Talk:First-past-the-post voting/Archive 1

2319:

examples of some of the method's disadvantages, whereas the plurality article is missing that level of detail about disadvantages. The plurality article appears to have been written by people in the academic world, whereas this FPTP article appears to have been written by election-vote-counting reform folks. The term plurality is used in all academic articles, and those are published worldwide. The term FPTP is only used in Britain and former British colonies, plus, only recently, the EndFPTP subreddit on Reddit. I'm not so concerned about which name is chosen. But I would like to refer voters to one well-organized and complete article, not two articles with different focuses, each of which is missing very important information. Apparently I need to also raise this issue on the plurality article's talk page.

1336:'First past the post' is an English idiom, taken from racing. It means the person or horse or dog that crosses the finishing line first wins. When used in a political sense, it means that the candidate with the highest number of votes wins, even if he or she has nowhere near an overall majority. For example, Candidate A gets 35% of the vote, Candidate B gets 30%, Candidate C 25%, Candidate D 10%, so Candidate A wins. 4168: 1619: 4645: 742:

30% when the opposition is hopelessly split. Conversely of course there are 'pin a red/blue rosette on a donkey' constituencies where the winning candidate gets 80%. For FPTP, an overall majority is sufficient but not neccessary. The majority criterion says that it must be necessary as well as sufficient. Thus FPTP fails this criterion. --

882:

this article (ie a system of winner takes all that have nothing to do with the effects of segmenting the votes into different constituencies). If FPTP is more complicated, and in fact the system that electes the parliament as a whole (with division into constituencies being integral to FPTP), then such a system would not comply with MC.

598:

comments). Is that the case? How can there be consensus if the wikipedia article is in complete contradiction with its own footnote on this point? If supposedly people think that the wiki article is right on this point why can't someone find a footnote to support the proposition rather than to contradict the proposition?

4802: 842:

system distorts results at government level, but the article is about the voting system, not about the subsequent formation of governments, coalition or otherwise. In the UK, the government is often elected by a minority of voters, but this is a criticism of the constituency system, not of the FPTP voting system.

1079:? This sentence was not part of the introduction. The introduction said "The winning candidate does not necessarily receive an absolute majority of all votes cast.". That's logically something totally different. It is the same difference like reading "Not every running world champion runs 100m in 5s." ( 358:. If, in a plurality system, more than 50% of voters support A, then A does in fact always win. Thus plurality obeys the majority criterion. The majority criterion simply doesn't say anything about what happens when a plurality but not a majority support A. I'm going to flag this for independent review. 3420:

You've made several mistakes here. The relevant section in the article clearly sets out the effect of FPTP in a neutral and unbiased way. It's clear that you are peddling a pro Tory agenda here. By using Knowledge in this way you undermine the purpose of the platform. Either improve the article text,

3330:

This is yet another attempt to encourage you to communicate on the talk page rather than edit warring. You've carried out bulk deletions of properly sourced text without first attempting to seek consensus or improve the text. Therefore, I'm replying here so we can discuss each one. I encourage you to

2479:

Your examples are false equivalence. It is not obvious that there is overwhelming international disapproval (as there was with Apartheid and Jim Crow laws) not a substantial popular movement for change (as there was for women's suffrage). Right now, the argument still has to be made and that argument

1826:

The behaviour by Friend-Of-the-planet-99 is not appropriate. Editing articles, such as the 2019 General Election to bizarrely mention that the winning party failed to win 50%+ of the popular vote is not something that is present in any other UK General Election Results wiki page, nor should be as the

1481:

The problem is the idiotic illogical name. Of all voting systems, so called “first past the post” is almost unique in not actually having a post. Most voting systems present some sort of hurdle or target or quota, above which you get elected. Which is a “post”. FPTP has no “post”; you simply need

1466:

In the US, if no candidate gets 50% of the vote, the election is decided by the states and the House of Representatives, not whoever has the most votes. "First Past The Post" originally meant, you know, passing the post, but confusion over time has changed the definition so that now it means the same

881:

It is very confusing to me that if we are talking about FPTP being the system that elects the individual MPs (rather than parliament as a whole) that gerrymandering is talked about in such detail. Gerrymandering only effects the broader election of the parliament - not the FPTP system as described in

3306:

they were removed -- but you have neglected to actually bring this to the talk page, so I'll do it for you. A lot of the time you have reverted them with the edit summary that they were "unjustified reversions", even though my edit summaries clearly state what was wrong with each one. Therefore, I'm

