Talk:Unified primary

Recent Edits
COI declaration: I am an originator of the Unified Primary system and chief petitioner for its adoption in Oregon.

There were several recent edits made to this page that added inaccuracies, poor organization, poor grammar, off-topic references, espoused a negative POV, and made the concept more difficult to understand, so I made the following edits: As it is Wikipedia policy to assume edits are in good faith, I won’t impugn malicious motives, though it should be stated that User:Sethwoolley is a self-described opponent of and campaigner against this particular election system and has submitted public comments in other venues to this effect. Thus he has an equivalent but undeclared COI here. I’m happy to talk out edits on this page or submit to Wikipedia’s various dispute resolution processes as necessary, as it is important to have an actual NPOV article here.Nardopolo (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Verifiable sources for “Unified Primary” describe it as a new proposed primary election method, definition has been changed to reflect, and the actual draft ballot title added in Oregon initiative section (see below)
 * Removed loaded terms such as “voters are restricted” and “voters may only select one” in favor of neutral terms
 * Modified definition so that it is not itself based on other election system definitions
 * Moved various references to Oregon initiatives into the article section on the Oregon initiative
 * User:Sethwoolley cites failure of different ballot measure for top-two/nonpartisan blanket primary 5 times in the article. These were condensed into a single note/reference
 * Clarified changes between the Top-Two 2008 Oregon measure and the unified primary initiative text
 * References to published criticisms of the top-two primary system and initiative were removed as off-topic - these belong on pages about that system or initiative
 * Removed historical anecdote regarding the creation of partisan primary systems as off-topic
 * Removed text that relies solely on the unverifiable source of Seth Woolley’s own public comments: all public comments to the Oregon Secretary of State are posted by law, and thus, like self-authored web pages are WP:SPS
 * Removed reference to Arrow’s Impossibility Theory, which, according to its author as cited on Wikipedia, does not apply to Approval Voting
 * Condensed Pro and Con advocacy into a single section
 * Moved election science analyses into separate section (not advocacy)
 * Removed comment regarding “one of the best if one ignores more sophisticated methods” as redundant (encapsulated in the definition of simple two-stage voting system)
 * Fixed error regarding “third-party” candidate in Oregon’s 1990 gubenatorial race - that candidate was in fact an independent (not affiliated with any party). Added reference to Wikipedia page.
 * Removed misleading insinuations that petitioners want to prevent third party candidates from reaching the general election ballot: the system is clearly articulated to advance two candidates regardless of party affiliation or lack of affiliation
 * Added comparison section to other primary election systems
 * Added full draft ballot caption from Attorney General, substantiating that “unified primary” in that context is not a neologism, but rather a literal pairing
 * Added Origins section and moved origination information from Oregon ballot measure section
 * Added various references
 * Fixed many grammatical errors

