Talk:Voting method

Forked from Electoral system
Please help edit both to separate. ES should merely summarize the content of VM, while VM should focus on algorithmic aspects and avoid discussing history of usage or implementation details. Homunq (࿓) 01:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this is already in good enough condition for it to be in article-space, and it will only be getting better. But if someone believes the redundancy is a major problem, then please don't delete the history, so I can move it to my userspace. Homunq (࿓) 01:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Electoral system
There's a discussion over there which relates to this article. I won't try to move it here but if you're curious check it out. Homunq (࿓) 19:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Voting method name conflicts
When I search [| youtube "voting method"] I can not find a single entry after 3 pages that has anything to do with this article. Only voting methods such as Borda, Approval, IRV etc. What about "[| balloting] methods"? Otherwise, a disambiguation at the top of the article needed.Filingpro (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Balloting methods gets us considerably closer to this article topic when I search google and google scholar. I propose a change and open for comments.Filingpro (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Voting method → Balloting method – per Filingpro above. Also acceptable would be "voting format", "voting modality", "voting technology", or "ballot mechanism". If people really preferred it, I'd even be OK with "voting mechanism" (even though in my experience that is used by RSs to mean varied things, so it's not my favorite). The main point is that the current title "voting method" is highly confusing, since it's usually used to refer to electoral methods — algorithms to map from ballots to winners. Homunq (࿓) 15:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "voting" is a far more common name than "balloting". None of the proposals are a better description of the contents of this article than the current one. I also strongly disagree that the current title is confusing. Number   5  7  16:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote the article and chose the title; of course you don't find it confusing. (Full disclosure: I had begun writing a different article under this title. Filingpro was not involved either way.) Homunq (࿓) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Their views on the title are still valid and should be considered as much as anyone else's should, perhaps even a little more. Andrewa (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename but to Voting methods since it is about more than one. "Ballot" is actually refers to counting votes, rather than voting methods.  In a company meeting (eg AGM), voting will normally by a show of hands of those present, but a shareholder can call for a ballot in which case the count is according to the number of shares each person holds.  A vote and a ballot are thus not quite the same thing.  However journalists are inclined to misuse "ballot" as referring to the ballot paper.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I find that voting methods already exists as a redirect to Electoral system. Accordingly, the question is whether this article should not be merged there.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, electoral systems are a different subject. There has been some debate about what should go under what title in this topic area, and not all the redirects have been sorted out. I've done it for this one now. Cheers, Number   5  7  18:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This whole topic area needs work, and good to see it happening. But voting method is a good topic and needs an article by that name, and this is a good start. Andrewa (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This naming is simply wrong.

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background: Earlier this year, I got involved in an extended debate over article naming that started with "Voting system" (now at Electoral system). I care more about the terminology on these matters than most, so, even though I tried to avoid simply repeating the same arguments and to be open to compromises, some of my behavior shaded into WP:BADGER.

In the end, I think the outcome of all the debate was an overall improvement, even though my most-preferred outcome triumphed essentially nowhere. Wikipedia process worked in the end.

This article was created as a part of that argument. I created an article here; that article was blanked; and the current article was written from scratch.

I believe that the content of this article is good, but that the naming is unequivocally wrong. In all the outcome of the debate, in all the decisions that didn't go my way, this article name is the one thing that I believe I can conclusively prove to any neutral observer is incorrect.

Steps to reproduce: search for "voting method", with quotes, in google web search, scholar, or ngrams (1996-2000). Click on any link in the first two pages of results of any of those three. Almost none of them, except this article itself or other wikipedia material created by the same editor, refer to the subject matter of this article. (The exceptions are two patents that show up in Google Scholar; that's still only 10% of the first two pages of Google Scholar material).

Given that level of evidence against this article name, I really think the case for a move should be beyond debate.