2318:

The two methods are the same, so they should not have separate articles. The two articles have very different focuses. The plurality article has the traditional Tennessee example that is included in all vote-counting method articles, but it's missing from this article. This article has some detailed

1665:

Arguments in favour of First Past The Post are either due to self-interest or naivety. Taking on board the evidence in terms of what countries perform best on a range of measures such as action on climate change, income equality, and the likelihood of going to war, there are no credible arguments to

841:

Well, no, not really. I am aware that some people in many countries vote for a party regardless of individual members, but this is not how the usual voting system is intended to work. Those of us who vote for individuals are happy that FPTP satisfies MC in our constituency. I agree that the party

741:

How has this come back in? We agreed many moons ago that FPTP does NOT meet the majority criterion because it is possible for a candidate to be elected with achieving an overall majority. For example, in most UK constituencies, the winning candidate barely scrapes 40% and in a few it is as little as

118:

Is it even legitimate to keep that claim in Knowledge when the US FPTP system is currently the single most notable case of a small extremist non-party (Tea Party) effectively blackmailing the more centrist parts of the major party? Really would seem to suggest FPTP is more prone to giving extremists

1937:

In order to ensure transparency, the person at IP address 62.255.9.122 should create a Knowledge account (it's free and takes seconds) before getting involved. I also find it interesting that Czello is thanking the "anonymous" contributor who just so happens to agree with everything he/she says. It

1501:

would be accepted as an alternative, though it is a lot closer to the reality (well, 'musical chair' since there are no elimination rounds and just one chair). In the UK, it is possible to win with a significant minority of the vote, just so long as each of the other candidates gets an even smaller

706:

Yes, obviously, in a parliament, one party can be elected to form a government having received fewer votes overall than the losing party, and I think this fact needs to be mentioned in the article. Nevertheless, in each constituency, the first past the post system guarantees (rather trivially) the

597:

Hello Everyone, the section is currently blatently wrong, as the footnote referenced for this section completely contradicts the wikipedia article. I made an edit to correct it but John Maynard Friedman reverted it because he claims that there is consensus to the contrary (see my talk page for his

100:

This section contains the statement "However in PR systems, small parties can become decisive in Parliament so gaining a power of blackmail against the Government, a problem which is generally reduced by the FPTP system.". The first citation doesn't seem to substantiate the statement except in the

60:

I'd like to see citations for the elements of the section. It's well known that the criticisms exist (their validity is open to debate), but without citations the section just isn't credible. Also, as someone decidedly against FPTP, I'm very interested in hearing pro-FPTP reasoning and would like

3001:

Ah, I see - first you claim there are no other accounts that support my edit, and then when I point one out (that you obviously hadn't even bothered to read before), you say you don't accept that because you claim it's a "new account". No doubt if 45StanJames agreed with you, you'd have no problem

2906:

version that is disputed, however. As far as I can see, you're the only editor supporting the "Purported" heading. There was some semblance of a consensus achieved in merging the sections into the below characteristics section, but no effort has been made on your part to actually do this. As we've

1788:

Goodness, this has really gotten out of hand. The problem with your edits is that you haven't attempted to seek consensus, and you've ignored attempts to talk to you about these issues (your talk page blankings for one, or the paragraphs you had to scroll past in order to get to the bottom of this

1409:

The introduction of this article states that FPTP is a plurality voting system: "an electoral system in which each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate" . Under the "Overview" section, the article goes on to state that FPTP can be used in multiple-member systems, where "each voter casts

1366:

The post comes in as a metaphor for the end of the count. It does not mater how fast you are or how slow but only whether you are in the lead at the end. The district elections are like heats. some heats are slow; others fast. it does not matter about your objective speed or popularity. As long as

1351:

But the unique characteristic of this voting system, unlike almost all others, is that it has no "winning post". There is no "finish line" a candidate has to reach to get elected - in theory it is possible to get elected with 10% of the vote if your ten rivals get 9% each. In practice candidates

1037:

Perhaps this is a clear distinction to a polisci major, but it's awful for everyone else. Worse still, nothing in the article actually clarifies this. No examples, nothing. This article is less a description of what FPTP voting is, and more a discussion of its value as a system of voting, which

630:

This is mathematically incorrect. For example 9 people vote (5 blue, 4 red). A majority (more than 50%) of voters consider candidate A to be the best choice, then A should win - right? No, if there are 3 seats red could win two (getting two votes in each leaving blue with one in each) and blue win

586:

