Talk:Proportional representation: Difference between revisions

Lithuania

Doesn't Lithuania have some sort of proportional representation system?

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 representational" even with an appended "system". 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) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: Please discusss your concerns about these sections here on this talk page so that we can come to an agreement about what to change and how. Simply re-introducing text which has been reverted for the reasons given above, as you have now done (21 Aug), will only result in it being reverted again. Party list PR section: "The parties each list their candidates according to direction from the party leader": that may be so in Ontario but elsewhere in the world lists are usually determined by party conferences or primaries. If you add a statement like that you must cite a reliable source for it, I refer you again to WP:VERIFY, a core Wikipedia policy. But better would be something more general which the text you replaced was. --BalCoder (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 1. BalCoder The use of the term "accusation" as opposed to disadvantage implies that the disadvantage is false. Please avoid using biased terms! It is important to preserve wikipedia's net neutrality policy. In fact, this same article has previously had the term "accusation" replaced by "concern". You have also confused proportional representation with mixed member proportional representation. In a mixed member proportional representation there are electoral ridings, however, they are approximately half the size as the equivalent FPTP system. The smaller ridings affect rural residents the most. In a proportional representation system, candidates DO NOT represent ridings. In a FPTP system, not only do candidates represent ridings, they live in their respective ridings. Moreover, in the Canadian House of Commons, elected officials address the Speaker of the House and refer to each other by their riding names. For example, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is referred to as the Member from Papineau. This ensures regional representation. In the PR system, all candidates for a political party could reside in one city. This results in regional exclusion. 2. In a closed list system, the party leader selects the order of the list; as is the case in selecting a cabinet. The result is members that appeal more to their party base. This is similar to how in the United States democratic and republican primaries, where candidates only need to secure support from their respective parties, candidates appeal to their political base. Only the primaries are complete, the same candidates change their campaign style to win the support of the general public. This is one of the fundamental disadvantages of a closed list PR system. There is no mechanism for voters to eject candidates, so long as these candidates are supported by the senior leadership of their parties. Contrarily, is a FPTP system, party leaders themselves can lose their seats. In the 2011 Canadian general election, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe both lost their seats. This would have been impossible in a PR system. 3. "District" is an American term. "Congressman" is also an American term. The United States of America does not have a parliamentary democracy. "Riding" is the term used in parliamentary democracies. "Member of Parliament" is the term used for an elected official in parliamentary democracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 02:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC) At least we are now communicating. One or two of your changes from Aug.23 are OK, but most are wrong, confused or confusing, or contain wild claims, as I have already pointed out. So I am reverting them all again. Please read WP:BRD, we are now in the discussion stage so do not re-apply them until we have finished discussing them here. What "Proportional representation" is, is discussed in the article lead. There are five citations there, in paragraph 2, supporting the article. One of them, ref.6, is Canadian. This is what it says on p.22: "Proportional representation includes three basic types of systems, List PR, STV, Mixed member PR". When you write "In a proportional representation system, candidates DO NOT represent ridings" to which of these 3 systems does your term "proportional representation" refer? Once we understand what "proportional representation" means to you we can clear up why you think "candidates DO NOT represent ridings". "The use of the term 'accusation'..." OK, now I understand. For me the word is inoffensive but I have no problem with changing it to "concern", "criticism" would be better (stronger). "they are approximately half the size as the equivalent FPTP system." Not half, twice the size of the equivalent FPTP system. At least, "approximately" is an improvement, the original, "up to half", was better. "The party leader selects the order of the list". You are welcome to add that but only if you can find a reliable source that says that. If you had written "leaders" you could cite the Electoral Reform Society and Fairvote USA, then it would be OK. But the original text said parties determine the order and that is sufficient, the more important point, as you have written, is that with closed lists voters have no say. That party leaders can be ousted under FPTP is not so generally true as you think. In Britain leaders usually occupy safe seats and are not at the slightest risk of losing them. This is even more of a