute. This time, please be timely in posting your responses. I have again reverted your latest article edit. --BalCoder (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC) User:BalCoder You must provide SOURCES for your reversions. You must also perform ADAPTIVE EDITS and only revert the specific content you disagree with. Mass reverting all contributions, including minor edits such as the update that Russia currently uses MMP instead of list-PR, is the only cause of the current edit war. Please discontinue the edit war by providing SOURCES to substantiate your opinions, and revent ONLY THE SPECIFIC CONTENT YOU DISAGREE WITH. This is how good faith editing is achieved. Right now, you are stonewalling by refusing to budge. Additionally, did you insert the following point-of-view edit: "PR systems (in overwhelming majority of countries pretending to be democratic)" while logged out? If so, this is a completely unacceptable form of sock puppetry.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) I have reverted your edits again, this time preserving the change of the Russian system, despite your very weak source. There are no other changes of yours that deserve preservation. Sources: I remind other readers that I am trying to preserve the status quo against Ontario's edits, I am not adding text, Ontario is. The sources that support the status quo are naturally already in the article, for example, refs 6, 7, 8 which Ontario chooses to ignore and to which I have drawn his attention seven times. I also point out that I suggested WP:BRD, the usual method of good faith discussion, to Ontario on Aug.24 and he ignored it. I did not make that IP edit. --BalCoder (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC) User:BalCoder The IP edit states: "The single winner (FPTP) system exists only in Canada, UK, and US." This is incorrect. There are 47 countries which use FPTP. However, since this unsourced anonymous addition (which may have been done by you) follows your anti-plurality voting system narrative, so you have of course left this change in place. This IP edit also states that PR is used "(in overwhelming majority of countries pretending to be democratic)" This POV editing is also unsourced. You need to take the time to read through contributions and separate your own personal bias. The vast majority of the contributions I have made were minor edits. These include subtitles for party-list PR, separating [closed list], [open list], and [localized list] and adding wiki-links for each one. This is a minor structural change that does not change the content of the article. The Manchester University Press and Voice of Russia are reliable sources. The Voice of Russia is the government broadcaster, like the CBC in Canada. Please demonstrate good faith by leaving minor edits in place, and revert only the specific content you disagree with and provide sources to substantiate your disagreement.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: I am reverting your reversion. You should check out WP:EW, in particular the sections on WP:3RR and WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: we have agreed to use WP:DRN, i.e.a mediated discussion, so you should not also carry on reverting. During this discussion the article should remain as before your edits, as it was during the last WP:DRN attempt, and as protected by User:Abecedare. User:Abecedare, above, has specifically not protected the article to allow "routine" edits, of which the IP edit (from a Canadian IP) is an example - anonymous edits are almost always POV and unsourced, decidedly routine - my limited energy is entirely taken by a more substantial problem: you (also Canadian). When our dispute is finally at an end, it will go because I intend to delete the entire "broader family" section, which only exists as a sop to an editor who was pushing mixed systems. That editor too was a Canadian. --BalCoder (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC) User:BalCoder You have admitted that other editors in the past have included mixed electoral systems on this WP article! Yet, you are the ONLY editor who is against the inclusion of mixed electoral systems in this article. Why? You have not reached a consensus to remove this critical category. You changed mixed electoral systems to two-tier systems on December 11th 2014. Sources 1 through 11 prove that mixed electoral systems exist. Sources 19-32 proved that mixed electoral systems, including the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the results of MMP are semi-proportional. You have also flip flopped on whether or not mixed electoral systems exist, and whether or not MMP is fully proportional or only semi-proportional. You have incredulously added that Britain, Canada, and the U.S.A. are the only countries that use FPTP. Why would you include such nonsense? The following countries use FPTP: Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Azerbaijan Bahamas Bangladesh Barbados Belize Bermuda Botswana British Virgin Islands Canada Cook Islands Dominica Ethiopia Gambia Ghana Grenada India Isle Of Man Jamaica Kenya Liberia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Micronesia Myanmar Nigeria Pakistan Palau Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands Swaziland Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Uganda United Kingdom United States Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Are you trying to artificially inflate the quantity of nations using PR by adding all nations using mixed systems to that list, while simultaneously intentionally misleading readers to assume that only 3 nations use FPTP in order to present FPTP as unusual and therefore obsolete? If so, you are intentionally engaging in academic dishonestly to promote a political perspective. Now you are also presenting mixed electoral systems as some sort of Canadian conspiracy. The sources which describe mixed electoral systems, such as the Electoral Reform Society of the U.K. (which argues in favour of PR), are international. Please provide a SOURCE to substantiate your removal of mixed electoral systems (which you have admitted exists). Please provide a single SOURCE to back up your outlandish claim that only 3 nations use FPTP. