Talk:Proportional representation/Archive 5
This is an archive of past discussions about Proportional representation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Edits and Reversions by BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd
First part of discussion between BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. Please do not modify this discussion.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: You have re-inserted statements I reverted so I am again reverting them. Here are the reasons.
1, Link between constituent and representative: In your new first sentence, "ridings do not exist" is wrong (you contradict yourself in the next sentence - "half of the electoral ridings" - for this reason alone your revision should be reverted). Ridings exist in all PR systems, they are simply bigger than in an FPTP system. So your claim that "there is no link between voters and their parliamentary representatives" is wrong, only where the district encompasses "larger districts, especially those with a nationwide district" is the point justified but you have deleted that. Why? With STV there are no rules saying Nunavut cannot continue to be a single member district if that's what people want. When STV was used in Alberta and Manitoba all rural districts were single member; in the recent STV plan for the UK mentioned elsewhere in the article the Outer Hebrides would continue to be a single member district. Perhaps I misunderstand the word "ridings" which appears here for the first time in the article. I assume it means electoral "districts" but, not knowing Canada, I am not sure. In WP it is a good idea when a term is used for the first time to provide a link to the appropriate WP article. In "The disadvantage of the proportional representation system..." the first "The" is wrong because, as the rest of the article makes clear, there are other PR disadvantages: you must use the indefinite article. The next "the", in "of the proportional representation system", is also wrong: There is not one PR system but three (see the top of the article). Better would be "of proportional representation..." referring to just the concept. In MMP, you write, "half of the electoral ridings are elected through PR". That too is wrong, in NZ they have 50 list members and 70 districts and are thinking of fixing a 40:60 ratio; Lesotho has a still lower ratio. But you have deleted the words that hinted at this, "up to half". MMP is normally "mixed member proportional representation You have deleted the essay template ({{essay|section|date=May 2015}} at the beginning of the section). Why? The rest of the section doesnt't have an essay-like style? The text you replaced may not have been much good but you have clearly not improved it. What point are you trying to make which wasn't already addressed? Can't you integrate it into the existing text? 2, Party list PR: you have added the statement "Unfortunately, this can result in candidates that appeal more to their respective political bases than to the general public as a whole." That may be so but you haven't provided a source. Please see WP:VERIFY: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." An example too would be good. --BalCoder (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
BalCoder
I agree that WP requires articles to reflect sources. Therefore, I have provided sources below that should clear up your confusion as to what mixed systems are: "Mixed electoral systems attempt to combine the positive attributes of both plurality/majority (or other) and PR electoral systems. In a mixed system, there are two electoral systems using different formulae running alongside each other. The votes are cast by the same voters and contribute to the election of representatives under both systems. One of those systems is a plurality/majority system (or occasionally an ‘other’ system), usually a single-member district system, and the other a List PR system. There are two forms of mixed system. When the results of the two types of election are linked, with seat allocations at the PR level being dependent on what happens in the plurality/majority (or other) district seats and compensating for any disproportionality that arises there, the system is called a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system." [1] "C. Mixed Systems Some jurisdictions have chosen to use a mixture of majority and proportional representation systems in order to achieve the benefits of both. Since the late 1940s in Germany, for example, one half of the seats in the Bundestag (the lower house of parliament) have been filled by plurality, using single-member constituencies, while the other half are filled using party lists, according to the d'Hondt system. Voters mark two choices on their ballot papers: one from among a list of parties, the other from among a slate of candidates for district representation."[2] To conclude, as verified by the above sources, there are actually three voting systems: plurality/majoritarian, mixed, and PR. 'Mixed systems' is a distinct voting system category which shares characteristics of both PR and plurality systems. The fact that mixed voting systems such as MMP share characteristics with PR systems does not negate the existence of this distinct and critical third category. Additionally, a plethora of sources within the article clearly state that the two PR types are STV and party list. It is important not to confuse readers by inserting contradictions into the article. I encourage you to follow WP:VERIFY policy, and thoroughly research mixed systems prior to capriciously denying their existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 11:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Second part of the saga
|
---|