As a new reader to this article I'd like to reopen this discussion - I don't fully understand the last few steps in the logic as to why this does not meet the Majority Criterion - I agree with the simple interpretation of MC where it only requires 'A implies B' and I don't see where in the article

247:

The confusion may be that JMF has overinterpreted the criterion. The criterion only requires that if a majority of voters pick a candidate that candidate must win. It does not require the converse (i.e. that if only a plurality support a candidate, then the candidate must not win). Therefore, FPTP

3758:

Which source? The one from FairVote? Because that doesn't support your claim. It says, "Internationally, proportional representation is the most common type of electoral system with 89 of the 195 countries below using it." "Most common" doesn't mean "Most modern democracies". For it to be "most",

2763:

The problem here is the imbalance between the two sections. If you have a section titled “benefits”, the counterposing section needs to be titled “disadvantages” or “drawbacks”. That is pitting fact against fact, not fact against opinion (which is what “criticisms” are). The problem is that we

2578:

need to stop to reflect. Instead of trying to smear me with your false "soapboxing" allegation, I suggest you adhere to Knowledge's core principles and engage me in rational discourse, citing evidence - don't make it personal. This is also not the first time you've used smear tactics, because you

2430:

By way of further example: if, during the Apartheid era, we had been discussing an encyclopaedia article on South Africa's Apartheid system (which used FPTP), we would quite rightly list the "benefits" of Apartheid as "Purported benefits", or more properly something like "Claims made by Apartheid

836:

ps it is not about "one party being elected to form a government having received fewer votes overall than the losing party" it is about a party not being elected after achieving, not just more votes than any other, but after achieving more than half the total votes (ie with FPTP you can lose with

814:

FPTP is made up of the "winner takes all" system (at a constituency level) combined with "PR" at the parliament level (PR of the seats not of votes ie take 57.3% of seats get 57.3% of parliament). By only looking at a constituency level in judging MC we have only checked if the "winner takes all"

2607:

I suggest you look at the article's revision history and you'll see you are in breach of the 3 revert rule. Instead of attacking other editors with your pedantic and highly selective reference to Knowledge's rules, perhaps you should make substantive contributions to the article. If you lack the

1285:

Also, the "votes per seat" count does not apply to "Others" or independents. If 20 independents ran and won 1 seat with a total of 250,000 votes, the votes per seat would be equal to the number of votes for the single winning candidate, not the total for all independents. The main article on the

1262:

The article does not discuss a phenomenon that arises in FPTP voting systems: small parties tend to do better if their support is concentrated in a few constituencies. The UK provides the best example, probably. The Scottish (SNP), Welsh (Plaid Cymru) and the various Northern Ireland parties won

3244:

I believe purported benefits is a fair title as the meaning of the word purported is effectively a statement that appears true that may in fact not be true. Opponents of FPTP will certainly argue that the statements made in favour are always untrue. Let's look at the issue of FPTP being easy to

2856:

You're undoing the heading, but seem to have abandoned the discussion here. I notice you're also blanking any attempt to communicate with you on your talk page. Your heading is clearly contested: if you want to keep it, you have to actually continue to engage in discussion. That's how Knowledge

874:

Hi, I think I am guilty of not reading the article properly. It clearly states that FPTP is the same as winner takes all. FPTP being the system we use to elect individual MPs and not the Government as a whole (I might be wrong but I think this might be what has caused confussion for a number of

2411:

Generally, the people who make the claims of "benefits" of FPTP do so because this voting system favours their political agenda. For example the UK Conservative Party (which benefits from FPTP) made a 2019 manifesto commitment to retain FPTP in Westminster elections citing specious "benefits",

473:

OK, I've had an insight. Maybe the problem is the language used? Voting system theory is a branch of game theory which is a branch of mathematics. Voting systems criteria therefore use the formal language of mathematical proofs. If you're not aware of this, then I can see that it might lead to

4122:

Yes, that sounds totally fine. I think just changing the wording to "FPTP is still used in about a third of the world's countries, mostly in the English-speaking world (the United States, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Canada and other countries in the British Commonwealth)" or whatever

3399:

You've made several mistakes here. Firstly, as I said, the Conservatives were never a Remain party, even during the referendum. Secondly, the crux of your article depends on an opinion piece. Opinion pieces aren't considered reliable in this context. You've also tried to justify the change in

1134:

In the new version, the whole information was just erased. In my opinion, the old version was more informative and therefore better. Maybe the old version can be modified in a way that the logical misinterpretation Monolith2 showed us, can be avoided without completely deleting the statement.