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC) I am afraid the above is simply incoherent. I have reverted your revertion again, let's discuss using WP:DRN, as you agreed. If you revert again you will have contravened the WP:3RR rule. . --BalCoder (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC) User:BalCoder, YOU have violated the WP:3RR rule. I have contacted User:Øln, and User:Reallavergne to provide assistance on this article. Judging by the archives, you have previously engaged in edit wars with these two editors. User:Reallavergne has mentioned on User:Øln's talk page: "I'm afraid I am going to have to launch a formal complaint against BalCoder, as all he can do is revert and criticize. He has now reverted everything I have contributed en masse three times now, and has not contributed one edit himself in response to our discussions. At least if he was selective in his reversions or offered some text of his own to try to address the concerns I have expressed, I could understand. It seems he is incapable of considering any changes at all to what he wrote back in August - not even stylistic errors - and so no progress is being made on the page. However, I know you have been reading at least some of our discussion, so perhaps before I launch a call for dispute resolution, you have a comment offer on the talk page?Reallavergne (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)". In fact, you have previously been part of a dispute resolution Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854 "24. Mass reversion and disrespectful language - Proportional Representation" on this same topic for the same unacceptable conduct! It seems you have routinely engaged in edit wars in the past on this article where you mass reverted content. You should have selectively removed only the areas of disagreement. These other editors also noted that you did not provide sources to back up your opinions. You were also extremely rude to these other editors as well. For example, on September 24th, 2014, User:Reallavergne noted "I don't find that you are being respectful here. Let us please try to avoid accusations such as the above and assume that we are working in good faith." To sum up, you have been repeatedly told by other editors (on this very same article) that mass reversions are unacceptable, that you need to provide SOURCES, and that you must act in a civil manner. Moreover, there is nothing incoherent about pointing out the OBVIOUS difference between the numbers 47 and 3! How could you possible expect people to believe that only 3 nations use FPTP? I am reverting this blatant vandalism.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Hi User:BalCoder, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, I am afraid that proper treatment of your dispute would require more time than I can afford to put into it. There are certainly some strange things going on. Why, Balcoder would you ever want to say that only three countries use FPTP? You know that is nonsense as much as I do. But Ontario, I am just as befuddled by your treatment of MMP. MMP can be quite highly proportional - certainly as proportional as STV, but it is also relatively rare (Germany, New Zealand and Scotland - that is about it). That you recognize neither of these points perplexes me. Maybe you are confusing semi-proportional MMM systems and MMP. Both are mixed systems, but one is more proportional than the other. Ontario, I recognize your complaints against Balcoder, as I had the same complaints and eventually gave up working on this Wikipedia page because I found Balcoder to be abusive and too hard to work with (Sorry Balcoder, it's the truth). So, Balcoder, I admit that I started to review your dispute with some bias against you. However, I recognize that you play a useful policing role, and as I reviewed some of the changes that Ontario had made, they did not seem to me to be improvements over what was there before and tended to muddy the waters, so I tend to sympathize that your approach may have been best in this case and it's probably a good thing that you are prepared to do it. I see that this dispute goes back to August 17, and I have already spent about three hours just trying to disentagle things a bit for myself. So, without investing hours or even days of time that I don't have right now, I am afraid I don't have a solution to your current impasse. Looking at a few of the reversions, I am inclined to believe that the mass revert in this case may have been largely justified. It's messy, that's for sure. All I can say is that this can happen in Wikipedia. I can't afford the time to try to do any more to help fix this one and feel sorry that both of you have invested so much time and effort into this, apparently to little avail. Reallavergne (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Reallavergne, I agree with you, and have argued, that in most cases MMP is semi-proportional (while MMM is always semi-proportional). New Zealand is the only rare exceptions. Germany has a 5% threshold, so the results are not always fully proportional. For example, in the 2013 German federal election, the Alternative For Germany and Free Democratic Party received approximately 2 million votes each and received no seats whereas the Christian Social Union in Bavaria received approximately 3 million votes and received 56 seats. Scotland uses AMS for the Scottish Parliament. In the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, the Scottish National Party received 53% of the seats, with 44% of the popular vote. This means, the SNP has a majority government with significantly less than 50% of the vote. . I will add a section stating that MMP has the potential to be proportional. I fully recognize this point. Thank you for your contributions. I have also updated the list of nations using PR and added wiki-links to the article. Please let me know if there is any specific content that I have added that you disagree with, and I will edit it. I value your perspective, and am receptive to your positive and professional feedback.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC) I have reverted Ontario's edits again but preserved his changes to the table in "List of countries...". I also reverted the IP edit he so hotly disliked, although I like neither version. I have also reported him for WP:3RR warring. --BalCoder (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Hi, since someone asked for my input. I am a bit confused about what exactly is the big issue here, though I recall there has been some unproductive warring in the past about minor details. Even the parliament of the Netherlands has a threshold, even if it's very low, if you want to use a very strict definition of a pure proportional system, not even the Netherlands would qualify, so it seems a bit strange to use a lot of space to discuss so-called "pure PR", as it's not really something that is used much in practice. The general idea of wikipedia is to follow what reliable sources use. Now, I'm not very well-versed the academic literature about voting systems, and even when trying to have a look at papers, most seem to be paywalled, so it's hard for me to say what's used there, but at least in popular usage, the term proportional representation seems to be more about the general idea of a voting system producing a result that is somewhat proportional with some constraints such as districts and thresholds, rather than used only about one-district systems with no threshold. As for whether MMP can be considered a proportional system, if there are conflicting sources, I think it would make the most sense to reflect that in the article and state that MMP is categorised as a proportional system by some