problem in the US. Only under STV and some open-list PR systems are there are no safe seats. But you write "This would have been impossible in a PR system." Quite wrong. "'Riding' is the term used in parliamentary democracies." Oh, really. Ever heard of England, "mother of parliaments" etc.? There they use "constituency", "riding" in this sense is completely unknown. Australia uses "electorate" or "electoral district" or "electoral division". "Riding" is only used in Canada. All these words are jargon, except "district" which is plain English meaning an area of a country so we use that. That the US uses it is irrelevant. Please answer the question about PR above. --BalCoder (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC) BalCoder 1. One of the primary reasons the article was edited was that the tone of the article did not follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. For instance, terms "accusation", "barely", and "according to their parties determination of priorities" are highly problematic. An article on proportional representation must not read as an essay supporting proportional representation. Language must be concise and accurately written. 2. To be clear, orange is not a type of yellow nor is it a type of red. Orange is a mixture of two colours. Likewise, mixed member proportional representation is NOT a type of PR system nor is it a type of FPTP system. It is a hybrid system that combines the two aforementioned voting systems. Similarly, single transferable voting (STV), and instant-runoff voting (IRV) are types of alternative voting, which are distinctly different than both pluralistic voting and proportional representation. In order to be inclusive, I have included both STV and IRV is the most recent update of the article. 3. Different nations use different terms for district. In order for the article to be most accurate, the appropriate term will be used when referring to each respective country. For instance, it would be problematic to refer to Canadian provinces as states. Likewise, it would be equally inaccurate to refer to Canadian ridings as districts. 4. Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text without substantial corrections to tone and content, it will be removed immediately. Please voice any and all concerns you have to the talk page prior to making any further changes. While the feedback you have provided is well-intentioned, please use a spelling and grammar check prior to posting on the talk page in order to engage in a more productive discussion. For instance, avoid starting sentences with "but", and ensure all sentences include both a subject and a predicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC) OK. You use "proportional representation" as a synonym for "party list PR". This blatantly contradicts the literature, plenty of which you can find cited in the article, and just confuses readers. In the Party list PR section you start: "In a proportional representation system, parties each list ...". This is a wrong statement, STV is also a PR system and does not use lists. What you mean is "In a party list PR system...". In the "Link between constituent and representative" section you begin "A criticism of the proportional representation system is as districts do not exist...". This is wrong - as I wrote in my first Talk posting to you all PR systems use districts. Even if you just mean party list PR systems you are wrong. Two list PR systems are discussed in the article, Denmark and Zurich, both of which use small districts; Zurich had to change its electoral rules because some of its districts were too small, preventing smaller parties from being elected. Further on you write "While PR does not have districts, other forms of alternative voting such as mixed member proportional, single transferable vote (STV)...". This is hair-raisingly wrong, MMP and STV are not "alternative voting" (which is not a PR system so not of interest in this article), they are PR - see article lead and refs. Text like this will only bemuse or baffle readers. Your contributions have to reflect reliable sources, your personal opinions are not of interest, read WP:VERIFY again: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". One place you could start looking for sources might be the Ontario citizen's assembly which recently chose MMP (http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca). Before saving your changes to WP spend time revising them to avoid unfelicitous formulations (like "parties each list their candidates according to direction from their political parties"). There is no hurry (WP:NORUSH). I am reverting your edits. If you continue to add unsourced statements they will be reverted. --BalCoder (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC) BalCoder 1. This is a table listing the major categories of voting systems: PR, Mixed, and Plurality as well as the subcategories. Please study the following table: Voting Systems: Proportional Representation Mixed Systems Plurality Systems Single Transferable Vote Additional Member System First Past the Post Party List PR(closed/open/local) Alternative Vote Plus Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting Mixed Member Proportional Block Vote Limited Vote Supplementary Vote Two-Round System Borda Count Notice MMP is NOT a type of PR, but rather a Mixed System. 2. I have included more sources and subtitles in order to make the article more readable. 