401:

that A should have an overall majority to win. There are many instances, certainly in UK politics, where candidates have won having secured as little as 35% of the valid votes. The majority criterion simply says that a majority must support A for A to win: any system in which A wins without

3973:

Regarding the above claim that FairVote does not support the statement, it states that 89 countries have PR electoral systems and 34 have electoral systems in which PR is partially used (like MMP). The combined 123 countries more than half of the countries in the world, so "most" is correct.

2498:

The disputed title should remain in place until consensus is reached. The evidence on FPTP is clear, as can be seen from the totality of the article and my comments above. All the article's listed "benefits" of FPTP have been thoroughly rebutted. Hence the section should remain as "Purported

3271:

I've changed the titles to "Arguments in favor" and "Arguments against". These avoid verbosity and keep Knowledge neutral on the question of whether or not any of the things mentioned are truly advantages or disadvantages. Whether or not something is good or bad is an opinion, and there is

810:

FPTP is about the election of the whole parliament not the individual seat - do others agree. Therefore it would be better to say that FPTP fails MC but insert "Although the criterion fails when looking at the results of a parliament as a whole, it is met when looking at each constituency

1756:

This behaviour suggests that Czello is operating an agenda to silence legitimate and properly sourced criticisms of the widely discredited FPTP voting system which benefits the UK Conservative Party. Further evidence of Czello's agenda can be seen from his repeated attempts to edit the

1033:

I read the intro and the first half of the article and still have no idea what FPTP voting is. I mean, even the introduction says that it's both "the person who gets the most votes wins" and simultaneously "the person with a majority of the votes doesn't necessarily win". WTF?

3439:

You've ignored my points clearly there. You've made a claim using one website, and then tried to back up a claim using another even though that second article is, as I said, an opinion piece which isn't reliable. Also, please don't accuse me of have a pro-Tory bias. We need to

1827:

popular vote is irrelevant for UK General Election Results. Rather than properly engage in discussions, Friend-Of-the-planet-99 has instead opted for abusive language/refusal to discuss properly. I fully support Czello involving this admins as this behaviour is unacceptable.

1761:

on Knowledge where he/she has systematically deleted all references to the popular vote in this article. By deleting the popular vote refernces, Czello appears to be editing the article in such a way as to overstate the level of public support for the UK Conservative Party.

2782:"Claimed benefits" I think is a case of POV sneaking in there, the same as Purported. Commendations or approbations would be better, though I wonder if there's a simpler word to use. Perhaps "Advocacy", or "Advocation", or simply "Support"? Something along those lines. — 2110:. And that without counting the insults, the bad-faith assumptions, the persistent disruptive editing, the possible sockpuppetry and so on. If you want to be blocked so badly just ask an administrator to do it for you instead of keeping the disruption ongoing. Cheers. 949:

I don't understand your distinction because "first past the post" is just another name for "single winner plurality voting". In a two-round "first past the post" system, there is no "predetermined maximum number of votes". I would support a merge, but not strongly.

2165:

Nevertheless, whoever it was who raised the concern about “benefits” had a point - it is not balanced when the other side of the argument is titled “criticisms”. Balanced terms (such as Advantages and Disadvantages) should be used for the article sub headings IMO

101:

lone case of the article's subject, in which PR is combined with the relative ease of dissolving the government, creating the conditions for the mentioned blackmail; in essence, the dissolution option appears to be the more direct cause rather than the PR itself.

3272:

disagreement over whether some of the arguments are factually correct (though that seems to mostly come down to whether or not you like FPTP). It is not immediately clear to me how the sections could be interwoven, as they generally focus on different issues. --

4218:-- I think the biggest issue with your edits is that you've misunderstood how Knowledge should present itself. You're reaching conclusions based on articles, as if this were a thesis. This would count as original research. Please try to re-assess your edits. — 875:

people). In which case the article is right, though I still think it has been improved by the clarification that "Although the criterion is met for each constituency vote, it is not met when adding up the total votes for a winning party in a parliament."

2301:, the current title is correct (unless you can prove "plurality" is used more commonly than FPTP). Also keep in mind, this article is not a simple "advantages and disadvantages" list. I suspect if any change needs to be made, it's on plurality voting. — 1281:

small parties over small issue-based parties with broad support. Since a small party must win a plurality in at least one constituency, issue-based small parties generally only win any seats if there is a constituency where that issue is very important.