sources, while other sources categorise based on whether the system is mixed or not, rather than state that only one of the statements are "true". Øln (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Hi again. Nice to hear from you Øln. I am from Canada, and here, we treat MMP as a proportional system, and those who are looking for a relatively high level of proportionality call for relatively large top-up regions of say 15 seats total, with 9-10 of these as local seats and 5-6 as top-up seats. It would not occur to us to call this a semi-proportional system while calling STV proportional, since neither produces perfect proportionality and it's actually easier to have large regions under MMP than under STV (hence a higher level of proportionality than under STV). So I find it strange that the Wikipedia PR page refers to STV as proportional while confusing things about MMP. My sense was that talk likes STV and does not like MMP so much, so the wording ended up a bit biased in favour of STV. Still, it was not so bad and I felt I could live with the way he had it. He and I had actually spent quite a bit of time on this and I was not unhappy with the result as we had it (it has evolved a bit since and become more confused). I agree with you that the expression "pure-PR" should be avoided. There is no such thing. "List-PR" is a more accurate expression. talk, I think it could be useful to have some discussion on the page about the level of proportionality that is achieved under different systems and to give some examples. There are indices of disproportionality that can be used for this. But one has to be careful when using anecdotal evidence such as the two examples you gave. Any such examples, if they are outliers, do not give us a good picture, and if they are outliers, they should be presented as such and explained. In the German case that you give, I see that the FDP did not make the threshold of 5%, which raises all sorts of questions about thresholds and their role and whether they are truly justified. If I understand it right, FDP also did not get any local seats, as they would have been able to keep those. The Scottish election you refer to is also very interesting. (By the way, as far as I can determine, AMS is identical to MMP but in this particilar version there are no provisions for overhang as they have in Germany. What is being proposed for Canada is called MMP but no-one thinks that there would be a need for overhang provisions in Canada. So for us in Canada, the term AMS is superfluous, and we just call the Scottish system MMP (Balcoder will remember that we spent some time on this issue as well). Be that as it may, what seems to have happened in the election that you cite is that there was a HUGE overhang in favour of the SNP, and that this overhang was regional in character, so that in other regions SNP got some top-up seats as well (LOL)! So they ended us with a false majority similar to what we get in Canada under FPTP. The solution would be to reduce further the share of local seats and increase the share of top-up seats to increase the proportionality of the system. General point: if you are going to introduce anecdotes to illustrate a point, you need to say if these are outliers and you need to discuss what issues they illustrate. Otherwise the examples could be seen as a biased way of presenting the evidence - a bit like the way opponents of PR in Canada like to spout off mentions of Israel and Italy, conveniently forgetting all of the countries that do very well thank you with PR. Regarding the way forward, what I ended up doing with Balcoder was to take things one change or one paragraph at a time. It was tedious, and I did find Balcoder hard to deal with, but perhaps if other people were called upon to comment on specific points that could be a way forward. Why not start with this issue of the level of proportionality achieved under different systems and some of the issues that emerge from that? Nobody wins with edit warring, and Balcoder is merciless. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not seem very well equipped to dealing with it. They have some general principles but if these are not respected, no-one seems to have the resources to intervene in a proper way. One step at a time may be a better way for all concerned.Reallavergne (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC) User:Reallavergne, The results of MMP are almost always semi-proportional. For instance, in the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007, the proposed Legislature would have 129 seats consisting of 90 local members (70% of the Legislature) and 39 list members (30% of the Legislature). There were no provisions compensatory seats to make up for Overhang seats. Here are a few other modern examples: In the Bolivian general election, 2014, the Movement for Socialism received 61% of the popular vote, and received 67% of the seats. In the Egyptian parliamentary election, 2011–12, the Nationalist Party received 37% of the popular vote, and 46% of the seats. In the Hungarian parliamentary election, 2014, the Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Union received 44.5% of the popular vote, and 67% of the seats. In the Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2008, the Communist Party of Nepal received 29% of the popular vote, and 38% of the seats. In the Romanian presidential election, 2014, the Social Democratic Union received 37% of the popular vote, and 50% of the seats. Although, in theory, MMP has the potential to be proportional, in practice the results are almost always semi-proportional (New Zealand is the only exception). This is due to the fact that A. the list-PR seats are nearly always outnumbered by the FPTP seats, B. there are almost never sufficient compensatory seats to make up for the overhang, and C. high minimum thresholds (of 5-10%) further distorts proportionality. All that being said, I disagree with your assertion that characterizing MMP as semi-proportional presents a bias towards STV or List-PR. Many voters prefer semi-proportional systems such as MMP or even Plurality voting systems such as FPTP as these are more likely to obtain Majority governments. Obviously, depending on the voters' perspective, majority governments can be viewed as positive in the fact that an otherwise Hung parliament could prevent legislative change. Other voters prefer Minority governments as it forces political parties to work together. Furthermore, many voters prefer the fact they can retain their local representatives in transitioning from FPTP to MMP. Some supporters of PR view mixed electoral systems such as MMP as stepping stones towards full PR, while others view it as a compromise between extremes. In any event, in the interest of academic honesty, it would be appropriate to preserve this critical third category. BalCoder is intent on removing any mention of mixed electoral systems from the WP article, despite the plethora of sources which routinely use