Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States

.

Bloated

This article has become bloated with unnecessary details about every push and pull concerning RCV in the US. Plus, the leading graphic is out date. As a part of updating the graphic I'm going to simplify most of the information presented into table format to make it more easily digested unless there is strong opinion otherwise. Jasavina (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

As a part of this simplification I can spin off daughter articles if people think retaining the details on Wikipedia is necessary, but a lot of this stuff just isn't adding to the quality of the article. Jasavina (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

My plan for reorganizing is as follows:

After the introduction, the following sections will be, Current Use, Attempts to Install In Progress, Rejected Attempts to Install, Repealed Use, Legal Challenges

Each section will have an overview paragraph or two–describing the typical circumstances for each topic–and then a table with the relevant information. The narrative details of each individual event will be dropped from the article. Jasavina (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a worthwhile effort, as long as you spin off narrative that you think is excessive into a few separate articles.

As long as the narrative is supported by relevant references, I'd hate to lose that material. To support this thought, I feel a need to make two other points:

• Since 2019-09-15 this article has averaged 242 views per day. Making the article more concise may attract a wider audience, but some of those visitors likely come looking for details that may be "bloat" for other readers. If those details are retained in separate articles, we could get the benefit of the concision you are volunteering to provide without losing details.
• The guidelines on Wikipedia:Article size suggests that over 8,000 words, "May need to be divided; likelihood goes up with size." Below 6,000 words, "Length alone does not justify division." Of course, that's only a guideline. This article currently has 7,627 words. That's above 6,000 but less than 8,000 words.

Thanks for volunteering to do this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy Yeah no problem, it's just the current state of the article reads like the author tried to include every detail they could possibly find. Most of my edits so far are just focused on improving the readability of the article without compromising on substance.

Because my overall plan is quite a major rearrangement of the information, I'm going to be staging all of it over on my user page. I'll continue to pop in here to do writing style improvements, but eventually (a month or more from now) I'll take the cleaned-up prose and fuse it with the tables and new sections.

My plan is to try and retain as much detail as possible. Hopefully I won't need to create any spin-off articles, but I will if it becomes clear that's a better way to organize the information. Jasavina (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

So, in trying to stage the reorganization of this page, I started a draft page with no intention of publishing it. That got deleted by an admin since they don't want people using draft pages that way. Is there any way to stage multiple changes to an article without implementing them? Is there a collaborative sandbox area that doesn't get written over constantly? There's no smooth way to transition the article to a new organization in little steps.

I'm sure Wikipedia is general against this kind of large scale change to an article, but the dang thing is just so poorly organized as-is. The information is very inaccessible and leaving it this way would be a shame. Jasavina (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

For now, I'm planning on just adding the section about bans and repeals, since doing so won't change the overall structure of the article much. Jasavina (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

What did you do that was reverted by an admin? Was this material in your own sandbox? If yes, how did it come to the attention of an admin?

And have you asked that admin what they suggest? You should not have to invent a goofy way to circumvent a strange rule like what I've understood from what you've said.

Beyond what I just said, there should be a way to do what you have suggested. A couple of thoughts come to mind:

1. Is (are) there some substantial portion(s) of this article that could be spun off into separate article(s) and replaced with ~a single line and a reference to the new article(s)?
2. Post a brief description / outline of the changes you'd like to see to this Talk page, make the changes in a word processor on your private computer, while posting them, e.g., to your sandbox to make sure you have the syntax correct but keep a master copy on your own computer. If an admin deletes it again, you won't have lost much. AND you can ask others on this Talk page for help in understanding the concerns of that admin. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy I didn't realize I could access my sandbox from the app, so I had created a draft page as a way to setup an alternate space I could work in from the app. after the admin deleted the draft page we chatted and figured things out and we're all set.