--

The above is wrong on so many points I'll go through one by one:
 * I request Nardopolo no longer edit the page to fit his fancy without going though Talk about it first because he is the chief petitioner for this ever changing proposal. It clearly violates the very clear COI rules.
 * I'll also note that today the Attorney General agreed with my ballot title objection for IP 38 in that it has no history in election law as an recognizable system and now refers to the idea as having a "common primary ballot" with an actual explanation of approval voting separately.
 * An "election method" is one component of a larger body of an election system. For example, plurality voting is an election method.  Approval voting is an election method.  Instant Runoff Voting is an election method.  Ballot qualification details and other things in election law are not considered to be part of the "election method", but a larger election system or process.  We do not say a "closed primary" is an election method. This proposal is a type of Primary election  (please refer to the subtypes in the prior article) proposal and has two election methods in it.  It is a two-round system where the first round is approval and the second round is plurality voting.  If I got the legislature to amend the law to require that advanced candidates receive 50% or more approval (in essence encoding a "none of the above" option), would it not be approval voting anymore?  Would it not be a "unified primary" anymore?  Election methods may work together into a full election system.
 * The claim that he must "[Modify the] definition so that it is not itself based on other election system definitions" is absurd. We make sense of definitions by using other election system definitions that are already well-established.  Indeed, later references do describe analysis of other election systems that it is compared with, including approval voting.  If these comparisons are not appropriate, then he cannot use them either in his advocacy.  Indeed, the AG as noted above in the certified (not draft) ballot title, has noted it in relation to approval voting, not a "unified primary".
 * This idea is only an Oregon initiative proposal. The title is the title of the Oregon initiative and no other.  By claiming it's a general term is merely reinforcing the attempt to create a neologism.  Even if this were trailblazing, such as Oregon System in election reform was, it should still, like that proposal, be placed in the context of Oregon.
 * I accept the condensing the failure of the previous measure into one reference and even some reorganization. I stuck to the original organization, for the most part, and don't want to apply any blame to any improvements or detriments of the previous organizational scheme.
 * "Clarifying changes between" is really revealing. The chief petitioner Nardopolo admits it is based on the previous one.  The changes are in fact very few.  This measure has been submitted a number of times with ever increasing changes to them, so you can see the evolution in the Oregon Secretary of State Petition Log: http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.search_form (click summary results and see e.g. 38, 51, 54).  Since the petitions are being submitted regularly, it's often difficult to keep up with what the "Unified Primary" actually is -- how can it be defined if he is still resubmitting changes to it?
 * This measure eliminates the party primary system's reason for existing, so the reference should be added back as what would be undone. It is not an anecdote.  It is well-accepted that party primaries were created to eliminate back room party endorsements and ensure every party member could vote on their own nominees.
 * Public comments published by the Secretary of State must be responded to and were. Now that the AG has replied to them, I can merely reference the reply: http://oregonvotes.org/irr/2014/038cbt.pdf which substantially agreed with most of my points, and on the one point of disagreement, they did not provide an explanation, so it may be challenged later.  I'll note that as an established expert in top two primaries who has been republished by a number of journalists, including televised appearances, self-published comments are allowed.  The chief petitioner has linked to his own submission and has substantially created this page, so does SPS apply to the entire article?  Perhaps it should.
 * Arrow's Impossibility Theorem does not apply to Approval Voting per se, but it does apply to a round system (as it creates an ordinal preference order), so the reference to Arrow's Theorem should be placed back. As the chief petitioner keeps pointing out, this is more than just approval voting (different enough to require its own whole new article).  Further, Approval Voting is subject to generalizations of Arrow's Theorem, as noted by the article on Arrow's Theorem itself:, specifically the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem.
 * The "if one ignores more sophisticated methods" is critical, because the article abstract used the term "more sophisticated methods" itself to limit the scope of "best". It must be made clear that this is not a "best" system.  Wikipedia should not be violating the intent of Wikipedia to be consistent to its own knowledge, such as Gibbard-Satterthwaite or Arrow.  The current language does not make it clear what the scope is, despite the claim of the chief petitioner.
 * Independent candidates are considered "third party" candidates in election science. It's used in Oregon by the media in this way as well: "Third-party candidates have something of a history of playing — or at least appearing to play — spoiler roles in high-visibility Oregon elections. / Most notably, Independent Al Mobley grabbed 13 percent of the gubernatorial vote in 1990, which let Democrat Barbara Roberts (47 percent) defeat Republican Dave Frohnmayer (40 percent)." This refers to the exact race in which this reference was made.  The note should be added back.
 * The "misleading insinuation" that petitioner wants to prevent third party candidates from reaching the general election ballot is made by the referenced article itself. The attack on third parties was largely the reason it was rejected in Oregon in 2008.  If petitioner just wanted approval voting they could eliminate the primary and just have a single general election using approval voting and the third party question would then no longer be relevant.  Encoding only the top two into law obviously reinforces bias against third parties by definition of |third party: "In electoral politics, a third party is any party contending for votes that failed to outpoll either of its two strongest rivals (or, in the context of an impending election, is considered highly unlikely to do so). The distinction is particularly significant in two-party systems. In any case "third" is often used figuratively, as in 'the third parties', where the intent, literally stated, is 'the third and succeeding parties'."  So motive and stated explanation as provided in the referenced Jeff Mapes Oregonian article and the facts and definitions all support this point.  It is indeed a primary reason substantial opposition has formed to top two proposals.  Note that in the last set of third party presidential debates, officiated by Larry King, all four national third parties present objected to top two style systems such as this one.

