Talk:Ranked voting

Comparison and Evaluation of Ranked Voting Systems
This is a big change, and so I want to discuss it before I make it: Myclob (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Analysis Using Examples
Michael Gallagher points out that the strengths and weaknesses of different ranked voting methods can be best elucidated through specific examples. A practical example can be provided by considering a voter's ranking of candidates: "If A is eliminated, the voter's vote is transferred to B. If B is then eliminated, the voter's vote is transferred to C. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes," explains Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn.

Applying Logical Voting Criteria
Logical voting criteria play a crucial role in evaluating voting methods. The Condorcet criterion, as defined by Duncan Black, states that "the candidate who would win in a head-to-head race against all other candidates should be the winner of the election." Moreover, the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) criterion, explained by Kenneth Arrow, implies that "the ranking of candidates should not change if the order of the candidates is changed."

Empirical Approach: Simulated Elections
Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn highlight the utility of simulated elections as a means to study the properties of ranked voting methods. These simulations can estimate the 'efficacy' of each voting method, which is defined by how frequently it elects the candidate closest to the center of the voter distribution. In terms of these simulations, Andrew Reynolds indicates that "Condorcet methods and Coombs' method tend to deliver optimal outcomes, followed by the Borda count. Instant-runoff voting comes further behind, with first-past-the-post voting trailing." Myclob (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the section of “Other methods“
May I please receive the green light to fix the first point there, considering that it refers to ranked voting as such an other method, despite the whole article being about ranked voting in the first place, while it's description is also incoherent and seems to mix things up with elements of yet another voting method?

For now I am thinking that the point there was meant to be about score voting instead. Wulfstrex (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Slovenia?
Might it be worth a mention in this article that Slovenia used ranked choice voting for some offices for a certain period, with references, of course? It would be best if a reference could be found with a plausible discussion of why it was changed? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right. To my knowledge, the ranked system was used to elect the two minority MPs from 2000 to 2018, until it was replaced by the amendment known as ZVDZ-D, in the 2022 general election First Past the Post was already used. The reason for change was simplification, the amendments were proposed by the two minority MPs. I'll update with reference to RTVSLO (national broadcaster - in slovene) Keraleais (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Alternate names for IRV
The article mentions that Instant-Runoff Voting is sometimes called the "Alternative Vote" or "Ranked-Choice Voting", however it's obvious to anyone who knows that other voting systems exist that those terms can't really refer to Instant-Runoff Voting specifically.

I've deleted those alternate terms for now. I do think that they should be mentioned in some way, but that would require a sourced explanation of who uses the terms and when. --Brilliand (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The source used cannot be FairVote, since they're the advocacy group that created this confusion of terms in the first place, so they are a primary source. --Brilliand (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)