BalCoder I am thrilled we have finally come to a consensus that 'mixed systems' is a distinct voting system. I noticed that you had previously removed the mention of mixed systems from the article several months prior to my contributions "(cur | prev) 11:27, 11 December 2014 BalCoder (talk | contribs) . . (75,151 bytes) (+17,245) . . (Lead: compress (WP:LEADLENGTH), simplify. Body: replace STV; change mixed to two-tier systems, replace MMP, add biproportional rep.; add sortition, some page nos.) (undo | thank)". This critical language has now been restored. I have added three scholarly articles to the already lengthy list of sources on the topic of mixed electoral systems. [3][4][5][6]: 22 [7][8] [9] [10] [11]. Hopefully this ends the contention about the existence of mixed systems. You have argued "some mixed systems (all but one) are not proportional". I encourage you to conduct research to substantiate this opinion and contribute sourced text. You might want to consider adding content to 'Additional Member System', and 'Alternative Vote Plus' in order to clarify why you feel AMS and AVP are less proportional mixed systems compared to MMP; which as a hybrid system is only somewhat proportional. You have previously asserted that "all PR systems use districts". I am relieved that you have now observed that the Netherlands and Israel as well as the Ukraine and Russia (when they used PR) use party list PR without delineated districts. [12][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [14] That is to say, these nations are not subdivided into local constituencies, but rather the entire country is one zone. This fact is particularly relevant to the section 'Link between constituent and representative'. However, I am deeply disappointed by your intentionally abrasive behaviour. Please treat other editors with the same level of respect with which you wish to be treated. Please take the time to practice good faith by researching your claims and post sourced contributions as I have done. Alternatively, if you do not wish to take the time and effort to research the topic and post sourced contributions to the article, you might want to consider pursuing other topics instead. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
BalCoder, I do not have the ability to block or ban users, nor to issue page protections as that is an "Admin user-right" and I am only a regular editor. I will ping a couple of admins that I know, and the admin who previously helped in this dispute for their opinions, or alternatively you can take half of the issue to WP:ANI to see about having Ontario Teacher BFA BEd blocked and get the page re-protected using WP:RFPP after reading WP:PP to find an appropriate protection template. I would first recommend going to a WP:DRR venue such as DRN or Formal mediation. Admin pings:Martin, SpacemanSpiff, EdJohnston; would any of you please be able to review this discussion and provide guidance on how to continue? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Third installment
|
---|
Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Azerbaijan Bahamas Bangladesh Barbados Belize Bermuda Botswana British Virgin Islands Canada Cook Islands Dominica Ethiopia Gambia Ghana Grenada India Isle Of Man Jamaica Kenya Liberia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Micronesia Myanmar Nigeria Pakistan Palau Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands Swaziland Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Uganda United Kingdom United States Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe[32]
User:BalCoder, YOU have violated the WP:3RR rule. I have contacted User:Øln, and User:Reallavergne to provide assistance on this article. Judging by the archives, you have previously engaged in edit wars with these two editors. User:Reallavergne has mentioned on User:Øln's talk page: "I'm afraid I am going to have to launch a formal complaint against BalCoder, as all he can do is revert and criticize. He has now reverted everything I have contributed en masse three times now, and has not contributed one edit himself in response to our discussions. At least if he was selective in his reversions or offered some text of his own to try to address the concerns I have expressed, I could understand. It seems he is incapable of considering any changes at all to what he wrote back in August - not even stylistic errors - and so no progress is being made on the page. However, I know you have been reading at least some of our discussion, so perhaps before I launch a call for dispute resolution, you have a comment offer on the talk page?Reallavergne (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)". In fact, you have previously been part of a dispute resolution Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854 "24. Mass reversion and disrespectful language - Proportional Representation" on this same topic for the same unacceptable conduct! It seems you have routinely engaged in edit wars in the past on this article where you mass reverted content. You should have selectively removed only the areas of disagreement. These other editors also noted that you did not provide sources to back up your opinions. You were also extremely rude to these other editors as well. For example, on September 24th, 2014, User:Reallavergne noted "I don't find that you are being respectful here. Let us please try to avoid accusations such as the above and assume that we are working in good faith." To sum up, you have been repeatedly told by other editors (on this very same article) that mass reversions are unacceptable, that you need to provide SOURCES, and that you must act in a civil manner. Moreover, there is nothing incoherent about pointing out the OBVIOUS difference between the numbers 47 and 3! How could you possible expect people to believe that only 3 nations use FPTP? I am reverting this blatant vandalism.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted all Ontario's changes again. Changes must be discussed and consensus achieved before changing the article. Improvements are made by adding to a coherent article, not by slowly pruning a grossly mutilated one. This is the way WP:BRD works which I invoked on Aug.24. Ontario has yet to engage in a good faith discussion, for example see his response to that BRD proposal: "Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text...", this tone in only his second talk post ever! Reallavergne (no hard feelings, Real) may not know that there is a WP:DRN dispute open, to which Ontario agreed. I would question the propriety of helping Ontario edit the article while this dispute is in progress. While the dispute is in progress the article will remain in its coherent state, a state which has not seen any substantial changes for eleven months (that's some "flawed text"). --BalCoder (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC) User:BalCoder pretends to be reverting the article to a former state. However, he/she has repeatedly inserted that A. plurality voting system are used only in Canada, the