this term. BalCoder prefers the confusing and seldom used term "two-tier systems" but has not provided a single source which uses this term. This user has repeatedly inserted POV language such as "PR systems (in overwhelming majority of countries pretending to be democratic)" and "single-winner systems sometimes called "plurality"/majority; only in Canada, UK and USA" in order to promote an anti-plurality agenda. Here is an updated list of nations using FPTP, which is just one type of plurality voting system (updated as of Nov 2015): Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda American Samoa Azerbaijan Bahamas Barbados Bangladesh Belize Bermuda Bhutan Botswana Canada Cayman Islands Congo (Brazzaville) Cote d'Ivoire Cook Islands Comoros Dominica Ecuador Egypt Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Grenada Ghana Gambia India Iran Jamaica Kenya Kuwait Lebanon Lao People's Democratic Republic Saint Lucia Liberia Marshall Islands Burma (Myanmar) Northern Mariana Islands Maldives Malawi Malaysia Mexico Micronesia Morocco Mozambique Nepal Nigeria Niue Oman Pakistan Palau Papua New Guinea Philippines Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa Singapore Solomon Islands Seychelles Singapore Sierra Leone South Korea Swaziland Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tuvalu Uganda United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United States of America Virgin Islands Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Zanzibar As you can see, there are significantly more than 3 countries using FPTP. I have noticed that both you and Øln would like to avoid the term "pure" under list PR. This will be removed. Øln, I also like your idea of including that there are conflicting sources with regards to the classification of MMP. However, these sources agree that MMP has the potential to be proportional, but the results are almost always semi-proportional due to the aforementioned factors. All sources agree that it is a mixed electoral system, so this classification should be noncontroversial. There has been some limited progress with regards to the conduct of BalCoder, as this user has not reverted some of the minor edits I made updating the list of countries using PR. However, this user has still reverted other minor edits I have made such as fixing and adding wiki-links, separating open list, closed list, and localized list PR into subsections, fixing broken sources, adding "or mixed systems" to the bottom table (as it includes nations using parallel voting and MMP), and adding a table of voting systems consistent with the information already in the article. Please let me know if there are any other specific areas you disagree with in any of the edits I have made.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Hi again Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. Thanks for this additional input. Let's be a little bit careful about the expression "semi-proportional" as it is usually reserved for parallel systems (MMM). I grant that MMP will not give you full proportionality, but let's be clear that it is the detailed features of any particular system that make it more or less proportional. Of particular importance is the size of regions. With small region, the level of proportionality of ANY system (including even list-PR) is going to be limited. If you had STV in small regions (say 3-4 member regions), you would have a potentially quite disproportional result. Conventionally, people treat both MMP and MMM as mixed systems (or two-tier if you prefer), but treat MMP as proportional and MMM as semi-proportional. That is the convention as I know it, so I would suggest sticking with the convention. Regarding the examples you cite, I stand better education, because I had forgotten that Bolivia, Romania and Hungary used MMP. The Bolivia case is interesting, because in fact, considering the massive vote for the MS (61.4%!), it's suprising the results were not even more disproportional. The results seem to me fairly good, considering, and the disproportionality remaining seems attributable largely to the threshold. I did not look closely at the other two. But note that Egypt and Nepal are examples of MMM (parallel systems, not compensatory) and thus not good examples. Your general point is good, though. Various features can reduce the proportionality of any system, and perfect proportionality is impossible to achieve. For MMP, small regions, a small share of top-up seats, absence of measures to compensate for overhang, the imposition of thresholds, and the presence of a large number of parties are all factors that could reduce proportionality. I think it would be great if you could dig up a source that compares the proportionality of different systems. As for the number of countries or the share of the world population using different sorts of electoral systems, that information is readily available from ACE (aceproject.org/epic-en/CDMap?question=ES005&set_language=en) and should be included in the article. I had it in there myself at one time, but it seems to have disappeared. In my view, the extent to which different systems are used in different countries is an important fact that should be included in the article. I can't do it right now, because I am working on some other thing, but if you are willing to wait a week or so, I could work that material back into the article.Reallavergne (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC) I have reverted all Ontario's changes again. Changes must be discussed and consensus achieved before changing the article. Improvements are made by adding to a coherent article, not by slowly pruning a grossly mutilated one. This is the way WP:BRD works which I invoked on Aug.24. Ontario has yet to engage in a good faith discussion, for example see his response to that BRD proposal: "Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text...", this tone in only his second talk post ever! Reallavergne (no hard feelings, Real) may not know that there is a WP:DRN dispute open, to which Ontario agreed. I would question the propriety of helping Ontario edit the article while this dispute is in progress. While the dispute is in progress the article will remain in its coherent state, a state which has not seen any substantial changes for eleven months (that's some "flawed text"). --BalCoder (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC) User:BalCoder pretends to be reverting the article to a former state. However, he/she has repeatedly inserted that A. plurality voting system are used only in Canada, the USA, and the UK. This is incorrect. I have provided a sourced list above of the nations using FPTP, and B. Proportional representation is used in the majority of countries. This is incorrect. PR is used in 36% of the world's nations. User:Reallavergne and User:Øln, I appreciate your assistance in working positively and collaboratively to reach a consensus. BalCoder believes his/her agreement is always necessary to reach