I understand that the above RM had a different conclusion. And if that means there's nothing else to be done, I guess I can live with that. But I hope that there's some reasonable way to revisit this question. Since I don't know what else to do, I'm going to start an RFC. I realize that this very act will be seen by some as WP:BADGERing. So I'm going to make two promises:


 * 1) I myself will not participate any further in this debate until it's resolved. I hope that this RfC will lead to another RM, but I will not initiate that.
 * 2) If this does not result in a page move, I will not pursue this specific matter further in any venue besides this talk page. No other RfCs, RMs, or other wider forums.

I would, however, like to ask permission to mention this issue in one venue where there are a variety of people with expertise on this topic: the election methods mailing list, election-methods@lists.electorama.com. This list has existed for over 12 years (I'm not sure exactly how much longer). Participants there span a wide gamut of opinions; it is by no means a nest of yes-men. The message I'd send would be brief and neutral, as follows, with a link to this page:


 * There is a discussion on the wikipedia talk page for the "voting method" article, on what that term means. Experienced wikipedia editors are invited to contribute there.

Since I myself won't be participating here, I will simply keep an eye on the discussion, and send the above notice if comments in favor of my right to do that outnumber comments against, with comments by admins or followed by exclamation points weighted double. (Admins with exclamation points still only count double.) Homunq (࿓) 15:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Does the common meaning of the phrase "voting method" refer to the means of casting a vote (ie, paper, electronic, or otherwise)? I've given some more context above on this talk page. 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Why is this dead horse being brought up yet again? You've basically done nothing on Wikipedia except bang this drum since February and it's really very tiring. If you attempt to recruit people from outside Wikipedia as you are proposing (apparently because you've been unable to get your own way so far), then you are likely to be blocked for WP:Meatpuppetry. Number   5  7  15:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral, a question like this should turn on sources. A web search is not an optimal way to assess which term is employed by the best sources, rather, we would have to actually identify (a good sample of) these sources and take a look at them.--Dailycare (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider deletion - I'm not saying we necessarily should delete, but when folks are asking what an article title actually means, it's sorta a red flag in terms of whether the subject is actually notable or not. Plus, looking through the page history, it looks like there was a 9 year hiatus in anyone editing this page, which is sorta unusual. Is the page simply a dead subject? NickCT (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's only been reinstated recently following a discussion on the article that is now at electoral system, which previously had a very muddled focus, but is now clearly on a certain topic. The method of voting is separate to the electoral system, hence moving this topic to this title. Number   5  7  21:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - Just because there's a identifiable topic doesn't necessarily mean we need an article on it. The real policy here is WP:NOTABILITY. Is this topic notable? Are there RS's which give direct coverage to this specific topic? At the moment, the article is pretty poorly sourced, and many of the sources don't appear to even include the term "voting method". It's not entirely clear to me that this is a notable topic.
 * Plus, consider that if we delete, it resolves the problem of figuring out what the article is about in the first place.  ;-)  NickCT (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that electoral voting is itself a voting method, I think this article certainly passes the notability requirements. Sources could be a different matter, but I'd say the article should stay. Alt. Eno  13:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - Respect the opinion, but saying "Something seems notable to me" isn't really an argument. Reliable sources giving coverage to something is what makes things notable on WP. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is significant coverage of this subject - just look at the Google News results for Gambia marbles. Plus there are also sub-articles dealing with specific methods that are independently notable in more depth (e.g. electronic voting, voting machine) – it would be very odd to have the articles on specific methods without a main article on all of them. Number   5  7  13:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * - You've pretty much given the exact definition for WP:SYNTHESIS there. Saying "There are multiple notable voting methods, therefore the subject of 'voting methods' must itself be notable" is pure synthesis. NickCT (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don' think I have, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. For me, there's clearly a notable topic here. Number   5  7  13:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, if you want sources discussing voting methods, here's a few:
 * Kristen K. Greene, Michael D. Byrne, and Sarah P. Everett A Comparison of Usability Between Voting Methods