USA, and the UK. This is incorrect. I have provided a sourced list above of the nations using FPTP, and B. Proportional representation is used in the majority of countries. This is incorrect. PR is used in 36% of the world's nations. [40] User:Reallavergne and User:Øln, I appreciate your assistance in working positively and collaboratively to reach a consensus. BalCoder believes his/her agreement is always necessary to reach a consensus. Consensus can be reached through Near-unanimous consensus, which is "Unanimity Minus One (or U−1), or Unanimity Minus Two (or U−2)" or through a Supermajority (two-thirds rule). Moreover, the verbally abusive manner in which this user has behaved in the past, such as calling me an "unscrupulous liar" (27 Sep 2015) or calling User:Reallavergne's edits "garbage" (04 Sep 2014), as well as the mass reversion of content (including minor edits) without providing sourced rational, is counterproductive to reaching consensus. Therefore, we may be able to reach a consensus without necessarily reaching a unanimous vote. In this way, we can avoid a filibuster. To be clear, are we all in agreement that: - MMP is a "Mixed system" (occasionally called a hybrid system or a two-tier system)? - FPTP is used in more than 3 countries? - PR is not used in the majority of nations? - Some list-PR nations (like Israel and the Netherlands) don't use delineated districts? - closed-list PR candidates are selected by party leaders, and not by voters? - respectful etiquette is to be used at all times while in discussions on the talk page? I look forward to a positive and respectful discussion.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You have repeatedly reinserted that FPTP is used only in the UK, the USA, and Canada, as well as the claim that PR is used in the majority of countries. Do you believe these two claims to be true? Please clarify your position by voting on the following 5 issues:
User:Reallavergne and User:Øln, when you have an opportunity, please also vote on the aforementioned 5 issues. (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Some changes prompted by the recent extended disputeThe section "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems" has recently been the source of confusion so I have deleted it. Specifically because:
I have also added a Template:Multiple issues to "Party list PR" section to make clear it needs work, rewritten the "Link between constituent and representative" section to make clearer that this is a particular advantage of single member systems, and added some refs. --BalCoder (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC) |
- As I have repeatedly pointed out, there are not 2, but rather 3 distinct families of voting systems. These are: proportional representation, mixed electoral systems, and plurality/majoritarian systems. The vast majority of experts, from around the world, and from a variety of different professions, use this simple-to-understand classification. For instance, political advocacy groups such as the Electoral Reform Society of the UK, journalists such as Aaron Wherry from Maclean's Magazine, and academic scholars such Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law Claudio Martinelli from the University of Milan-Bicocca, all follow this widely used classification. [3] [45] [42] This globally used classification is used by both proponents and opponents of PR. The retention of this classification must not be misconstrued as favouring any particular category. Nor would it be reasonable to portray its inclusion as having anything to do with me as it was already in the article years prior to my contributions. In brief, there is no possible legitimate reason why this extremely well sourced classification should be removed.
- I have, in good faith, retained all of your minor edits and have integrated your contributions to the "Link between constituents and representative" with existing text. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I hoped Ontario had gone, but no. So, since the "dispute" continues, I have moved "Some changes prompted by the recent extended dispute" and Ontario's response to that into this "Edits and revertions" section. I have reverted his changes again.
I have also opened a new WP:ANI complaint against Ontario. --BalCoder (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- BalCoder,
- You have incredulously claimed in the most recent WP:ANI complaint that none of the sources I have provided list MMP/AMS as semi-proportional, and that I do not seek to reach consensus with other editors.
- As notes in the Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR) website,
- "Mixed member systems differ slightly from country to country. In AMS (The UK term for MMP) the number of MPs in the parliament is fixed, and as a result AMS is sometimes called a semi proportional system. With MMP additional MPs may be required to achieve the required degree of proportionality. The degree of proportionality varies depending on the ratio of MPs elected by FPTP to the number of party list MPs, and the rules by which the party list MPs are appointed." [46] I have added this source to the list substantiating the phrase "This has led to some disagreement among scholars as to its classification.". This phrase has been added under the suggestion by, and consensus with, Øln on November 4th, 2015.
- Additionally, I would also ask that you stop suggesting that I am somehow against MMP as this is not the case. Additionally, I would like to ask you to stop referring to me as he/him as I am female. I have previously informed you that I find this gender assumption to be sexist, and you have not yet apologized.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have reverted back to a neutral third version of the article while this dispute is in progress. I have subsequently added only minor edits such as wiki-links, subtitles, and a sourced table which does not change the meaning of the article. This neutral third version can be used as a starting point for any future additions to the article.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have reverted the massive deletion of the extremely well sourced "PR in the broader family of voting systems" section. This deletion of an entire section of sourced text from the article is completely unacceptable. Please note, this section was not created by me, nor is it controversial.