a consensus. Consensus can be reached through Near-unanimous consensus, which is "Unanimity Minus One (or U−1), or Unanimity Minus Two (or U−2)" or through a Supermajority (two-thirds rule). Moreover, the verbally abusive manner in which this user has behaved in the past, such as calling me an "unscrupulous liar" (27 Sep 2015) or calling User:Reallavergne's edits "garbage" (04 Sep 2014), as well as the mass reversion of content (including minor edits) without providing sourced rational, is counterproductive to reaching consensus. Therefore, we may be able to reach a consensus without necessarily reaching a unanimous vote. In this way, we can avoid a filibuster. To be clear, are we all in agreement that: - MMP is a "Mixed system" (occasionally called a hybrid system or a two-tier system)? - FPTP is used in more than 3 countries? - PR is not used in the majority of nations? - Some list-PR nations (like Israel and the Netherlands) don't use delineated districts? - closed-list PR candidates are selected by party leaders, and not by voters? - respectful etiquette is to be used at all times while in discussions on the talk page? I look forward to a positive and respectful discussion.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd Slamming BalCoder and then saying "I look forward to a positive and respectful discussion" is not a good start. Start anew, start small and please use a new section, it's hard to understand a big long one. Bgwhite (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC) This rant about me, FPTP, and Britain, Canada, and the USA is getting out of hand. It concerns this anonymous IP edit and this one. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd asked me, here, if I had made the edit. I replied, in the next post, that "I did not make that IP edit". That didn't stop Ontario from loudly and repeatedly complaining that the edits were mine, not only in this talk page but also on User:Bgwhite's talk page, on the edit warring page, and now in the WP:DRN page. Ontario, I suggest you take your own advice and strike out all those erroneous edits, and inform User:Bgwhite and the WP:DRN mediator that you made a mistake. Apology optional. --BalCoder (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC) User:BalCoder, You have not yet voted on the following issues: 1) MMP is a "Mixed system" (occasionally called a hybrid system or a two-tier system) 2) FPTP is used in more than 3 countries 3) PR is not used in the majority of nations 4) Some list-PR nations (like Israel and the Netherlands) don't use delineated districts 5) Closed-list PR candidates are selected by party leaders, and not by voters To be clear, you have repeatedly reinserted the claim that FPTP is used in only 3 countries, as well as the claim the PR is used in most countries five time, starting on 02 Nov 15, 03 Nov 15 (3 times that day) and 06 Nov 15 not including the IP edits, which you claim were not made by you. I provided a sourced list of nations using FPTP on 03 Nov 15, and a sourced updated list on 05 Nov 15 on the PR talk page. I have also provided a source (suggested by User:Reallavergne on 06 Nov 15), on 07 Nov 15 proving that PR is not used in the majority of nations. I had previously asked you to provide sources to substantiate this assertion (03 Nov 15), but you refused. Can you explain why you reinserted these two claims at least 5 times, and provide sources to substantiate it? In terms of conduct, you have not used strike out tags to remove the personal insult you made on Sep 27th, 2015 when you called me an "unscrupulous liar", nor have you apologized. This would be an appropriate demonstration of good faith. Please don't forget to vote on the above-mentioned 5 issues.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Ah, more doublespeak. So when I revert your changes I am actually inserting (or now reinserting) what was there before. Ontario, you are your own worst enemy. --BalCoder (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC) User:BalCoder You have repeatedly reinserted that FPTP is used only in the UK, the USA, and Canada, as well as the claim that PR is used in the majority of countries. Do you believe these two claims to be true? Please clarify your position by voting on the following 5 issues: 1) MMP is a "Mixed system" (occasionally called a hybrid system or a two-tier system) 2) FPTP is used in more than 3 countries 3) PR is not used in the majority of nations 4) Some list-PR nations (like Israel and the Netherlands) don't use delineated districts 5) Closed-list PR candidates are selected by party leaders, and not by voters User:Reallavergne and User:Øln, when you have an opportunity, please also vote on the aforementioned 5 issues. (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, I am prepared to offer the following. Re: 1), MMP stands for Mixed Member Proportional. This is very well put. It is mixed, but it is also proportional. l think the controversy if there is one, is about whether MMP whould be called a proportional system. To answer that question, we need to ask under what criterion we would call something proportional. We know that no system is perfectly proportional, so perfect proportionality is not a valid criterion. We know also that theoretically, list-PR and STV can deviate from perfect proportionality as much as MMP, so calling STV proportional and MMP semi-proportional makes no sense. It seems to me that MMP should be considered proportional because the purpose of the top-up seats is to ensure proportionality for the whole of the seats being filled for the region in question (unlike MMM, which is semi-proportional because the top-up seats are not compensatory in the same way.) In my view what makes a system proportional is that it is designed to achieve proportionality, not necessarily 100% proportionality (which is impossible), but proportionality in contrast to majoritarian systems, which do not pretend to seek proportionality. MMM is mixed in the sense that it combined the majoritarian principle for some seats and the PR principal for other seats and does not apply the same compensatory principle as MMP. MMP is not "mixed" in the same sense at this. The dominant principle is the principle of proportionality. Re 2) and 3). When counting how many countries use one system or another, the relevant distinction is between majoritarian and PR systems. There are several variants of each that need to be added up if one is looking to express things in the form of a simple statement. By population (excluding China which is not democratic in any sense), a bit more than a majority of the world's population lives in majoritarian countries, because India, the US, the UK and a number of other countries are included and India and the US have large populations. However, if the criterion is the number of countries using one family of system as opposed to another, a slight majority of the world's countries use PR. So 3) is FALSE. Note that the existing article, under