 * Elizabeth M. Yang and Kristi Gaines Voting Technology and the Law: From Chads to Fads and Somewhere in Between
 * ACE Project Technology for voting and recording of votes cast
 * Georgia Institute of Technology A Consideration of Voting Accessibility for Injured OIF/OEF Service Members: Needs Assessment (this contains a bibliography of other papers on the subject)
 * Number  5  7  14:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that should clear up WP:SYN. Alt. Eno  14:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well to clarify; my comment wasn't that this subject isn't notable. I was only saying that a group itself isn't necessarily notable based solely on the fact that its members are notable. Saying otherwise is WP:SYNTH.
 * Looking at User:Number 57's references, the Kristen K. article seems to be the only one that gives clear and direct coverage to the subject of "Voting Methods". That article is from the  Proceedings of the 2006 USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop. A mainstream, high-quality reference if ever I've seen one.
 * Anyways, I don't seem to be gaining much traction for the idea that deletion is a good way out of this predictiment..... NickCT (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, until reliable sources state otherwise. Alt. Eno  13:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Expanding on my opinion, and based on the sources (plus what user Number 57 provided above), the article title seems fine as per WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE. Also fine: WP:AT, WP:UCRN, WP:ATDAB via natural disambiguation. Alt. Eno  14:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You want reliable sources? OK, here goes:
 * Voting Methods (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 * New York Times on Maine's IRV initiative
 * Handbook of Computational Social Choice/Introduction to the theory of voting
 * Evaluation and Decision Models: A Critical Perspective - Page 3. "After showing the analogy between voting and multiple criteria decision support, we present a sequence of twelve short examples, each one illustrating a problem that arises with a particular voting method. We begin with simple methods based on pairwise comparisons..."
 * All of the above use "voting method" to mean "the objects of study of social choice theory", not "an apparatus for voting or physical manifestation of a vote". There's plenty more where those came from. (Note: I'd said I wouldn't participate in this discussion, but DailyCare and others above have expressed the need for sources, so I'm making an exception.) Homunq (࿓) 20:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion, and editors decided that concept was best titled "electoral system". As a result, this title is available for an alternative and valid meaning, which it is currently being used for. If you think anyone would realistically come here to find information on electoral systems, then this can be dealt with by a hatnote as is the norm on Wikipedia. Number   5  7  20:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The electoral system article you wrote is NOT precisely about that concept. Here's what it says in the intro: "An electoral system is the set of rules that determines how elections and referendums are conducted and how their results are determined.... Electoral systems consist of sets of rules that govern all aspects of the voting process: when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who can stand as a candidate, how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted (electoral method), limits on campaign spending, and other factors that can affect the outcome." That clearly includes the thing that my sources above are about ("how the ballots are counted"), but also includes multiple other aspects which are not generally studied by social choice theory.
 * For instance: would you say that the electoral systems of the UK and New York State are identical? Of course not. But both use plurality voting/first past the post. They use the same X, but not the same electoral system; thus, it's clear that while X is a key part of an electoral system, the generic term for Xs is not "electoral system". Homunq (࿓) 20:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I literally have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Number   5  7  21:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You argued that there's already an article that covers the concept which is called "voting method" in my sources above, and that thus the term "voting method" is free to be used for the topic of this article. I'm saying that the other article covers a broader topic; your argument is like saying we could use the title "motor" for an article about the neurological adjective because the article "car" already covers the mechanical meaning. I'd also argue that, even if the "electoral system" article did cover precisely the same topic as my sources above refer to with "voting method", that would not "free up" the title "voting method" to refer to something other than its most common usage. Homunq (࿓) 21:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose any action other than deletion/merge Beating a dead horse. This has already been dealt with above so there is no need for a further RfC. The article is, essentially, a small list of voting methods - this can be merged into the main articles on electoral systems. A list of voting methods in itself is not, I believe, notable enough to merit more than a section in the overall article on electoral systems. Keira 1996  02:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No Looking around the internet and Wikipedia, it seems clear that "voting method" is used interchangeably with "electoral system" to describe the topic given the latter title on Wikipedia. Indeed, in many places in newspapers, academia, nonprofits, and Wikipedia articles, such electoral systems as instant-runoff voting and first-past-the-post (plurality) are referred to as "voting methods."  