Right now my re-write plan has stalled as I've worked on other things, but I do plan on finishing it. I have the the plan briefly outlined here, but no major changes will be introduced to this page without a through discussion of my final sandbox rewrite. Jasavina (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've lost the enthusiasm for cleaning up this page. I've updated the map, but man, trying to rework this information into digestible form is just not something I'm excited about anymore. Maybe I'll come back to it eventually. Jasavina (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be more succinct. I plan to work on this gradually, as time permits, over a long period of time. Thiesen (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I've got the motivation again.

That "Use at the Local level" Section is absurdly long and detailed and the information is better presented in a table anyway. I'm going to start reworking most of it down in to a table while preserving as much information as possible. Any notable information that doesn't fit in a table will be preserved in text. Jasavina (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not giving up, but even just tackling this one section has reminded me why I lost enthusiasm the first time. This article is a fucking mess. It really needs to have better temporal organization and there's way too many pointless details that mostly amount to "elections continued to happen according to schedule" but with a bunch of extra words. If I were trying to make it harder to extract useful information from the article, this is how I would write it. I might split out a "repealed" section when I'm done, because they're currently mixed in with active elections. Jasavina (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

God damn that was a bitch to clean up, and it's *still* a total mess. Jasavina (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pros and Cons of RCV

Besides eliminating some of the bloat I think there should be a section which spells out the pros and cons of RCV made in debates over the introduction of RCV. This section should also include references to the academic literature on empirical evidence for the effects of RCV.Blaze Droste1977 13:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In general this should probably be over at instant-runoff voting. –Sincerely, A Lime 06:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Undisclosed paid

I see no reason for the use of the "Undisclosed paid" template here. The Wikipedia page for this template says that when the "Undisclosed paid" template is used, the "Connected contributor (paid)" template should be added to the article talk page. This has not been done. I will delete the "undisclosed paid" warning a week from today unless someone has explained by then why it was added. Thiesen (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

agreed - thanks Superb Owl (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw the COI discussion that lead to the template being added, so I've added the "Connected contributor (paid)" template that matches what the editor who added the "Undisclosed paid" template believed. I suspect that isn't quite the right way to do it because the CEO of a company isn't classified as a "paid editor" for that company, but I'll leave that for others to figure out. --Brilliand (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks for noting - looks like there may be excessive FairVote citations. Have you spotted any issues with the content? Superb Owl (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on comments by others in a Discord server, I think the article as currently written makes an effort to report every example that would reflect positively on RCV, while avoiding mention of things that would reflect badly on RCV. Someone commented that the page at https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) (another encyclopedic source) provides a more neutral coverage of the same general topic. --Brilliand (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Brilliand - I will take a look - at first glance this looks more like a list article and doesn't seem to get into the pros and cons of IRV/Ranked-choice voting Superb Owl (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

FairVote wants to give the impression that RCV has lots of momentum and isn't facing any serious obstacles. So this article has largely turned into a list of all the momentum RCV has... but it shouldn't be that; it should be something like what Ballotpedia has - an overview that describes all the various ways RCV is treated throughout the country, and gives context so the reader can tell how big a deal those are. --Brilliand (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

(It's in the "attracting investors" [by saying the company is doing well] category of company promotion, rather than the "attracting customers" [by saying the product is good] category of company promotion.) --Brilliand (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

See my other comment on the talk page but I'm going to reduce some wall of text into tables to make them more digestible, That will incidentally make it "less impressive." Jasavina (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of this idea - seems to be excessive detail and multiple sources should be needed to expound upon a particular election Superb Owl (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Checked up more on the article. It seems like there's a lot of suspicious IP edits from Silver Springs, Maryland (where the FairVote headquarters is located), all connected to FairVote initiatives. Here's an example. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves Well that was a big headache, and I still think a lot of the other sections need work, but do you guys think we should remove the undisclosed payments tag to that section, now that I've completely reworked it? Jasavina (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but given other sections are apparently affected, I’d put one at the top of the page. I think there’s probably bigger fish to fry than this article, though, which is just a list of places IRV has been adopted. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves, sorry I went ahead and removed it since I only noticed that one section but flagged some issues in some others, including when FairVote was cited Superb Owl (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I applaud the alert editors who noticed possible COI problems with this article, but is the "Undisclosed paid" template accurate? I haven't seen any evidence that anybody was paid for contributing to this article. It appears that RRichie has been paid by FairVote, but was he paid for editing this article? And is there a COI? "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." I don't think the situation here matches anything listed in the previous sentence. I see RRitchie as a subject matter expert who has a strong opinion on the subject but whose edits generally reflect a neutral POV. I remain in favor of removing the "Undisclosed paid" template. What do other editors think? Thiesen (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