1157:

The old version's use of "absolute majority" was very misleading, and also not particularly informative (even if it had been accurate) given the extensive discussion of what distinguishes FTPT from other plurality systems in the body of the article.

1789:

page). I think given your bad faith accusations here, we need to get admin involvement. I was really hoping we could resolve this just by talking about the edits themselves, rather than the editors, but at this juncture I see no other resolution. —

3245:

understand. FPTP critics could certainly argue that this kind of statement is seen as patronising, as it suggests that voters in a FPTP country are less capable than voters in most developed countries, who tend to vote under proportional systems.

4379:

it is neutral, is not a stooge of the Tory Party. I for one am not, I believe FPTP to be a travesty of democracy but I realise equally that button-holing readers with a political polemic is a complete turn-off. Knowledge is the wrong platform for

806:

By the inclusion of "Although the criterion is met for each constituency vote, it is not met when adding up the total votes for a winning party in a parliament." the article is no longer highly misleading. It is, however, I think still incorrect.

396:

In the plurality system, it is certainly true that a candidate with more than 50% of the valid poll will win. That is also what your citation says - but no more. But the reason why Plurality fails to pass the majority criterion is that it is not

220:

Before anybody complains - I've fixed the results given for the 2005 British general election. The results committed the old BBC fault of not realizing that the Speaker is non-partisan, as well as confusing Great Britain with the United Kingdom.

1257: 635:+ 1st seat (red,red,blue); 2nd seat (red,red,blue); 3rd seat (blue,blue,blue). This doesn't need to be sourced wiki is claiming something that is simply wrong, incorrect, does not follow the rules of mathematics - wiki is wrong here - simple. 1902:

I don't have a 'proper Knowledge account'. I work at a school and I've seen a gross inclusion of completely unnecessary information while putting together resources for students, so I am bringing it to light as it is unacceptable behaviour.

4811:

The phrase "is to reduce" sounds like this this is a deliberate, malicious attempt on behalf of those who support FPTP. I changed this to "reduces" to make it more NPOV, but you have reverted it by incorrectly citing grammatical issues. —

2475:

First and most importantly, you must not revert policy-based edits while discussion is in progress (and it is poor practice in any case). I am reinstating the neutral wording until there is a consensus. That means contributions from more

4384:. If you can adjust your style to the suit the circumstances, you will be a lot more effective. As you know, I did advise you a few weeks back that your work would be undone if you failed to address these issues. There is far too much 2266:

Although this article already explains some important disadvantages, others need to be added. As an example, FPTP facilitated the blocking tactic that was used to block Hillary Clinton from the 2008 presidential general election.

2262:

article is needed as a separate article because there are so many disadvantages of plurality voting. Those disadvantages can be, and are, exploited to change election outcomes, so it's important to explain (and understand) them.

944:

First past the post systems have a predetermined maximum number of votes (i.e. the electoral college) whereas a plurality has no preset maximum (i.e. electing a representative from one district). They are substantively different.

3727: 3562: 1808:

Wow, you really have allowed your political agenda to get the better of you. And so now I see you are going to try and get my Knowledge account deactivated. A classic censorship tactic used by those who know their arguments are

4068:

Regardless of which phrasing we use, I propose we move this out of the lede and into a section elsewhere, possibly one of the criticism subsections. This seems unsuitable for the lede given that this article isn't about PR. —

1210:"The first-past-the-post voting method is one of the several plurality voting systems. It is also known as the 'winner-takes it all, the loser's standing small, beside the victory, that's her destiny', or 'simple plurality'." 3149:. I think the inverse of this is also true, we should avoid "Benefits" or "All the good things" sections. If all of this content is next to the other (ie the good, with the bad, and the ugly) then the article will be 2969:

Ah yes, a new account whose only contribution is to agree with you in this discussion. I'm afraid that's hardly working in your favour. So, I'll ask you again to stop arguing here and engage in the actual discussion. —

2942:

supports the title "Purported benefits". Instead of making rushed responses in order to bulldoze your opinion, I suggest you slow down and this time read the entire discussion, not just the parts that fit your agenda.

1507:

absolutely. Hence we have all the arguments about "wasted vote": a vote for any but the top two candidates in each constituency is irrelevant so the argument is about the guess as to who are the top two. Crazy system!

