Jump to content

Talk:FairVote

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This needs merging with another in the same category.

I agree with the proposal to move; one or the other, not both, and Center for Voting and Democracy is likely to be ambiguous. Septentrionalis 21:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: moved

[edit]

I move it, others can do the merge. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting projects and initiative sections

[edit]

Most of this article seems to have lots of problems with it. It is uncited assertions and doesn't follow WP:NPOV. In fact it looks like it was probably copied from somewhere with phrases such as "our ultimate goal", "One of our most active programs", etc. If no one objects after a couple of weeks, and the article doesn't get cleaned up, I think I'll delete the offending material. Alienmercy 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this motion!

Would it be correct to say that FairVote has greatly deprioritized its former goal of implementing PR-STV?

[edit]

Tisane talk/stalk 02:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they have "de-prioritized" STV, and talk also of "District Plus"(Coachtripfan (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

FairVote never has been an STV-only group, but it still leads with that as its proposal for PR in the USA. See discussion of "choice voting", a synonym for STV, on the site.RRichie (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.fairvote.org/overview. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-member seats and overall proportionality

[edit]

Fairvotes advoctaes multi-member seats for House elections. However, this does not guarantee that the overall national vote is proportional to votes cast. Their own analysis avoid giving a break-down - which arguably shows the Republicans would still have won the House on a lower vote than the Democrats. House election under "Fair Votes"Indeed, they also advocate "District Plus" to address this problem. Problems with multi-member systems(Coachtripfan (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

See a discussion this topic here [ http://www.fairvote.org/it-s-not-just-gerrymandering-fixing-house-elections-demands-end-of-winner-take-all-rules# ]and related analysis at fairvoting.us..... Of course, in the US, it's not a parliamentary system ,and STV/multi-seat district would create a group of less rigidly partisan House Members. So the standard is different.RRichie (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRV (Instant Runoff-Voting) is subject to Duverger's Law (2-party domination).

[edit]

¿Should mention this. Also, one must buy expensive new voting equipment because IRV uses a ranked ballot. ¿Should we mention that if we eliminate the overvote rule, we can use existing equipment and Approval Voting (the system allowing one to approve multiple candidates) lets 3rd parties and independents win?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FairVote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New list of reforms

[edit]

Visiting the FairVote.org page today shows their support for only 2 reforms 1) Ranked Choice Voting, and 2) Fair Representation act. The section in this article on proposed reforms should be updated to reflect their current proposals. Also it will be interesting to know why they changed their supported policies. Thanks! Lbeaumont (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Pomona College supported by WikiProject United States and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2014 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Paid Editing called for?

[edit]
  • Is the paid disclosure page necessary here:

On a recent edit to this article, in accordance with WP:COI, I disclosed a (non monetary!) COI between me and Fairvote. However, after that edit, a paid editing tag was placed on this page.

  • Why it should be changed:

Even if editors think my edits were inappropriate and should be reverted, a paid editing tag is the wrong tag to put on the article. I don't want to remove the tag myself because of the (former) (non-monetary!) COI, but unless there is any evidence/indication that there was actually paid editing, I don't feel like it's the correct tag.

  • Actual Requested Edit

That the paid editing tag be removed, as it was added in response to a disclosed, non monetary COI which I disclosed.

A Tree In A Box (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The current tag is actually not related to you, it’s just a coincidence it ended up being added at the same time as you let us know about your COI. See Talk:Instant-runoff voting.
In general, editing with a minor potential COI like you mentioned is considered acceptable, and would not merit a tag, as long as that COI has been appropriately disclosed (I'd suggest adding a tag at the top of this page, like the one over at Talk:Schulze method). The COI tag is also different from the paid contributions tag and wouldn't have been added if it was just you; our current concerns are related to a current paid employee of FairVote rather than a former unpaid intern. :)
–Sincerely, A Lime 14:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Article vandalism

[edit]