History, eschews providing numbers for all countries of the world, and focuses instead on the world's 35 most robust democracies (search "35 most robust" and you will find the passage). That passage clarifies that the vast majority of these countries use PR. If we are interested in knowing what strong democracies choose, this is a good way to do it. The fact that Zimbabwe and Ethiopia use FPTP is of little interest, for example. re 4), I don't know anything about this. re: 5), closed-list PR just means that voters choose a list established by the parties and ranked by the parties. How parties establish those lists depend on the parties and possibly on national regulations. I do not know enough about how the lists are arrived at by different parties in different countries, but assume that in many cases the party rank and file plays an important role, just as they do under majoritarian systems. To say that "Closed-list PR candidates are selected by party leaders, and not by voters" seems to me a biased way of putting it. A less POV way of putting it would be to say "In PR systems using closed lists, the parties put forward a ranked list of candidates; voters vote for the party list as a whole and party candidates are elected in the order of their position on the list until that party's share of seats has been met. This is in contrast to open lists, where voters can express their preference for specific candidates." Reallavergne (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Hello User:Reallavergne, I am not opposed to incorporating your wording of closed-list PR. It is well written. It is worth noting, however, that in many nations the party list is selected unilaterally by the party leader. This can result in a high potential for Cronyism. Regardless of who selects the list, the leader himself/herself would be immune from losing his/her seat, and candidates positioned in preferable positions on the list would have their election virtually guaranteed. This presents the problem of safe seats, and candidates who only need to appeal to their party base, as opposed to the overall population as a whole. This may result in politicians who are forced to vote along party lined in order to gain or retain a favourable position on the list. The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies states: "If the party leadership controls the order in which candidates appear on the party list, for example, the backbencher's choise reduces to one of toeing the party line or being replaced near the bottom of the party list and losing his or her seat." Academic scholars who write about electoral systems consistently group them into three groups: proportional representation system, mixed member system, and plurality/majority system. For instance, Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law from the University of Milan-Bicocca, Claudio Martinelli, groups electoral systems into majoritarian (also called plurality), proportional, and mixed. "There are many ingredients and they are so varied and different by nature, and their implications are even many more, to understand them we must use discipline and good care in making a classification according to some usual categories, starting from those dividing majoritarian systems from proportional and from mixed." I would like to retain this widely used grouping system. Please see the Electoral Reform Society Table at the bottom of the talk page. With regards to the percentage of nations using PR, the phrase in question currently states "PR systems; in overwhelming majority of democratic countries". This phrase is unnecessary POV editing. There is no reason to put in brackets a persuasive comment when introducing each voting system. Moreover, it is also inaccurate as only 36% of nations use PR. The the Fairvote.org reference only compares 35 of the world's roughly 200 countries. This list omits nations with a 2012 population of under 2 million residents. Does this mean a population can only be considered 'democratic' if it has at least 2 million people? If this is the case, than the province of Saskatchewan would be considered undemocratic simply due to its low population. The second caveat to this list is a 2012 freedom score of 1.5 or lower according to Freedom House. According to the 2015 Freedom House assessment, 89 countries are considered 'free', an additional 55 are considered 'partly free', and only 51 are considered 'not free' (which could be interpreted as undemocratic). Country ratings from Freedom House's Freedom in the World 2015 survey, concerning the state of world freedom in 2014.   Free (89)   Partly Free (55)   Not Free (51) Therefore, the unnecessarily low sample size of 35 countries in not indicative of the world's overall percentage of nations using PR, nor is it indicative of the world's overall percentage of 'democratic nations' using PR. As a result, the aforementioned persuasive comment should be removed. Moreover, the majority (60%) of the 35 nations listed by fairvote.org are European, whereas only 29% of the nations listed by Freedom House as 'free' or 'party free' are European. Therefore, it is a tad Eurocentric to exclude so many African, Asian, Central American, South American, and Oceanic nations with excellent Freedom House 'civil liberties' and 'political rights' ratings from a list of 'democratic nations'. It may be reasonable to remove or edit the phrase "Among the world's 35 most robust democracies with populations of at least two million people, only six use winner-take-all systems for elections to the legislative assembly (plurality, runoff or instant runoff); four use parallel systems; and 25 use PR.[80]" due to the limited sample size and Eurocentric focus. Thank you for responding to my request. I value your feedback and collaborative approach.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Some changes prompted by the recent extended dispute The section "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems" has recently been the source of confusion so I have deleted it. Specifically because: PR is not necessarily a voting system (see lead) PR can be found in three of the four categories listed so the classification is unhelpful The position of PR voting systems "in the broader family" can already be seen in the Voting systems panel That STV and party list PR are "usually considered PR systems" has already been stated in the lead MMM is mentioned twice but is not proportional so is not relevant in this article The extent to which MMP is proportional is discussed in the MMP section The only useful statement, that PR is often compared to plurality/majority, is already in the Fairness section. I have also added a Template:Multiple issues to "Party list PR" section to make clear it needs work, rewritten the "Link between constituent and representative" section to make clearer that this is a particular advantage of single member systems, and added some refs. --BalCoder (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