Even though "electoral system" was chosen as the best title for that article, it doesn't mean that another term for the same thing is a good title for an article on a different but related topic.  I believe "voting procedure" may be a better title than "voting method" for this article; I Googled "voting procedure" and found multiple webpages among the top results describing the mundanities of preparing, marking, and counting ballots, and other details regarding the act of voting; this information was constantly referred to as the "voting procedure," and in two pages of results I didn't see the phrase used to describe anything else (such as an electoral system). The phrase "voting procedure" was used on government websites at multiple levels and on pages maintained by other types of organizations.  --DavidK93 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. "Voting method" is the usual way to refer to the topic of this article. The phrase is sometimes also used to refer to electoral systems, so a hatnote may be justified. Maproom (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No - google gives me 210k hits, and this does not seem a dominant meaning.  Looking in at ones the more promising sites at www.fairvote.org/glossary or ballotopedia by state or electology.org glossary makes it look like this is not a technical term itself, but is just used as a word and modifier where the meaning varies.  Cult us edu uses it as label for a list - plurality, modified plurality, borders count, and pairwise comparioson.  Stanford.edu encyclopedia of philosophy lists things like the Hare rule.  Austin.cc.edu goes thru the mathematically impossible for these to satisfy fairness criteria.  Some list balloting mechanisms - paper, online, absentee, phone, onsite, roll call.  Some list analysis methods - Baldwin, Barda, Coombs, Hare, Plurality.  So it seems voting methods does not ~have~ a common meaning.  As a generic descriptor it could and is used for each of these, not any one in particular. Markbassett (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, Yes but! The article justifies its existence because it is quite reasonable in content and reasonably continent, but it could be much more valuable with a hatnote along the lines of (feel welcome to improve) This article deals with the physical means of casting ballots. For details of voting theory see Electoral system. As for the suggested alternative names, for heaven's sake folks, stop trying to tune the wording to suit everybody; what else do we have redirects for? It is not the same problem as the current half-witted convention of having biological binomens as redirs to common names that do not mean the same thing JonRichfield (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with JonRichfield here. Bondegezou (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Voting Summoned by bot. This struck me as content that should be in the Voting article, so I boldly added it there, along with a link to Voting methods in deliberative assemblies.  The reason I called it vote collection methods versus voting methods is to distinguish congressional/parliamentary/legislative voting procedure versus the act of tallying the public's votes at the ballot box or otherwise.  If there's agreement, this article can be replaced with a simple redirect and we can move on. If other Voting article editors disagree and revert me, then we're back to square one. Timtempleton (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a clear improvement — both the bold adding of this content to Voting, and the potential future removal of this article as a separate entity. If the latter happens, however, I think that the content here at this title should be a dab page rather than a redirect.
 * But as I've said below, I think that there are those who would apply "enhanced scrutiny" to any changes I made along those lines, so despite thinking this would be a good idea, I'm not going to be the one to be BOLD here. I'd be happy if Timtempleton would do that, though. Homunq (࿓) 13:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an RfC so it needs to be closed by an outside party rather than someone involved in the discussion put into practice their own particular preference. Number   5  7  17:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I didn't see your objection before I made the change. I saw you reverted my bold move so I'll let the rfc close before doing anything else. