User:MaxcyZane/sandbox

Suggestions for article
Here are my comments on this article by section of the article.

Usage
The section on “Usage” appears in the article before the new reader know what Approval Voting is. Here is an example of how the text might read:"An Approval Voting election for a single winner has  three candidates A, B, and C. How should voters vote if they regard A as the best, C as the worst, and B somewhere in between? If the voter regards B as almost as good as A and much better than C, then that voter would opt for both A and B. In doing so the voter decides that while voting for B may reduce the likelihood that A will win it is worth it to try to avoid having C win. Contrariwise, if the voter regards B almost as bad as C, then that voter should vote for A alone and avoid either of the poor candidates."The Usage section has a long list of users a many  examples where it is no longer used. The part about Dartmouth is especially long and has some errors. Part of this could be put nan appendix or other section outside the main text.

Did you mean Usage?
The next section is onUsage, and I feel such a section should appear after the description is developed. For readers unfamiliar with Approval Voting the rest of the arctic would have more meaning Especially   since the article goes to great length to discuss some of the experiences if they understood better dos it worked. Something like three candidates A B C …

Effect on elections
The section Effect on Elections begins with one sentence of claims by a proponent followed by a lot of negative material including claims by FairVotge,an organization that strongly opposes Approval Voting .It lists thee “flaws," that make  approval voting sound bad. Then they say"The first two "flaws" are considered advantages by advocates of approval voting.” Rather, advocates show that under some circumstances they are not flaws at all.

The  subsequent discussion of the French election 2002 is interesting. It contains a reference to”evaluative voting” a topic by that or another name should appear much earlier For example the exampleI I suggest above illustrates that Approval Voting is an evaluative system, not a ranking system. Voters evaluate the  comparison rather than ranking them. Evaluations result in rankings.

Their list of evaluative voting systems should  include “Majority Judgment,” which is mentioned later in the article.

I would omit the Burr dilemma, for which no references are given. The comments about Dartmouth Alumni Council conclude with a  sentenceI  I   regard as false.