3. I have included closed list, open list, and local list PR systems in the list PR section. The STV system is not listed in the List PR section as the following section of the WP article is dedicated towards STV. 4. DO NOT continue to re-post the same erroneous text which includes personal opinions, poor sentence structure, missing or incorrect content, little or no sources, and alarmingly biased tones. It will be removed immediately. If you wish to contribute, consider EDITING the text in order to correct the mistakes in tone and content, and post it to the talk section only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC) MMP is not PR but a "mixed system" (the table above is from the ERS -see ref.5): Well, yes, but there is actually little disagreement here: there are basically only two PR systems, but MMP being "mixed" (by which is meant hybrid) and using list PR, its results are proportional, it produces proportionally representative parliaments, so it is PR, like it or not, and the ERS agrees: MMP "is broadly proportional." You can't ignore the sources. And to delete the words "is also usually considered a distinct PR method" from para.2 of the lead leaving an incomplete, meaningless sentence borders on vandalism. Link between constituent and representative: Progress. You finally seem to be getting a grasp on what PR is. And now it is only open and closed party lists that do not have districts, but still no source provided for this wildly incorrect statement - Denmark and Zurich, mentioned in my previous post, both use open lists and, of course, districts. The original text is all gone, that with STV there are counter arguments and its sources, and the questioning of the importance of the link, with its sources. That is not acceptable, you can't delete sourced text, you can only add your text. Subtitles are inappropriate and unnecessary: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." (MOS:LAYOUT). "Plurality voting systems" are not PR so shouldn't be in the article, although I freely concede the original text should have made clearer the advantage of single member districts for the constituency link. The section "Wider benefits to society" is gone, by mistake?. Again, it was sourced - not acceptable. Party list PR: This section needed rewriting and sources added, but this is not an improvement. Open list: "Voters can then rank..." Rank? I don't think so. Unsourced. Local lists: All unsourced. Many of your edits are careless, e.g.STV "retains the same constituencies as FPTP. Multi-seat constituencies are used, ..." and ".. as multiple districts are combined"!. I refer you again to WP:NORUSH - do your editing in your sandbox (WP:ABOUTSAND) and take your time. OK, I wont revert. But now I challenge you to restore the sourced text you deleted, to correct the above errors, and to integrate your changes into the original text, which is what WP requires you to do. --BalCoder (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC) BalCoder 1. Thank you for not reinserting the same erroneous text. I appreciate the olive branch. That being said, please review Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Civility policy. Section 1.D. 'Direct rudeness' states "The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")". In the past, you have made uncivil comments such as "like it or not", "many of your edits are careless", "this is hair raisingly wrong", "most [of your changes] are wrong, confused or confusing, or contain wild claims", and "You finally seem to be getting a grasp on what PR is". A civil dialogue will help the progression of collaborative contributions. Similarly, please consider using a spelling and grammar check on a word processor, and carefully review your talk page text prior to posting it. It is difficult for readers to decipher your contributions when sentences lack a subject or a predicate. 2. I appreciate that you have confirmed that there are only two PR systems: party list and STV, and MMP is not a PR system but rather a mixed/hybrid system. This is also consistent with the introduction of the WP article. The subtitles in the article are necessary as they clearly distinguish the subcategories for the reader. For example, party list PR can either be a closed list, open list, or local list. In my prior edits, I made the mistake of grouping Party List PR together and some of the assertions I made should have been more specific. For example, I made points about PR in general when I should have specifically mentioned closed-list PR. Similarly, you have made assertions about open list PR, when you actually meant local list PR. 3. Although the article is about PR systems, and not specific mixed systems, or plurality systems, PR systems can be greater understood when compared to other voting systems. An article that excluded any mention of MMP or FPTP, for example, would be missing these comparative qualities. 4. The section about STV that was incorrectly located in the party list section was removed. STV is the following section of the article. I briefly considered transferring the information there. However, it was only slightly sourced, poorly worded and most importantly it was redundant as the same information was already present in the STV section of the article. 