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not an RfC anymore. It had expired and Legobot removed the tags. So I think the BOLD move was valid. Number   5  7, do you want to revert your reversion? Or would you rather justify it on substantive, rather than procedural, grounds? Homunq (࿓) 21:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole idea of being bold is that it's acceptable to revert it if you disagree. There is clearly no consensus for that outcome – in fact there doesn't seem to be any consensus at all, so the status quo remains until there is one. Number   5  7  21:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm not questioning your right to revert here. But while it's clear you disagree with Timtempleton's move, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. "It's the status quo" doesn't really seem like the best grounds for this argument to me, given that this status quo was originally created by a BOLD move on your own part that never had consensus. Why didn't I revert that BOLD move? Because it replaced a BOLD move on my own part. So by this logic, even-numbered BOLD moves are Status Quo but odd-numbered ones aren't? Better to ground arguments in how the 'pedia should be, not in historical accidents of how it is. (Note: I realize that some of the foregoing could be read as sarcastic and/or passive aggressive. That is not my intention. It's pretty surprising how hard it is to disagree in a sincere and respectful way that doesn't come across as having sarcastic overtones.) Homunq (࿓) 16:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I reread the original rfc and the history, and also looked at some of the other voting related articles. (BTW - there is currently a merge vote that might interest those of you interested in voting related articles.Talk:Popular vote (representative democracy)  With my merge vote the merges have a slight lead, but it's still no consensus.)  I still feel that the voting method content fits better in the voting article - it's not a lot of info and so works as a section - and indeed it sits there now because of my BOLD move.  But since my additional BOLD move of adding a redirect from here was reverted, we should make a decision since having two identical sets of info in two places will lead to unwanted forks and is not sustainable. I see an earlier merge request was voted no, but that was to balloting method, which does not exist.  Why don't one of you start a merge discussion for voting method and voting? Having been summoned by a bot, I think I should defer to those of you who have put more time and thought into this. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  18:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So now what? It's up to you.
There are a variety of opinions in the RfC above. I have already pushed this issue as hard as I reasonably can, and some would say harder. So if others believe anything needs to be done, somebody besides me is going to have to take initiative somehow. Homunq (࿓) 11:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus for re-naming the article. Some users have suggested a hatnote, so I've added one. Those users who want to merge or delete the article are free to move that suggestion forward with a specific proposal/discussion if they see fit. Bondegezou (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge
As suggested: Merge to Voting Homunq (࿓) 18:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC) '''This discussion should continue at the target article talk page. Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 09:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)'''
 * Oppose I think there's enough here for a standalone article. Number   5  7  20:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - with redirect I think the voting method fits thematically more as a subset of the larger voting article, and as such can easily fit into the voting article. From a narrative perspective, it is more useful to learn about voting methods after you've read something about voting, rather than voting methods on their own.  We can see what a merge would look like since I already added this article's content to the voting article Voting. All that would have to happen to support this vote is to replace this article with a redirect to that section. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with TimTempleton's arguments. Also, this title is contested (I believe that the term is far more widely used for electoral systems). I think that moving the material to voting and having a dab page here is a reasonable compromise for that debate. Homunq (࿓) 17:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support a move although #1 it is unclear whether it belongs in Electoral Systems, Election, or Voting, and #2 the article organization I believe is incongruent, and its current naming contradicts the literature, so once that is repaired it might stand in its own article if not deleted (please see new section below). Filingpro (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC) TimTempleton's naming is an improvement , as the article stands now, (as are other names that have been suggested e.g. voting apparatus, balloting method etc.) Filingpro (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of Voting Method + Article Organization & Relevance
DEFINITION Voting means to express and decide (as a group). A voting method is therefore how voters express themselves and a group decision is reached, and necessarily includes whether voters can rank or approve alternatives, and how expressed preferences are aggregated to form a group decision. This definition is consistent with the use of "voting method" in the literature, and with established plain language "Plurality Voting", "Approval Voting", "Score Voting", "Ranked Choice Voting" etc. Voting is enfranchisement - i.e. the power to decide, not mere expression. Decisions such as the fate of this article can be accomplished by way of voting. To block an individual from voting is to deny that individual franchise in the decision making process, not merely the power to express themselves. A voting method is how this franchise occurs - i.e the procedure that brings about the enfranchisement of the voter.

