Talk:Ranked voting

Alternate names for IRV

The article mentions that Instant-Runoff Voting is sometimes called the "Alternative Vote" or "Ranked-Choice Voting", however it's obvious to anyone who knows that other voting systems exist that those terms can't really refer to Instant-Runoff Voting specifically.

I've deleted those alternate terms for now. I do think that they should be mentioned in some way, but that would require a sourced explanation of who uses the terms and when. --Brilliand (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The source used cannot be FairVote, since they're the advocacy group that created this confusion of terms in the first place, so they are a primary source. --Brilliand (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) aka Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)

Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV) - single-seat elections,

Single Transferable Vote (STV) -multi-winner elections

Using 'Strict rankings' (equal ranks are NOT allowed)

Confusing name:

- Ranked Choice Voting (US)

- Instant-Runoff Voting (US)

- Alternative Vote (UK)

- Preferential Voting (Australia) - but be careful: “Preference” (Preference concept) means both ‘Ranking’ and ‘Scoring’

- Sequential run-off / Sequential Instant-Runoff Voting

- the Hare system / Hare method for single transferable vote 2605:A601:91AD:C600:8F3:4B32:AC8D:AE99 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

@Joeyconnick: I just saw your edits in the history, and I'm super sorry about that; I didn't get any notifications, so I didn't even realize my change was being reverted. (I'd completely forgotten I'd made that edit.) If you notice I've accidentally missed an MOS edit of yours again, please let me know on the talk page so I can fix it! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Equality of preferences in Ranked Voting

A changed version after my edit says: "Ranked votes as such do not incorporate any information about intensity of preferences. Furthermore, the simplest implementations do not account for equality of preference among two or more candidates, though it is possible to modify ranked voting methods to allow equality of preference." The words "as such" seem superfluous. I think it is correct to say that ranked voting is always about ranking preferences instead of giving info about intensity. The following sentence suggests that only the simplest implementations do not account for equality of preference. I think it is more correct to say that few (if any) ranked voting systems allow for equality of preference. If systems allowing preference exist, then references are needed with explanation. One thing needed is to show real examples of voting papers allowing for equality. Provision for equality seems also to require changes to counting algorithms, so references are needed as to how this is done. FreKea (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed "as such" ... seemed non-controversial.

Many systems of ranked voting allow (or require) only a few preferences to be set, with the remaining candidates all ranked equally (and last). Surely there are many citations to support this. I don't have surveys of actual implementations, so I don't know how many allow equality of preference beyond that scenario. Mathematically it is simple enough, but perhaps these are nonetheless disallowed because it complicates the user experience? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

My typing was deleted. So here again. The equal and last possibiliy is a trivial and irrelevant one. An equal vote has the same effect as none at all. I think that reference to the possibility of equal preferences needs to be removed until a sound referenced example can be given. That example needs reference to discussion of how a practical counting algorithm might exist. FreKea (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Bucklin voting

In addition to STV's ranking as backup preferences, as weights in some systems and in rated systems, there is at least one other way to use rankings - although no longer used and generally despised - Bucklin voting. I think it should be included in the article if only as way to show that even electoral reform has had its dead ends and to give reader an idea of why ranked votes are dealt with as back-up preferences in STV.

I would have this paragraph inserted in intro after mention of STV:

In Bucklin voting, if no one fills the seats in the first round of counting, secondary preferences are then counted in combination with first preferences. In this system lower preferences are used against first preferences and both are counted at the same weight. This system is not used anywhere today.

and perhaps lower, insert this in "History of ranked voting theory",:

As well, a different system that used ranked but non-transferable votes came into brief use in Grand Junction, Colorado, where its inventor, James W. Bucklin, lived, and in Cleveland. Cleveland's use of Bucklin voting produced instances where a voter's secondary preferences were used and were weighted as highly as the voter's first preference, so voters learned to plump (mark only one preference) to prevent their secondary preferences being used against their first preference. Cleveland switched to STV in 1923.

By 1940s, almost all the U.S. cities that had adopted STV had abandoned it.

Theoretical exploration of electoral processes was revived by a 1948 paper....." Proportional elections (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)