5. You have mentioned that the article required more sources and examples to substantiate some of the information that has been presented. I agree. I have now included the example of Israel, with 2 sources, as a closed list PR system where the entire nation is one district. Therefore Israel does not have districts where parliamentary representatives are elected to represent constituencies. Your previous assertion that "all PR systems use districts (plural)" is therefore empirically incorrect. I will continue to add more sources and examples to strengthen the article. In the mean time, do not revert to the previous specious text as this will only slow down the correction process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: 2, " and MMP is not a PR system": that is not what I wrote, MMP is undubitably a PR system, a fact confirmed by 3 sources in the lead, one of which I quoted to you in my 24 Aug.post. You can't ignore these sources just because you don't like them. "you have made assertions about open list PR, when you actually meant local list PR." Nope, I didn't. 3 "Although the article is about PR systems": No, to be pedantic it is about PR period. MMP is a hybrid system and a PR system, to imply that Germany and NZ, both MMP users, do not use a PR system is fatuous. I think Ontario has recently chosen MMP; that will not have been because it is not a PR system but because it is. 4, The STV text was deleted from the "Link between constituent and representative" section, where it made the germane point, with sources (slight(!) or not), that multi-member districts are not without advantages for constituents. In your point 3 you write "PR systems can be greater understood when compared to other voting systems" and then here you delete a valid comparison! That the importance of this link can be questioned remains deleted, probably because you don't like it. 5, Israel is an exception and was already mentioned in text you deleted (see my first post to you on 20 Aug, para.1). That it has a single nationwide district is uncontentious, more useful would be a source confirming that Israelis "do not have parliamentary representatives to meet their specific regional needs" - perhaps they have another mechanism for that. Even more important is that you should source your general claim "The disadvantage of both the closed list and open list proportional representation systems is as districts do not exist" but you can't because such a source doesn't exist. In the lead I demand that you restore "is also usually considered a distinct PR method" which you deleted from the sentence beginning "Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component", and that the 3 sources supporting that statement be preserved. As it stands the sentence is missing verb and predicate (and you complain to me about missing predicates - chutzpah). --BalCoder (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC) BalCoder 1. You have stated that Ontario used MMP. This is incorrect. There was a referendum in 2007, however Ontario voters chose to retain the FPTP system. Please take the time to verify your assertions prior to posting them. 2. We have reached a consensus that there are only two types of PR: STV and PR List. This is consistent with the article, which clearly states there are only two types of PR. However, you have contradicted yourself (and the introduction of the article) in suggesting there are three types of PR (MMP being the third). To be clear, MMP is a mixed/hybrid system as it shares components of both plurality and PR voting systems. While this article is primarily focused on PR, other electoral systems, i.e. mixed or plurality systems, are well within the scope of the article. 3. I have continued to add sources to strengthen the WP article. It is worth pointing out that many of the sources which exist in the article are from websites advocating for electoral reform. You have recommended the Citizens Assembly for Electoral Reform in Ontario and FairVoteUSA as reliable sources. However, these are actually advocacy groups for electoral reform whose goal is to replace plurality voting systems with PR voting systems. Therefore, the information contained in many of these sources may require omission or In-text attribution (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) in accordance with WP's Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. 4. The STV section was removed from the "Party List" section as it was redundant and out of place. However, it is relevant to the "Link between constituent and representative" section. You mention that there are advantages to multi-member districts. This is accurate as some constituents feel more comfortable speaking to someone from their own party. This omission will be rectified. That being said, please take the time to consider why some opinionated material had to be rewritten from a clean slate. Just like building a castle, sometimes it is easier to build it on solid ground than to repeatedly rebuild the same castle on a swamp-- I understand this was a stretch for a Monty Python reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC) "We have reached a consensus that there are only two types of PR" - you are here knowingly misrepresenting my position. But that is irrelevant, I refer you for the forth time to WP:VERIFY which requires articles to reflect sources. Three sources saying MMP is PR are provided in para.2 of the article, so you have no choice in the matter, MMP has to be treated as a PR system, an entirely uncontroversial position. Since you have not responded to my demand from my previous post, I have restored the truncated sentence preceding the citation of those three sources. --BalCoder (talk) 10:44, 28 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." "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." 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) Comment - I have moved the comments into indents and put the "table" into an actual table. I hope that this does not upset either Balcoder or Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. This was made to simply allow the comment thread to be more easily read, not to particularly help either editor. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: "'Mixed systems' is a distinct voting system category": well, which is it, a voting system, as you write in the lead, or a voting system category? A good faith editor, comparing O'Neal with the other sources, would realize that a researcher in the Canadian parliament's research service in 1993 does not trump the world's academics, and would not use the source, especially as O'Neal does not mention "mixed member" or "MMP" at all. A good faith editor would avoid the inconsistency of questioning the reliability as sources of advocacy groups such as Fairvote USA, and then using the Electoral Reform Society's classification of voting systems to set aside Forder at Oxford UK, Amy at Mt.Holyoke College, Mass., and the Law Commission of Canada. A good faith editor would realize that voting system classifications are irrelevant in the lead because the concern there is to summarize ways to produce a proportional result - two of the methods mentioned are not even voting systems. In the body a classification, two tier systems, is used as a section title to add structure. The term is particularly appropriate because two tier apportionment exists specifically to improve proportional representation, the subject of the article. So a good faith editor would realize that re-naming the "Two tier systems" section to "Mixed systems" is inappropriate, since some mixed systems (all but one) are not proportional, and some of the following sub-sections (all but one) have nothing to do with mixed systems. Placing "Mixed systems" at the same level as "PR electoral systems" as if it were something other than PR, is wrong and will mislead readers. In the same way, a good faith editor of Template:Electoral systems would not re-name "Semi-proportional representation" to "Mixed systems" because most of the following sub-sections, e.g.cumulative voting, have nothing to do with mixed systems; in fact, a good faith editor would be in no doubt that such a crude change would be tantamount to vandalism. A good faith editor with not even the most tenuous understanding of party list systems would refrain from changing the article's party list PR section, regardless of how bad it is, and if nonetheless tempted would provide sources for any outlandish claims - arguing from the specific (Netherlands/Israel) to the general (open & closed lists have no districts) is a logical fallacy and no good. Understanding that the article concerns PR, a good faith editor would realize that an extensive discourse on closed party lists in single nationwide districts would be more appropriate in the Party list article (the Template:Main link to which you deleted). A good faith editor, especially a beginner, would respect WP rules and guidelines when they are pointed out, and take care not to delete a section ("Wider benefits to society") and other sourced text inadvertently, or without explanation. A good faith editor, knowing that Canada is not the only FPTP user, would hesitate to claim for FPTP the universal benefit of facilitating the removal of party leaders from parliament when the Canadian example is probably due more to the weak identification of Canadians with political parties. Your edits (to say nothing of your Talk posts) have not demonstrated good faith so, since no admin has deigned to respond to my WP:ANI request to block you, I have no alternative but to revert. (As a final tip I refer you to Help:Show preview about avoiding clogging up the change log). --BalCoder (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Admins haven't responded since they may end up blocking you both due to WP:BOOMERANG? You're argument of "Admins haven't done what I wanted anything, so I'll take matters into my own hands" ^{(paraphrased)} is very weak grounds for an WP:EDITWAR and reverting, though I do agree with your mention of using the "Preview" button to avoid "clogging up the change log" as you put it.

Too be completely frank, this needs either several RfCs for each section of disputed content, or a few WP:3O's from interested editors, or perhaps simply going to WP:DRN. Have either of you actually sought any of these options? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC); edited 10:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr Crazy 102: Thanks for your comments. I was prepared, almost expected, to be blocked too, at least that would have been a response. I reject your characterization: my grounds for reverting are documented repeatedly and at length above. Having tried reasoning on the Talk page, invoking WP:BRD, invoking WP:ANI and asking for help or suggestions on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics page (which is what a RfC would have done) I think I have done enough. So I am back to simply reverting again. I wasn't aware of WP:3O and WP:DRN but if you or anyone else want to try them you are welcome. --BalCoder (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

BalCoder, I was perhaps a bit harsh with the wording of your reasoning for reverting (and have changed it), but what you wanted was for a response and for someone to be blocked (either Ontario, yourself or both). I would also like to point out that there is no onus on outside participants to mediate unless they are acting as volunteers for one of the above services, or they are an Admin volunteering their time. An RfC actually goes out to a lot more people than a single WikiProject. Have a look at the Feedback Request Service (a.k.a. RfC Members list) for what I mean, though it is good that you also put up a notice at the WikiProject Politics page.