Whether I deliver my mail-in ballot at the polls on election day, or to the election administration office, or send via postal service, does not change the voting method. The various options for delivering my paper ballot do not substantively change how I express my preferences or how the group decision is reached. Similarly, when voting using plurality "vote for one" or approval "vote for one or more", it does not matter whether voters mark chosen candidates on paper or a touch screen, the particular recording device does not substantively change how voters express their opinion or how the decision is made.

ARTICLE ORGANIZATION & RELEVANCE

The collection of presumed “voting methods” I see as incongruous and I believe therefore lacking relevance in their joint presentation. #1 We identify “paper-based methods”, while separately listing “postal voting”, but postal voting uses paper. Additionally, postal voting systems allow voters to drop off their paper ballots at the polls on election day. #2 We identify “machine voting” which can be manual, lever, or electronic. But we also list “online voting” which is electronic. The article reads “voters type in the name of the candidate…and confirm when the candidate’s photo is displayed on the screen”, but that describes online voting. Topics mixed up in this article include WHERE voters vote, and WHAT is the voting device. The article topics do not cover HOW a voter’s preferences are expressed (i.e. “vote for one” “vote for one or more”, or “rank alternatives in order of preference”) and how the group decision is arrived at. REMEDY Action Taken: The primary reference to this article from Electoral Systems I have updated in accordance with comments above, and removed the link to this article. The updated reference reads as follows: --- Participatory rules determine candidate nomination and voter registration, in addition to the location of polling places and the availability of online voting, postal voting, and absentee voting. Other regulations include the selection of voting devices such as paper ballots, machine voting or open ballot systems, and consequently the type of vote counting systems and verification used. Note this subject could be moved to "Election Administration" section within the Electoral system''s article. --- If we improve this article rather than delete it, I recommend an organization roughly similar to the description above. Before we can properly name it, if it stands at all, I believe a reorganization is necessary. Note also the following existing article: Ballot I had suggested "Balloting methods" which gets us much closer to what is used in the literature, and the only argumentation against that proposal was that a "ballot" did not adequately describe voting by show of hands, yet "Open Ballot" is the term used for show of hands. Are there any other references to this article on wiki? Apologies for not having more time to repair or remove this article. Filingpro (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We have already decided that the appropriate place for "Plurality Voting", "Approval Voting", "Score Voting", "Ranked Choice Voting" etc is at electoral system not voting method, so what you're recommending won't happen (at least this is what I think you were recommending – the wall of text above is a bit too TL;DR). Number   5  7  21:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say Plurality, Approval, RCV are not in the appropriate place in electoral system, so I do not see any relevance to your comment or basis for predicting the fate of this article. Filingpro (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest turning your attention to "ARTICLE ORGANIZATION & RELEVANCE" above as I believe you are the author of the article I think you will find this sufficiently concise. Filingpro (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see that you're listing some problems, but I still can't work out what you're actually recommending. Number   5  7  22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we identify the relevance of the collection of topics in the article? Can you suggest the specific reason - i.e. significance for bringing these topics together under one article? I think once we identify this I can help improve the article.
 * For example, specifically why are "Paper-based methods" and "Postal voting" different, and why are "Paper-based methods" and "Machine voting" different?
 * I can suggest some ways of organizing the article, although would first like to know what you intended to be the organizing principle of the article, and its relevance. Filingpro (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see specific recommendations below...Filingpro (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

3 Ways To Organize The Article
Three suggested ways to organize the article: Election Electoral polling system*:  methods <--- alternates: | Ballot Delivery System or Vote Collection Method Filingpro (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Polling Place By Mail Online Content may include information about the impact of voter participation when various polling systems methods are available to voters, and how access to voting for registered voters achieved (i.e. how does one obtain their ballot at the polling place, via mail, or obtain authorization to submit a ballot online) and how ballot stuffing is managed. Other differences can be emphasized, such as the ability for extended voting periods with online or mail voting systems, whereas polling stations require administrative costs including renting of physical locations, staffing, and voting equipment (e.g. voting booths) so that voting is typically limited to a single election day. Voting equipment : <--- alternate: | Voting apparatus Filingpro (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Paper ballot Punch card machine Lever machine Electronic voting (DRE machine, Web browser software devices) Open ballot Tokens: marbles, sticks, stones, etc.
 * with disambiguation for opinion polls and statistical polling methods

Vote casting method**: Paper ballot box Optical scanner Electronic voting machine (DRE) Lever machine Postal service Online Open ballot Tokens: marbles, sticks, stones, etc. Filingpro (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Added alternate names above Filingpro (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC) also "vote collection" from TimTempleton Filingpro (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * how voters submit their expressed preferences for tabulation in an election.