- BalCoder, please discuss why you feel the sources don't classify voting systems into three groups: PR voting systems, Mixed Member voting systems, and Plurality/Majoritarian voting systems. If the sourced do in fact use this classification method, you must stop trying to delete this section.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
What now?
@Abecedare, EdJohnston, NeilN, OhanaUnited, Moxy, and Bgwhite:
You have all been confronted with this dispute or User:Ontario_Teacher_BFA_BEd. After two DRN attempts (Oct.19, Nov.2, both failed due to non-cooperation by Ontario), a second a WP:ANI complaint (two editors for blocking Ontario, two not), and a mediation attempt by admin User:Bgwhite, which he has now abandoned for IMO no good reason, this five month old dispute has got nowhere.
What should I do now? Please do not say "discuss", I have been trying to do that since the beginning, but Ontario is unwilling (just read her first couple of TP posts, or any post). After the two DRNs, Bgwhite's mediation was the third opportunity to have a mediator force Ontario to discuss point-by-point and that too came to nothing. I have expended an enormous amount of time and energy on this whole saga and my energy is now exhausted. Reverting is the only avenue open to me. I will continue to do that until either I or Ontario is banned. What else can I do?
A light on the horizon is some recent pushback by others against Ontario. In response to a complaint about spam admin User:Moxy on Dec.22 has deleted edits by Ontario in 14 (!) other articles, the only admin to actually do something about Ontario (for which fervent thanks, Moxy - pity you didn't include PR, from where Ontario copied the text, and Voting systems too). Also a merge of the MMP and AMS articles was reverted by User:Ajfweb (twice) because Ontario mendaciously claimed non-existent consensus.
Another non-existent "consensus" was claimed for a move of "Semi-proportional representation" to "Mixed member systems", although Ontario was the only participant in that discussion. In the PR article Ontario has also renamed "two-tier systems" to "mixed-member systems": so Ontario thinks "two-tier", "semi PR" and "mixed-member systems" are all the same thing, but that is not at all the case. What a mess. And people think I am exaggerating when I accuse Ontario of spreading "chaos" and "mayhem"!
Ontario's mendacity is pervasive. I doubt that any Ontario post - after the first two or three on this TP perhaps which were just wrong - is free of it. She always misrepresents my position. In this category, too, are her persistent claims (most recently on Jan.1), despite no proof and my denials (Nov.3, Nov.8), that I am responsible for some anon.edits which began in November. A further deception: the long lists of sources. When one looks at them they prove to be, with very few exceptions, fraudulent; see my edit for Bgwhite on Dec.11, and have a look for the word "semi" in a few of the 9 (!) sources Ontario listed in support of the "move" of "Semi-PR" mentioned above. Of course no-one can check all this stuff so they believe it.
I have been accused of taking the PR article too personally or not being prepared to accept improvements. My rule is very simple: follow WP rules and guidelines. I have pointed Ontario to WP:VERIFY at least eight times. Until Ontario produces one RS saying MMP is not proportional she can't say it in the article. All Ontario has are refs saying this or that MMP election did not produce a proportional result, arguing from that that MMP generally is not PR. The unimpeachable and entirely uncontroversial sources that say MMP is PR are overlooked.
This arguing from the particular to the general is a favourite trick: Netherlands and Israel do not have electoral districts therefore all party list PR systems do not have districts. On Aug.25 I point out that several open list systems with districts are already discussed in the article (most W.European countries use open list PR), and Ontario does reluctantly, over time, make some small changes. But on Dec.7, in Open list, Ontario re-inserted "in open list PR candidates are not elected in a district level election process" knowing it to be a false statement (it was later deleted - thanks User:Number_57).
On Nov.26 (with TP post), thinking Ontario had withdrawn, I added i.a. text emphasising the importance of single member districts to FPTP (in the section "Link between constituent and representative"), which I had promised Ontario in August. I also added 3 solid academic sources questioning that importance. Ontario reverted the edit, explaining in the TP that she was keeping "all of your minor edits", but she didn't, she kept the affirmative text and deleted the counter-view, because Ontario supports FPTP and is not going to allow any counter arguments, sources be damned.
Any of these points is alone cause for concern. Together, and with the (at least) six warnings admins have posted to Ontario's TP, one would think an admin might realise that something needs to be done.
--BalCoder (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Reference list
|
---|
|