FairVote was his employer but I am in favor of removing the template unless someone can point to specific problematic edits, and even then, I much prefer a section flag or an in-line flag to clean those up than to also flag the other 94% of the article he hasn't touched (he only authored 6% of the current version)

Here are some of the major edits he made: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/RRichie/0/Ranked-choice%20voting%20in%20the%20United%20States Superb Owl (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

RRichie was employed not just at FairVote, but as a lobbyist and campaign advisor on many of these ranked-choice ballot initiatives. In other words, this page is effectively free advertising for him ("look at how successful all of my campaigns have been!"), which covers why this is a substantial COI.

More importantly, RRichie was not the only paid contributor here. After checking the IP edits, a large chunk of them come from FairVote's headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland. (Although I'm not sure how substantial these edits are when put together.) A single person working on their own time might be able to make an argument about being a "subject matter expert". However, given there are many contributions, coming from many different IPs and accounts, coming from the FairVote headquarters during working hours, I think it's clear this was a flagrant and intentional violation of Wikipedia's policies on paid editing, likely involving multiple employees making edits on paid company time. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you list the IP addresses here so we can see if they still show up in the authorship statistics? There doesn't appear to be significant authorship by any IP addresses Superb Owl (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. You have convinced me that there apparently was some paid editing. Like Superb Owl, I would like to know if the posts appearing to come from FairVote, aggregated together, represent major contributions to this article. Thiesen (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Jasavina,

I see that this article is much improved compared to a month ago. I haven't looked in detail to see what changes were made, but just looking at byte counts, you have done more than anybody else to remove excessive verbiage. Thank you. Thiesen (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thiesen No problem. I keep coming back to see what else my brain thinks could be consolidated, but a lot of the stuff that's still prose-heavy is narrative on legal battles, which I think are relevant. The section headers don't indicate that this would be a good fraction of the text, so it still *feels* like padding, but I haven't come up with a good way to make it feel more... on-topic. Jasavina (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we please remove this tag? IP address geolocation is incredibly unreliable and not remotely a cause for placing a very prominent warning at the top of the article indicating its contents may be untrustworthy. This is an incredibly controversial subject in US politics and the implication that RCV enriches any particular article contributor serves to deeply undermine public trust in the subject. It's also notable that this tag was added months before a US presidential election, indicating that the template may have been added as an attempt to influence Wikipedia readers on a pressing political subject.

There is absolutely no explanation linked for the tag, which I think alone is enough to justify its removal until somebody wants to add it back with a link to a well-reasoned talk section that they're accountable for justifying. I think this is a potential case of political influence to dissuade the public against a controversial subject by misusing Wikipedia article templates, which are supposed to be used in a trustworthy manner and an accountable way. This tag does not appear to have been used in that way.

Given that the template does not link to a talk section, I will be removing it immediately. Someone else can feel free to add it back if they're willing to undergo the accountability of linking to a well-reasoned talk section in the tag when they add it back, instead of providing a bizarre tag without any context or accountability. Lcdrovers (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

100% agree - thanks for removing Superb Owl (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves, can you explain re-adding this template? There are no longer any remaining significant edits by IP addresses from Silver Springs Maryland (only 1 at 0.3% authorship) looking at this and seem to be no outstanding issues with the content. I see no reason to keep this flag up if there is nothing to fix Superb Owl (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at xtools, there seems to be a huge chunk of text written by "others", which I believe is mostly IPs (which change a lot). This means the edits aren't grouped together as a single author in the statistics. However, I'm happy to remove it if we can verify that IPs from MD+DC aren't a substantial part of the remaining text. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