As far as my motive, I'm an unpaid educator of election reform and election methods. I've promoted approval voting and range voting with for example accepted submission to Slashdot and discussions on my blog. I've pointed out issues with the top two system and have been a third party candidate specifically for the promotion of election reform issues. I stated my opinions and full name in advance during the deletion discussion, so this is not an undeclared COI. I use my actual name as my username and I'm well known in Oregon as an opponent of top two systems. I've implemented (at no cost) approval voting, range voting, ranked voting, proportional representation, gender parity, single transferable voting, Condorcet voting, encrypted-verifiable voting, and many other types of voting systems, for non-profits and political parties, and I was a candidate for Oregon Secretary of State for a third party, receiving over 50,000 votes. It was after my suggestion (and demonstration of it for a Green Party convention) that Dan Meek (another commenter) used approval voting for the next Progressive Party nominating convention. I've always been an advocate of alternative election methods and educating the public and experimenting. I've helped the Oregon Pirate Party start up (not qualified yet) and am on the advisory board. The chief petitioner to my knowledge has no experience in elections other than his father's own failed run that this system potentially would have changed the outcome of. Since my motives have been called into question, we should be clear what Nardopolo's motives are. It's apparently entirely limited to selfish motives, as Mapes pointed out My years of election method advocacy and participation in charter review and fund raising in support of election method reform has been to end the two party system against long odds. I've helped any third party, even ones I'm not a member of, to understand election methods. I've never personally received a dime from any of my reform efforts and have no economic conflict of interest. I've in fact spent my own money helping people implement better elections and my personal websites, hosted on my own personal connection at home, are always and will always be ad-free. Nardopolo doesn't have any of this history and is practically my complete opposite.. I grew up in an exurban mobile home, and I made myself known by employment and contracts writing and designing software and making public comments on behalf of democracy. Right now I'm helping another initiative qualify for the ballot and I've testified in defense of other chief petitioners in court. To say I have some sort of bias in the form of an actual conflict of interest is absurd. Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers.[1] When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

The aim of Wikipedia to promote alternative election method awareness is my only personal goal, and this goal has a very long history of support in my actions. I do have external relationships, but those relationships are to all third parties and the general public who want representation outside of the two major parties to be equal to those represented inside the two major parties. I have never advocated a ban of the two major parties, but instead I have advocated for systemic equality and proportional representation. When I raise money (in average $25 increments through education door to door canvasses I have organized) to support election method reform (not going to myself at all, ever, but to other people and organizations), most of it is from members of the two major parties who also want to see equality and information and awareness. I'm currently also working on campaign finance transparency software code and have contributed to HackOregon, a new non-profit supporting campaign finance awareness that analyzes public records using graph algorithms. I'm on the board of the Portland Green Party and used to be on the board of the State Pacific Green Party. Now that I've declared all my relationships it should be clear that my external relationships have not clouded my contributions. I invite others to examine my relationships and question any of my contributions for neutrality and consistency with the aims of Wikipedia. Intergenerational truth is more important to me than the narrow interests of small moments in time, as Jacob Bronowski wrote about in "Science and Human Values". If I wanted to sell out to large financial interests or join the ruling power structures in Oregon I could have done it a very long time ago. Since we're questioning motives: Nardopolo comes from a very powerful and well paid lawyer family that works (or has worked) for the tobacco industry and other industries trying to buy elected officials off (one thing top two makes easier) -- the very last thing I could ever be associated with. My mom is a school secretary and my father repairs sewage pumps -- no conflicts there.