If you want me to, I can attempt to help with any resolution attempts you and/or Ontario want to make (through technical help or suggestions), or I can ask for an Admin to either mediate themselves or WP:PING another Admin who has more experience or inclination. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr Crazy 102: Thanks again for your help - you are the only one to have offered any. I would be delighted if you could involve an admin. Unfortunately, if they do not know a little of the subject it might cost them a little time. Apart from hitting the undo button from time to time, I do not intend to spend any more time on User Ontario - his latest post below "I am thrilled..." etc (01:08 15 Sep) shows how pointless it is - but of course if any admin asks for clarification I will provide it. --BalCoder (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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. . 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. 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)

Umm, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, what are you saying in your second sentence? I think you may be wanting to use a Wikipedia:Diff link instead of showing the text of the said diff as the diff link shows far more information as well as the relevant content changes. At any rate, this seems to be the diff Ontario is referring to. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr Crazy 102 Thank you for your mediation. I am disappointed that BalCoder has chosen not to research the topic and post sourced contributions, and instead has decided to periodically and arbitrarily revert the WP article. That being said, he/she has claimed that "some mixed systems (all but one) are not proportional". Although there was no sourced research to substantiate this opinion, it does bring up a valid point; if the article includes some Semi-proportional representation systems such as MMP, why not others such as Alternative Vote Plus, Additional Member System, and Majority bonus system? I have therefore included other mixed electoral systems, and included them in the article. So far, I have simply transferred existing content from their respective WP pages. I have also restructured the article to reposition 'Two-tier party list systems', 'Biproportional apportionment', and 'Sortition' into the 'Party List' PR section as these are not types of mixed electoral systems. I would welcome a fellow editor who is willing to put the time and effort into researching the topic and post sourced contributions.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I am hardly mediating compared to some of what I have seen, though I suppose I am in a small way. I have discussed BalCoder's reversion behaviour above, though I can understand where they are coming from; 'no one seems to have noticed or acted to mediate, they decided to attempt to solve the problem themselves'. While this is highly discouraged outside of exceptional circumstances, per WP:BRD and WP:IAR, it is understandable. To be frank with you as well, you seem to be a bit passive-aggressive with your own posts. Do not call out conduct unless absolutely needed, and try to do so in a productive way, not an "I don't like it" statement, as this can inflame the situation and just leads to general enmity.

To be honest, I don't understand much of the political systems and can hardly remember how I came to this page (fuzzy memory of perhaps WP:ANI, rather ironic really). I have little opinion on the inclusion or exclusions of the content as I don't understand the systems. However, your statement: "I have simply transferred existing content from their respective WP pages," does raise some concerns as that typically needs a Template:Copied inserted to maintain a level of credibility and to show that it isn't actually your own work but, in fact, is someone else's (likely several someone else's). I'm not too fussed as your edits do seem to be in good-faith and you are still new to Wiki according to your account logs, so this is to inform you not reprimand. I will try to find an Admin to try better mediation, and to review the ANI posts. I will also start a new RfC about the disputed content, if that is still desired. Please remember to use indents (a.k.a. :) when posting comments that are in reply to something (preferably under what is being replied to), Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC); minor edit 09:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Proposition - Would either BalCoder or Ontario Teacher BFA BEd be opposed to moving this discussion to WP:DRN? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr Crazy 102: Thanks again for your perseverence. A pity that no-one with understanding of the subject seems willing to help, but understandable. I have looked at a few WP:DRN items and am dismayed by the amount of input required from the protagonists so I prefer User:Abecedare's talk page suggestion to User:Ontario, which amounts to WP:BRD: Ontario has been bold, I have reverted, now we discuss item by item. I am waiting for Ontario to propose the first change he wants to make. --BalCoder (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DRN only requires as much or as little input as you wish to provide. Considering how much you have discussed above, I didn't think this would be much of a problem. If BalCoder (you) and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd want, I can attempt to act as a mediator here instead of moving to DRN for discussion of each "item"/section, but I would have to act in a similar way to DRN volunteers/mediators and have you both agree and respect the same type of "rules" (I promise nothing stringent and restrictive). Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr Crazy 102: You will have noted that in his response Ontario ignored your proposition. I expect him to continue to avoid discussion, because he dosen't have a leg to stand on. So I prefer to play his game and have provided some proposals as he requested. He will avoid answering, perhaps with the excuse I haven't provided sources (he wants sources that say his fanciful statements are wrong?) Please continue to keep an eye on this. --BalCoder (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The approach of User:BalCoder to revert all edits Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, in particular minor edits Help:Minor edit such as: spelling and grammar errors, the addition of Wiki-links Help:Link (for closed, open, and local list PR), formatting that does not change the meaning of a page (such as adding a table based on existing data or creating subtitles for closed, open and local list PR), obvious factual errors (such as updating that Russia uses MMP now instead of PR), and fixing layout errors, has been counterproductive. The Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary states: "Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest.". The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle also states: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.". In order to avoid Wikipedia:Edit warring, please follow the BRD cycle which states "A bold change during an edit war should be an adaptive edit to discourage further warring and not to escalate it; it should never be another revert.". This means mass reverts of another editor's content is unacceptable; it causes edit warring. Instead, reversions must incorporate minor edits, and only revert the specific areas of disagreement. Adaptive edits are how Wikipedia:Consensus is built. Once the updated version is restored, I look forward to User:BalCoder's proposal of specific adaptive reversions he/she wishes to make substantiated by sourced information. Any sourced information will be considered. Adaptive edits are a method of avoiding a Filibuster by striving to reach a consensus. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of BalCoder's actions, and this has been discussed above. I have assumed good-faith on both parts considering the edit-war between both you and BalCoder. I have also assumed that both you and BalCoder are wanting to actually help the article but have come to loggerheads. Please see my above reply to BalCoder about whether you and BalCoder would appreciate Talk-Page moderation instead of DRN.

For now, I would suggest starting a sub-section (i.e. === [area of article] ===) for each area of contention but to keep the section intro brief. This at least allows talk-page discussion of the contested edits. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: My proposals for specific reversions? Here are three, which seem to be the basic misunderstandings on which your ideas are built (please supply the citation and the exact words you refer to):

1. In your "Party list PR" section: "Pure proportional representation systems such as closed and open list do not use delineated electoral districts". Please provide two solid sources, one academic, for this. I first asked for these sources on Aug.26. You still have not provided one and are now spreading this mistake to other WP articles. I'll make it easier for you: ignore the "pure" bit. (NB. www.proportional-representation.org is not acceptable because it concerns only its own specific "one zone" system).
2. MMP is semi-proportional. You don't actually say this in the article in so many words, but you have done on the Talk page, in Template:Electoral systems and in the MMP article, and you have moved MMP from "PR electoral systems" to a new "Mixed electoral systems" section and added there a link to the semi-PR article. You did that despite the three sources (one of which you deleted) in para.2 of the article as currently protected (refs 6,7,8) that contradict this. Please provide three solid sources for this including two academic sources, just like the sources you choose to overlook.
3. You wrote in User:Abecedare's talk page : "The principal point of contention is User:BalCoder's belief that mixed electoral systems do not exist." Please identify one place anywhere in WP where I say this, and my exact words.

If you can't provide these sources (they don't exist) please revert all related changes. --BalCoder (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protected

I have full-protected the article to prevent the current edit-war from continuing. I have restored the article to what seems to be its stable state before applying the protection. This is solely in the spirit of WP:BRD and not an endorsement of that version. I encourage involved editors to discuss the issue and reach consensus over the proposed changes. Use the resources of WP:POLITICS, WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN if you need outside views, of follow one the dispute resolution processes. I'll be happy to lift the protection early if such a consensus is reached, or if there are assurances that the edit-war won't continue. Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)