IP geolocation is, on its own, imperfectly reliable. However, when combined with several other strands of evidence, this is more than enough to establish a pattern of paid editing by an organization, particularly given

1. Editing by accounts clearly associated with FairVote, e.g. @RobRichie
2. Similar COI edits by the closely-related RepresentUs organization
3. Editing by large numbers of IP addresses located in the small suburb of Silver Spring, Maryland (not just one or two), and many others in the D.C. metro area
4. Self-admitted FairVote staff commenting on talk pages as soon as we found the , suggesting they watch these articles. None have disputed the evidence presented so far.

Please do not remove the tag without first building consensus on this talk page. So far, I count 4 editors supporting addition vs. 2 opposed.

It's also notable that this tag was added months before a US presidential election, indicating that the template may have been added as an attempt to influence Wikipedia readers on a pressing political subject.

Correct. The tag was added several months before the Presidential election (April, I think?), long before most people were paying attention to the race. The tag is also on a topic completely unrelated to the US presidential election (IRV is not exactly a hot-button issue in this race). Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding on that and trying to help us understand where you are coming from for those of us who have not been around for all of this.

I still do not think the tag is merited if there are no issues with the content, because at that point, what does it accomplish if there is nothing to improve? If there is something to improve in the text that we can change, I will help to fix it. Superb Owl (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the you suggested (tagging individual sections) is reasonable, now that most of the paid content has been removed from this article. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Ranked-choice or instant-runoff

Should articles in American English refer to the alternative vote as "instant-runoff" or "ranked-choice voting" in their titles? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: discussion was moved from instant-runoff voting after apparent off-site canvasing. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

For instant-runoff: The term "ranked-choice voting" is a misnomer, as many different voting rules involve voters making choices on ranked ballots. Although instant-runoff voting is by far the most popular ranked voting rule, calling it "ranked-choice voting" can result in confusion with other kinds of ordinal voting rules. Moreover, instant-runoff could in theory be implemented with other kinds of ballots, like rated ballots. The term IRV was promoted by FairVote through 2014, and is still sometimes used by some academics, so it does not violate WP:COMMONNAME.

For ranked-choice: While the term RCV can be misinterpreted, a misnomer can become standardized as the correct meaning for a term through extensive use, even if we personally dislike it. People who search "ranked-choice voting" are probably trying to learn about RCV specifically, not ordinal voting rules. The term "ranked-choice" has been defined as a synonym for AV by many reliable sources, including academics and experts, legal codes and media sources; Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires us to follow their lead. The first 20 results (two pages) of a Google scholar search for "ranked-choice voting" show all 20 defining it as synonymous with instant-runoff, and the laws of many states and cities both in the United States and Canada explicitly define the term "ranked-choice" to mean IRV. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Instant-runoff

Support/Neutral/Oppose. Reasoning. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Support - Tentatively support this change only if a separate article is made for Single Transferable Vote. I suspect that this RFC was made so that it could be used to justify changing the name of the main Instant run-off article, which the creator of this RFC just had their article change reverted earlier today. I would also be fine if the name was changed to Single Transferable Vote if the article specified the difference between the single winner versions (which is just instant runoff) and the usual multiwinner proportional version. 180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ranked-choice voting

