Talk:Wright system

Reply
It is a refinement of existing systems. It introduces a reiterative count where the vote count is reset and restarted on each iteration following a candidates exclusion from the count. The flow chart is self explanatory. Anyone who understands or has basic understanding of the various counting systems can understand it.

The current systems were designed to facilitate a manual count, They are outdated. The time required to undertake a reiterative manual count was prohibitive but with computer aided counting this is no longer a limitation. It better reflects the voters intention. No vote with a full value that expresses a preference for a continuing candidate skips that candidate or is transferred to lower preference candidate. You could, and I would recommend it. even scrap the Droop Wasted Quota. In counting the Australian Senate election it tales approx 5 mins per iteration. The number of iterations being the number of candidates minus the number of position to be elected Only the last Iteration counts in determining the election result. Try counting an election. And e it can and ooes produce s differnt result. Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.46.45.243 (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have found a ref to the system itself, but the article is still lacking any demonstration of notability (though I have seen comments elsewhere, so they should exist). Another problem is that much of the article is a cut-and-pasted from the original ref. Adpete (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Comparison Table
Should the Wright system be included in the comparison table template at the link below?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Comparison_of_Schulze_to_preferential_voting_systems

1.126.108.98 (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)