BalCoder,

As I have repeatedly pointed out, there are not 2, but rather 3 distinct families of voting systems. These are: proportional representation, mixed electoral systems, and plurality/majoritarian systems. The vast majority of experts, from around the world, and from a variety of different professions, use this simple-to-understand classification. For instance, political advocacy groups such as the Electoral Reform Society of the UK, journalists such as Aaron Wherry from Maclean's Magazine, and academic scholars such Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law Claudio Martinelli from the University of Milan-Bicocca, all follow this widely used classification. This globally used classification is used by both proponents and opponents of PR. The retention of this classification must not be misconstrued as favouring any particular category. Nor would it be reasonable to portray its inclusion as having anything to do with me as it was already in the article years prior to my contributions. In brief, there is no possible legitimate reason why this extremely well sourced classification should be removed.

I have, in good faith, retained all of your minor edits and have integrated your contributions to the "Link between constituents and representative" with existing text. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I hoped Ontario had gone, but no. So, since the "dispute" continues, I have moved "Some changes prompted by the recent extended dispute" and Ontario's response to that into this "Edits and revertions" section. I have reverted his changes again.

I have also opened a new WP:ANI complaint against Ontario. --BalCoder (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

BalCoder,

You have incredulously claimed in the most recent WP:ANI complaint that none of the sources I have provided list MMP/AMS as semi-proportional, and that I do not seek to reach consensus with other editors.

As notes in the Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR) website,

"Mixed member systems differ slightly from country to country. In AMS (The UK term for MMP) the number of MPs in the parliament is fixed, and as a result AMS is sometimes called a semi proportional system. With MMP additional MPs may be required to achieve the required degree of proportionality. The degree of proportionality varies depending on the ratio of MPs elected by FPTP to the number of party list MPs, and the rules by which the party list MPs are appointed." I have added this source to the list substantiating the phrase "This has led to some disagreement among scholars as to its classification.". This phrase has been added under the suggestion by, and consensus with, Øln on November 4th, 2015.

