Talk:Multiple districts paradox

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

First past the post:

In this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Criteria in evaluating voting systems, the table says that FPTP is "consistent". This is not true. Else, the definition of consistent is badly written enough not to be understood.

Example:

Votes cast for the same 3 candidates in 2 voting districts.

VOTING DISTRICT A Candidate A: 20 Candidate B: 25 Candidate C: 5

VOTING DISTRICT B Candidate A: 20 Candidate B: 5 Candidate C: 25

Take both voting district totals together, and candidate A wins. Split the voting districts into A and B and candidate A does not win. --jrleighton 04:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A voting system is consistent if, when the electorate is divided arbitrarily into two parts and separate elections in each part result in the same alternative being selected, an election of the entire electorate also selects that alternative.

In your scenario, it is not true that "separate elections in each part result in the same alternative being selected." KVenzke 00:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Range voting

So what about range voting or cumulative voting? They seem to satisfy this criterion, but not the definition of positional voting system "A positional voting system is a ranked voting method in which the options receive points based on their position on each ballot, and the option with the most points wins." --Henrygb 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not preferential voting systems. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Participation criterion

The participation criterion is equivalent to the consistency criterion. Seems to me like both pages should be merged. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true. Douglas Woodall's Descending Acquiescing Coalitions system is a ranked system and passes participation but isn't a positional system, thus it fails consistency. Wotwotwoot (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right; sorry! I was confused by the definition from this page--I'll rewrite it to make it clearer.

Consistency does imply participation though, right? Participation seems to be the special case where you take one set of votes with A > B, and then you add a set of votes that unanimously agree A > B. (In this case any Pareto-efficient method will label A > B.) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]