This article is under attack by opponents of a respected nonprofit organization. ~~ 2600:1017:B80A:2DB7:C078:A82A:F841:8B72 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, not true Untamed1910 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certain recent edits have definitely failed the undue emphasis test and not been written from a neutral point of view. I moved the information about regional clashes to a separate section and out of the lede; and made the language a bit more neutral.
NOTE: As I already said in my edit summary, I have been a supporter of FairVote in the past, although I don't think I'm on their mailing list at the moment. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only evidence in the updated section are still articles about FairVote Washington, not FairVote. They are different organizations. 71.178.201.155 (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, FairVote staff member here. We are not the people to make these edits, but I do want to flag each of them for the content editors.
As noted above, there are several instances incorrectly attributing actions of other organizations to FairVote -- two of which have been added to the page intro (and then removed and returned) in the past week.
1. In the introduction, there's a paragraph about FairVote opposing approval voting in Seattle, but the article it cites is not about FairVote. When the article says "FairVote," it's actually talking about FairVote Washington, a different organization. Steph Houghton works at FairVote Washington. See links:
https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/07/11/76315881/seattle-city-council-may-put-ranked-choice-voting-on-the-ballot
https://fairvotewa.org/about/
2. Likewise, the next sentence claims that FairVote opposed STAR voting in Eugene, Oregon -- but that isn't true. The source is a post by anti-RCV blog Must Read Alaska that names Colin Cole as a founder and onetime lobbyist for FairVote Washington -- again, a different organization. See links: https://mustreadalaska.com/voting-experiments-continue-eugene-to-decide-on-star-voting-and-ranked-choice-proponents-are-opposed/
https://accesshub.pdc.wa.gov/node/48094
https://mustreadalaska.com/tag/ranked-choice-voting/
3. Lastly, there's a section about a court case called Minnesota Voters Alliance v. City of Minneapolis, in which another group called FairVote Minnesota was involved. The Wikipedia article justifies discussing this case by noting that "FairVote Minnesota is an independent ally of FairVote," but FairVote was not involved in the case. This might belong on a page about ranked choice voting/IRV or FairVote Minnesota, but I don't see why it belongs on this page.
We suggest that these sections should be removed for accuracy.
And one additional note: The first sentence of the page lists FairVote as a lobbying group. It is not. FairVote Action is a sister organization that does lobbying and more direct campaign/advocacy work, but again, that is a different organization.
Thanks in advance for your consideration. 2601:14D:8400:C3C0:75DF:4BCF:763C:A372 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; if FairVote is not affiliated with FairVote Washington, I'd suggest you should find a reliable source that clearly states this. The sources you linked (and which are cited in this article) use the terms "FairVote" and "FairVote Washington" interchangeably, and here on Wikipedia, we follow the lead of reliable sources when reporting on topics. So, for example, if newspaper articles refer to groups like "FairVote Washington" or "FairVote Minnesota" as "FairVote", we will follow their lead in doing so.
If FairVote Washington has been using the FairVote label without license, you may wish to discuss this topic with your legal department. Otherwise, this appears to be the correct article to place this information. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These "FairVote" organizations are separately incorporated, with separate 990s (annual documents filed with the IRS) and separate boards of directors with no overlap in board members or staff members Search "FairVote" at this link to see their separate listings for 990s: https://www.guidestar.org/search 2600:1017:B801:4361:F822:7A28:B21D:D22 (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR prevents us from interpreting or analyzing legal documents to determine whether two organizations are the same. We follow WP:Reliable sources, especially secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, and scientific publications. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, FairVote staffer here. The fact remains that these are different organizations.
The Stranger article you cite has been corrected to refer to "FairVote Washington" instead of "FairVote."
https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/07/11/76315881/seattle-city-council-may-put-ranked-choice-voting-on-the-ballot
The Must Read Alaska blog post itself arguably qualifies as "user-generated content." Regardless, the Must Read Alaska author writes that "Colin Cole is a founder of Fair Vote Washington," which we have established is a different organization. The blog post only mentions "FairVote" as part of a direct quotation from the website for STAR voting, which is certainly "user-generated content."
https://mustreadalaska.com/voting-experiments-continue-eugene-to-decide-on-star-voting-and-ranked-choice-proponents-are-opposed/
The final news article cited does not mention FairVote at all.
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/05/22/eugene-rejects-star-voting-rating-based-system/
Finally, FairVote, FairVote Washington, and FairVote Minnesota all have separate Boards and CEOs -- because they are different organizations. See links below showing each website's completely different staff and Board, as well as external news links demonstrating that each group is led by a different person.
There is sufficient proof that these items should be removed.
https://fairvote.org/who-we-are/about-us/
https://ivn.us/posts/fairvotes-new-ceo-ranked-choice-voting-adds-much-needed-value-voters
https://fairvotemn.org/people/
https://www.startribune.com/how-ranked-choice-voting-works-in-minnesota-and-why-some-skeptical-minneapolis-st-paul-minnetonka/600315047/
https://fairvotewa.org/about/
https://www.seattletimes.com/author/lisa-ayrault/ 209.190.206.10 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're obviously affiliated, though. It makes no sense to separate out the actions of the individual entities when FairVote obviously wants them all perceived as the same brand... and it seems very biased to nitpick negative things down to the details when the article seems written to broadly give FairVote credit for every positive RCV-related thing that happens in the country. --Brilliand (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, FairVote's own website lists them as an affiliated/endorsed group. If this is incorrect, and FairVote Washington or some other group is using your name without permission, I would recommend talking to your legal department about sending a cease-and-desist to have FairVote Washington stop using the FairVote name and brand. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

As this article is about an institution, it's worth considering whether this topic is even notable. Following the guidelines on WP:NOTABILITY, the article needs significant coverage from sources independent of the subject. Looking at the sources, I see:

  • Mostly citations directly from FairVote and its affiliates
  • Some broken links
  • Some independent sources that mention FairVote, but only to quote something FairVote said about another topic

I have not checked all the sources. Does anyone see a source that independently writes about FairVote? If not, then this article may merit deletion in its entirety. --Brilliand (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brilliand I checked all the sources. Your analysis is correct.
The only exception I found was one line in one source where a person who worked with FairVote Minnesota is quoted, their affiliation is mentioned, and that mention is used to also say that the organization had success with getting a city to use RCV. But it's just one sentence. After that, everything is either from FairVote directly, a quote or paraphrasing of FairVote or a representative, or a dead link.
There are no sources or even sections within a source that are *about* FairVote. Jasavina (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing citation & undue weight issue

[edit]

Hi all, FairVote staff member trying to re-engage about the second paragraph of this article.

First, none of the links refer to FairVote (except a Ballotpedia article that quotes Rob Richie’s critique of approval voting in 2016, and does not relate to any campaign). A previous assertion that a particular FairVote webpage “endorsed” FairVote Washington ignores a Note on that page that specifically says “listing an organization here does not imply sponsorship or endorsement.” https://fairvoteaction.org/get-involved/state_based_rcv_groups/ There is also now a page that clearly spells out FairVote’s relationship with other groups that have “FairVote” in their name: https://fairvoteaction.org/fairvote-actions-relationship-with-rcv-state-partners-and-allies/

Second, the placement of this paragraph clearly remains an undue weight problem. This is placed well above discussion of FairVote’s primary work, advancing ranked choice voting and proportional ranked choice voting (or even its prior longtime work on the National Popular Vote and Right to Vote Amendment).

As the editors see fit, the article could still, say, cite a Ballotpedia article quoting Rob Richie’s 2016 critique of approval voting (perhaps at the bottom of “Proposed Reforms”). But its placement now is unreasonable given the actual content of FairVote’s work, as well as the lack of citation beyond the single quote in Ballotpedia. 71.178.201.155 (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FairVote&oldid=1249390411"