Additionally, I would also ask that you stop suggesting that I am somehow against MMP as this is not the case. Additionally, I would like to ask you to stop referring to me as he/him as I am female. I have previously informed you that I find this gender assumption to be sexist, and you have not yet apologized.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have reverted back to a neutral third version of the article while this dispute is in progress. I have subsequently added only minor edits such as wiki-links, subtitles, and a sourced table which does not change the meaning of the article. This neutral third version can be used as a starting point for any future additions to the article.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the massive deletion of the extremely well sourced "PR in the broader family of voting systems" section. This deletion of an entire section of sourced text from the article is completely unacceptable. Please note, this section was not created by me, nor is it controversial.

BalCoder, please discuss why you feel the sources don't classify voting systems into three groups: PR voting systems, Mixed Member voting systems, and Plurality/Majoritarian voting systems. If the sourced do in fact use this classification method, you must stop trying to delete this section.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What now?

@Abecedare, EdJohnston, NeilN, OhanaUnited, Moxy, and Bgwhite:

You have all been confronted with this dispute or User:Ontario_Teacher_BFA_BEd. After two DRN attempts (Oct.19, Nov.2, both failed due to non-cooperation by Ontario), a second a WP:ANI complaint (two editors for blocking Ontario, two not), and a mediation attempt by admin User:Bgwhite, which he has now abandoned for IMO no good reason, this five month old dispute has got nowhere.

What should I do now? Please do not say "discuss", I have been trying to do that since the beginning, but Ontario is unwilling (just read her first couple of TP posts, or any post). After the two DRNs, Bgwhite's mediation was the third opportunity to have a mediator force Ontario to discuss point-by-point and that too came to nothing. I have expended an enormous amount of time and energy on this whole saga and my energy is now exhausted. Reverting is the only avenue open to me. I will continue to do that until either I or Ontario is banned. What else can I do?

A light on the horizon is some recent pushback by others against Ontario. In response to a complaint about spam admin User:Moxy on Dec.22 has deleted edits by Ontario in 14 (!) other articles, the only admin to actually do something about Ontario (for which fervent thanks, Moxy - pity you didn't include PR, from where Ontario copied the text, and Voting systems too). Also a merge of the MMP and AMS articles was reverted by User:Ajfweb (twice) because Ontario mendaciously claimed non-existent consensus.

Another non-existent "consensus" was claimed for a move of "Semi-proportional representation" to "Mixed member systems", although Ontario was the only participant in that discussion. In the PR article Ontario has also renamed "two-tier systems" to "mixed-member systems": so Ontario thinks "two-tier", "semi PR" and "mixed-member systems" are all the same thing, but that is not at all the case. What a mess. And people think I am exaggerating when I accuse Ontario of spreading "chaos" and "mayhem"!

Ontario's mendacity is pervasive. I doubt that any Ontario post - after the first two or three on this TP perhaps which were just wrong - is free of it. She always misrepresents my position. In this category, too, are her persistent claims (most recently on Jan.1), despite no proof and my denials (Nov.3, Nov.8), that I am responsible for some anon.edits which began in November. A further deception: the long lists of sources. When one looks at them they prove to be, with very few exceptions, fraudulent; see my edit for Bgwhite on Dec.11, and have a look for the word "semi" in a few of the 9 (!) sources Ontario listed in support of the "move" of "Semi-PR" mentioned above. Of course no-one can check all this stuff so they believe it.

I have been accused of taking the PR article too personally or not being prepared to accept improvements. My rule is very simple: follow WP rules and guidelines. I have pointed Ontario to WP:VERIFY at least eight times. Until Ontario produces one RS saying MMP is not proportional she can't say it in the article. All Ontario has are refs saying this or that MMP election did not produce a proportional result, arguing from that that MMP generally is not PR. The unimpeachable and entirely uncontroversial sources that say MMP is PR are overlooked.

This arguing from the particular to the general is a favourite trick: Netherlands and Israel do not have electoral districts therefore all party list PR systems do not have districts. On Aug.25 I point out that several open list systems with districts are already discussed in the article (most W.European countries use open list PR), and Ontario does reluctantly, over time, make some small changes. But on Dec.7, in Open list, Ontario re-inserted "in open list PR candidates are not elected in a district level election process" knowing it to be a false statement (it was later deleted - thanks User:Number_57).

On Nov.26 (with TP post), thinking Ontario had withdrawn, I added i.a. text emphasising the importance of single member districts to FPTP (in the section "Link between constituent and representative"), which I had promised Ontario in August. I also added 3 solid academic sources questioning that importance. Ontario reverted the edit, explaining in the TP that she was keeping "all of your minor edits", but she didn't, she kept the affirmative text and deleted the counter-view, because Ontario supports FPTP and is not going to allow any counter arguments, sources be damned.

Any of these points is alone cause for concern. Together, and with the (at least) six warnings admins have posted to Ontario's TP, one would think an admin might realise that something needs to be done.

--BalCoder (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference list