User talk:Jasavina

A kitten for you!

Thanks for all your great work on voting system Wiki articles :)

–Sincerely, A Lime 03:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Closed Limelike Curves (⁠ ⁠ꈍ⁠ᴗ⁠ꈍ⁠) Jasavina (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Voting systems

Hi Jasavina. Regarding this revert, I can see that only two users have commented on the WikiProject's talk page in the last three years – could you perhaps reconsider whether it is really "active"? Please note that the purpose of classifying WikiProjects like this is not to mark them as a failure or anything, it's to keep track of which projects might need help to return to life, for example by merging with related projects that are also struggling to stay active. – Joe (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe Hey Joe, (also Joe, here) it's about to pick up, sorry. I can see why you would think it's inactive and don't blame you for the label. The double-edged sword of discord means that all the conversation is happening off Wikipedia, and I'm pushing to move it back here so we can recruit and advertise to the broader wiki community. I can undo the revert if you like and we can start to move the activity here. When/if you think it's active enough you can re-lable it, how's that? Jasavina (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah let's see how it goes. I wish you the best of luck, but from experience it's pretty difficult to keep WikiProjects running with just a few active participants. The ones that really work in the long term have twenty or more.

But if you're starting things up again, why not think about joining forces with others? Looking at the directory, there are active projects on Politics and Elections & Referendums. Perhaps if, for example, Voting Systems and Elections & Referendums became task forces of Politics, the combined participant base would get you over that highly-active threshold? – Joe (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit interested, but the issue is these two groups have very different user bases, and require different kinds of knowledge for useful contribution.

Surprisingly, the normative study of electoral systems is typically handled as a branch of economics, rather than political science; it falls under the fields of social choice (studies optimal social decision-making) and mechanism design (expands social choice by incorporating game theory to model strategic behavior). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Help

@Closed Limelike Curves and @Superb Owl If you guys would like to help, I need sources for these statements. I have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which makes digging for sources particularly draining.

Amongst a long list of sometimes-conflicting voting criteria, activists and some social choice theorists have argued that voting methods should be spoiler-independent.

and

While the concept in-and-of-itself is not controversial, strict mathematical satisfaction can be in direct conflict with other properties that are also considered valuable.

and

In some situations, a spoiler can extract concessions from other candidates by threatening to remain in the race unless they are bought off, typically with a promise of a high-ranking political position.

and

In many cases, this leads plurality voting systems to behave like a de facto two-round system, where the top-two candidates are nominated by party primaries.

I will be asking for help with others, and if you don't feel these statements need citation, don't bother. But if you agree, it would be a great help if you found some for me. Thank you. Jasavina (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 1, 2, and 4 were cited in my newest revision; #3 could be cited using examples like RFK's recent withdrawal (where he tried to get Harris to make him HHS secretary IIRC). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quote 4 was uncited. To a political scientist this wouldn't need a source, but I think it does for a general audience.

I took a second look and realized which citation was supporting 1 and 2. I was planning on using Pete dropping out of the 2020 primary and getting the secretary of transportation position, though I don't know if there's any credible sources speaking to that. If you can send me a source for either Pete or RFK I'll cite it. Jasavina (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 definitely is definitely cited in my preferred version, which is the one I wrote here. It's different from the most recent version I uploaded; it's the version reverted by Drmies. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, thanks. I was looking at the wrong version. Jasavina (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]