I'm also happy to use any dispute resolution process. In the next few days (to give more time for discussion) as I get free time I'm going to re-edit the page to be neutral again, keeping the few positive changes made by the chief petitioner, and re-inserting the facts and knowledge provided above, and note each change in the history log or here, but I'm also willing to talk out each edit here if another editor wanted to edit this non-notable neologistic article instead, now that the certified ballot title for this nonpartisan blanket primary with approval voting in the first round calls it a "common primary", not a "unified primary". Sethwoolley (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Seth, thank you for agreeing to submit to dispute resolution - probably simplest to start with a third opinion (3O) before getting more formal. You and I both have the same potential COI: like you, I have no business or financial interest in the outcome of this primary reform effort; nor do my family, friends or employers. Every single supporter of the campaign to date has offered support for the very real reason of despair with the state of our current political system and the sense that the unified primary would be a big step in the right direction. Since you have taken an active role in campaigning against the initiative, and I a very obvious active role in campaigning for it, for its meaning in the context of Wikipedia, we both have the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Campaigning _potential_ conflict of interest. To approach this potential COI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Escape.2C_disclosure_or_management) I've both disclosed and managed it. Despite being called on it, you have failed to explicitly and clearly state it.

I'll answer your points one by one, then, with your assent I suggest we post this to a 3O request.
 * I will agree to no further edits should you agree to the same. Both of our proposed versions are in the history of the article.
 * You again confirm that this is not the title of a ballot measure, despite your description in the edited piece. Rather, as multiple verifiable sources attest, it is a proposed primary election system
 * Although it is referenced in my comment incorrectly on the talk page, please note that I described it in the article as "a proposed primary election system for narrowing the field of candidates for a general election," not an election method. To your larger point, this is why it's very important to differentiate from the canonical system (Unified Primary) and a particular instance of that system as it interfaces with a particular jurisdiction's legal code and particular implementation points.
 * Wikipedia's audience is the world at large - not solely self-described election method experts. So defining a primary election system in terms of other primary systems and election method definitions requires the lay reader to click through to those definitions, understand them, and place them together in combination. Insisting on this approach appears to be a deliberate attempt to make the concept harder to understand, versus the description proffered, which uses relatively simple terms to explain the same thing.
 * National verifiable sources have recognized this system and descriptive term. Since it's a new system for running a primary election it makes sense that it would have it's own neologism (aka new name). The fact that it's being petitioned first in one locale does not reduce its notability nationally: primary election reform is a national issue, and has national consequences as this reform applies to federal offices.
 * Thank you for recognizing that 5 various forms of "failed ballot measure 65" were redundant
 * Again, regarding multiple versions of the ballot initiative: there is a difference between a proposed canonical system, and how it is distilled into practice in a real-world. Again, this is why elements that refer to the Oregon initiative and its particulars should be in the section on the Oregon initiative
 * SPS: I agree that the comments of Oregon's Attorney General constitute a verifiable source. There is a specific warning in the SPS section regarding self-professed expertise, and I think the AG's comments would confirm this.
 * Regarding Arrow's Theorem: "Voting systems that use cardinal utility (which conveys more information than rank orders; see the subsection discussing the cardinal utility approach to overcoming the negative conclusion) are not covered by the theorem." Further, the fairness criterion for ordinal rankings are stated in terms of rank orderings of more than two choices. I would guess that any attempt to draw meaningful conclusions regarding Arrow's Theorem's applicability to a cardinal voting system in the first stage and a majority voting system between two choices in the second stage would constitute original research, and should therefore be peer reviewed before being published on Wikipedia.
 * The "best simple two-stage" system: It is significant that all locatable election science analyses of this system rate it the best for election processes that map to our current way of balloting (i.e. two stages, simple binary voting versus scoring or ranking). If you can think of a better way of saying it, please suggest.
 * The reference to "third party": you cite two completely different definitions of the term - one to refer to minor party/independent candidates, and one to refer to the third performing candidate in an election. Advocates of the measure have stated a strong desire for participation in the process by the former definition, and have suggested that candidates falling under the second definition ought to be excluded by reasons of the spoiler effect. Since you explicitly acknowledge the ambiguity here, stating Al Mobley's actual affiliation (independent) makes more sense. And again, applying criticism of the "Top two" primary system, as has been implemented in CA and WA is not intellectually honest. Different system, different outcomes for minor parties and independents.