Support/Neutral/Oppose. Reasoning. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd say this should match the IRV/RCV article, which is currently at Instant-runoff voting. If most states refer to it as ranked-choice, this can be mentioned in the lede, with a redirect from the other title. I can see the argument being made, though, that if most states refer to it as RCV, that should be the title for this article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a completely different article from the IRV article. In the IRV article, the subject matter is entirely about instant-runoff voting, whereas in this article, there is substantial information about the adoption of other ranked choice voting methods, such as the proportional representation by the single transferable vote and an example of the supplementary vote. Right now that information still fits the article because they fall under rank choice voting, but that would not be the case if it were changed to just instant run-off voting. 180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed they should match—I'm basically raising this to settle which way we should make them match. (I created this RfC because the other discussion got a bit chaotic/messy. Someone informed me on Discord that it's been subjected to substantial canvassing.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, how about NOT messing with other editor's comments, ok? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it, sorry. I was under the impression that striking off-site canvasing was normal, since I saw it on a different RfC. (Is it that only admins can/should do that? Or was the person who did it also violating this rule, and I misunderstood in thinking it was acceptable?) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ideally, I would want this article to be called "Ranked voting in the United States" (note the lack of the word choice) The section Ranked-choice voting in the United States#Absentee use seems relevant, but it does not technically fit under IRV or STV. Throughout the article, I would suggest we say IRV when referring to IRV, and use the phrase ranked voting to absentee use as well as any other non-IRV ranked voting as well as in cases where we want to talk about both IRV and non-STV ranked voting. I think ranked voting refers unambiguously a broader category of voting rules than just STV. I don't have any opinion on this for the article, but when I say STV on this talk page, I mean a family of systems that includes IRV. I don't think this is a WP:ENVAR question. We should match the articles Instant runoff voting and Ranked voting. Are there any articles in American English that are clearly about IRV? What other articles in American English refer to IRV as RCV?McYeee (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, I'll try to make some edits in this article to clarify which method is being referred to when it is clearly only referring to one type. 180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This issue was considered in a 2019 RM. I believe it remains the case that in the U.S., especially where it has been enacted, is almost exclusively referred to as RCV and IRV,not IRV. I would oppose a change in name for the U.S. article unless there is evidence that this is no longer true. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Maine, for example, uses "ranked choice", not "instant runoff". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Are US sources consistent in whether RCV means IRV or ranked voting more generally? When discussing absentee ballots, we have to distinguish the two. McYeee (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  They seem to be very consistent in using it to mean AV. A couple say something like "Well, literally it means ranked voting, but everyone uses it to mean AV." When I Google the term, the top hits for me in order are:

  • FairVote defines ranked-choice voting as a synonym for IRV. (IRV was FairVote's preferred neologism back in 2005, when the IRV article was first written by some FairVote enthusiasts.
  • This source defines RCV by describing IRV.
  • Ballotpedia waffles on the question. (However, it's generally not a WP:RS because it includes user-generated content; I think this might be citogenesis, as earlier versions of Wikipedia redirected RCV to ranked voting.)
  • Alameda county registrar of voters explicitly states RCV is a synonym for IRV.
  • This source uses it to mean IRV.

  Academic sources generally agree:

  • MIT defines "RCV" as consisting of "instant-runoff voting (IRV) and single-transferrable vote (STV)".
  • Taking the first page of search results for "Ranked-choice voting" on Google Scholar as representative—

  1. Here it's defined as "alternative vote, single transferable vote, block-preferential voting, the bottoms-up system, and alternative vote with numbered posts"
  2. It is not explicitly defined here, but the reference to "overvotes" implies they mean IRV, because other ranked rules generally don't have trouble with handling overvotes.
  3. Defined as instant-runoff here.
  4. No definition here. Goes on to talk about the Maine and Alaska systems without ever referring to any other ranked systems.
  5. Explicitly defined as instant-runoff voting here.
  6. Defined as instant-runoff here.
  7. Defined as instant-runoff here.
  8. Defined as instant-runoff here.
  9. Defined as instant-runoff here.

  – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  (This is before going into the fact political reporting universally uses it as a synonym for IRV, or how about 70 different laws explicitly define RCV to mean IRV, while 0 of them refer to IRV except as a synonym for RCV. I get it's an unfortunate name, but it's still very clearly the common name used in reliable sources.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the name "Ranked voting in the United States" on an article exclusively discussing RCV is much more likely to reinforce the misconception that RCV=all ranked voting. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)