Talk:Demeny voting

POV concern
This entire article is skewed pro-Demeny; all of the "benefits" of this untried system are listed as statement of facts, all concerns are listed as just the worries of some people. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, corrected.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's better - but the statements are now very vague. The lines suggest that an argument is being made, but not by whom. That's not appropriate even in case where there is a reference if it's referenced to an original paper source - but it's worse in cases where there is no reference, which makes it look like a WP:NOTESSAY problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, essentially the research and statistics are in the original paper by Paul Demeny, the demographer and the paper from Reiko Aoki of the Centre for Intergenerational Studies at Hitotsubashi University and Rhema Vaithianathan of the University of Auckland, the rest is related to the debate that was had in Germany and other political comment and opinion from around the world. I'm guessing it wouldn't be a appropriate to repeatedly reference these two papers for every point?--Hontogaichiban (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think you'd want to structure it so that it shows where the understanding arises from. Something like:
 * Demeny's arguments
 * Paul Demeny, in the original paper that advanced the idea, argued that adopting this voting method would mean:
 * more ice cream for everyone.
 * crayons would be accepted as a tool for filling out voting forms.
 * even more ice cream.
 * Aoki and Vaithianathan arguments
 * Aoki and Vaithianathan, in their work that was cited repeatedly by German authorities arguing for its adoption, posited that the change would:
 * embiggen the smallest man.
 * make all words rhyme.
 * the ice cream thing.

That sort of thing. If these are the vital papers in the consideration of the topic, then this is appropriate. However, you may want to find something more reliably sourced than blog entries to source criticism from. Given that it got shot down in Germany, I suspect there are atthe very least editorials on the subject, coverage of why it failed, possibly some journal articles taking the other side... of course, they may not all be in a convenient language. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Related Topics
This article would benefit from an exploration (via links/references?) of the psychology of selfishness and selflessness in the parent/child relationship, perhaps as compared to other human relationships. The reason is that many of the perspectives, pro and con, stem from an underlying commitment on this topic.Jogomu (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)