Your statement about my motives is inaccurate on several levels. I have only a social interest in seeing election reform work, same as you. I made my living as a software developer, same as you. I have been involved in political activism for more than a decade, same as you.

Again, I think it's appropriate at this point to engage a 3O, and I'm happy to do so with your consent.Nardopolo (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed the article of all talking points for both sides and trimmed it down to the two essentials in the definition. Your campaign website can on its own promote its own talking points. I agree to your request for third personing and expect you won't edit it any further because the third person has spoken. I have made the article emphasize that it is a general election change, the same as was determined by the AG. So a third party has agreed to all points I have changed. Your idea that it has "four" fundamental characteristics is absurd. It is two things and two things only: approval voting and a top two nonpartisan blanket primary. So I trimmed it down to its election method and election system essentials. You have a declared COI and must stop editing this page.

I do not have a conflict of interest according to wikipedia rules as I stated above. I'm not advocating or campaigning for this election method. I am increasing its accuracy. I submitted a statement correcting the errors in election law made in the ballot title (not drafted by your campaign, but the AG), most of which were agreed to by the AG, and the rest could be challenged in court (although I am not the originator of the other points that I expect may be challenged). My points all were agreed to by the AG, a neutral third party with neutral in-house experts in election law assisting. So the third personing has already been accomplished regarding the language as present. These are issues of how to interpret the minute details of election law, not being for or against anything. I only made the ballot title more accurate. I am in favor of approval voting in general, and I campaigned against a different election system before. This is being advertised by you as a novel election method which I have not campaigned against.

If you'd like to submit to dispute resolution against me for making the article more accurate (where you deleted virtually every sourced and factual point added, including those the AG agreed with), please do so now, but you MUST stop editing an article you have a clear COI in and for which was created for your campaign, in clear violation of Wikipedia policies against campaigning. Since you deleted all my accuracy points, it is only fair that your talking points are deleted so they can be read on your own campaign website. It is not normal for election systems on Wikipedia to have outright advocacy talking point lists as it is against policies. I will renominate this for deletion if the article is turned into campaign talking points again and the wider election science community should be involved in that discussion if that were to happen, instead of the very few people following this new proposal. It failed consensus last time because the very people with stated COIs opposed deleting it after they added and edited the article for campaign purposes. With your recusal it would have been deleted. Maybe when you start buying corporate TV ads so more than a handful of people know about it, it will actually be notable? Being on a couple campaign blogs (ivn/electology; note that neither of those sites are from academic election experts, but are advocacy groups) at the start of a new campaign does not rise to notability (see Wikipedia's standards on that, and why I deleted your short list of campaigned-for blog articles hoping to claim notability). When this proposal fails, this article won't even be close to significant, too. Generally items get wikipedia articles when for example they qualify for the ballot and get an actual measure number (such as Oregon Ballot Measure 65 (2008)). You'll note that in that article only one sentence is given for pro and con with links to the campaign websites where the full talking points reside. Such an article should be a model for how this article should appear, so I have edited it to contain a link to the proponent page and since there is no organized opposition I have left that off and will add that later when it appears. If you want to add links to electology or IVN, do so on your own website, they aren't notable references. Indeed, if every blog ever mentioning your potentially multi million dollar campaign (if you qualify for the ballot, which I doubt, which thanks to new petitioning rules you'll need half a million dollars to pay people to collect signatures) is to be listed, for and against, we might have to put hundreds of references in if we follow that precedent. Sethwoolley (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Variation - N-Vote primary, RCV general?
Alaska in August 16, 2022 will have one-vote top-4 primary which is problematic with many candidates. Seeing up to 48(!!!) candidates, allowing 4 votes in the primary would give a better chance for picking the top-4, so like a plurality at large primary, and then Ranked-choice voting could be used in general election for a majority winner. I dislike giving more than 4 votes in a top-4 primary because those who pass the primary will more likely be more clone-like than diverse, and so limiting the vote will allow more voters to influence the top set of candidates.

Does a unified primary have options for advancing more than 2 candidates? Tom Ruen (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)