442:

page in wikipedia (the table has not been recently changed) and three external sources all of which explicitly classify plurality as MC compliant. I'm still waiting for any citation which explicitly classify it as non

2636:

I agree entirely with John Maynard Friedman's initial response above. The statements in the relevant paragraph are obviously true, without making any comment about whether or not they are outweighed by the criticisms

2282:. My goal is to help clean up some aspects of vote counting that Knowledge currently fails to explain. This topic is especially important now that attention is focused on the confusing U.S. presidential election. 1352:

have won with vote shares not much above 25%. When most other systems have some sort of quota or defined number of votes you need to secure to win, calling this system "first past the post" is surely a nonsense?

2054: 2030: 4190: 1964:

created specifically for casually supporting your stance in a discussion above, then disappear? That's not what I'd call "transparency", and it feels ironic that you are resorting to the same arguments that

1263:

seats in the 2015 election because their support was concentrated in regions. UKIP's votes were spread out across the country and UKIP won only a single seat, despite having more overall votes than the SNP.

3064:. It's not a list of things that could be or might not be, its prose on what is. If there are no benefits to FPTP, which I doubt, there should be no section. Let's not dwell upon the maybes or the perhaps. 2431:

proponents". Similar arguments would apply to those who opposed votes for women who listed among the "benefits" of male-only voting "Avoids over-emotional women from voting thus disrupting government" etc.

2154:

back at the start, we'd probably not be at this situation, and may have been able to include something relevant in the article. But instead we got edit warring and attacking others, so here we are. --

1758: 1781: 3749: 4822: 4797: 4660: 1748: 1295: 981:

Plurality has nothing to do with FPTP system. This system in fact reduce plurality (i.e. numbers of parties in parlaiment), for example US and Canada. Definitly opose mixing plurality with FPTS.

1456: 2251:

After this name change, I and others can improve this important article, which currently is a mess. Especially the introduction. Also this article currently contains lots of overlap with the

1883:

He/she can retain their anonymity by creating an account with a pseudonym, as you and I have. Why are you so keen to welcome this "anonymous" contributor, who just happens to agree with you? --

3141:

I propose we combine the Purported benefits and Criticisms sections into ONE section called "Characteristics" or a continuation of the "Effects" section. Strictly speaking we are supposed to

2579:

referred to one of my earlier edits as a "conspiracy theory" even though the text was fully referenced. Smearing another editor's work because you don't like it is not acceptable on Knowledge.

2270:

This article is also missing significant advantages. For example, FPTP is easy to implement in mechanical voting machines, which is important for some parts of the world that still use them.

669:

Hi the problem is not thinking that A implies B is the same as not A implies not B it is that in this case A does not imply B. Getting more than half the votes does not imply victory in FPTP.

484:

The formal language of mathematics provides unambiguous ways of stating either of these. In the first case, we say 'If A, then B'. In the second, we would say 'If and only if A, then B'. See

2406:

All the claimed "benefits" of FPTP listed in the article have been thoroughly rebutted (both in the article and elsewhere). Consequently this section is properly titled "Purported benefits".

1912: 1836: 3952: 2037:

the numerous warnings, and despite noticing the ANI thread, it's almost guaranteed they will end up blocked. This is just untenable and this user is only creating a toxic atmosphere here.

2483:

Although personally I believe that FPTP is a primitive system that should be abolished, that is just my personal opinion. You hold the same view, but are being insufficiently objective.

3990: 1460: 2764:

aren’t dealing with facts, but with opinions. Therefore “criticisms” needs to be matched with something equivalent. “Claimed benefits” would do, or “commendations” or “approbation”.

1410:(up to) the same number of votes as there are positions to be filled". These are in direct contradiction. Could someone knowledgable on these systems please correct where appropriate? 3214: 3136: 2525: 2470: 2023: 431:

The version at fairvote only makes a positive statement, it doesn't make the additional negative statement required by your definition. Similarly the statement on the wikipedia page:

4185: 3722: 3577: 3404:. Similarly the claim of "However, the recent experience in the United Kingdom would suggest that small single-issue parties can exploit FPTP, ]" depends on this section existing. — 3190: 2617: 2602: 2588: 2565: 1738: 1720: 1611: 1129: 1103: 2396: 477:

My interpretation is that the MC is of the form 'A implies B'. You are arguing for a stronger reading: 'A implies B and not A implies not B'. These are differenct: see for exampe

46:

In the meantime I've changed the section heading to "criticisms." However, I believe the whole section should be deleted as per the tags that hang over it. Any thoughts on that?--

1301:

I have added a section about regional parties being favoured at the expense small non-regional ones. I will probably add something about unequal votes as well (votes per seats).

31:

The "evaluation" section seems to contain only criticisms. It would be good if someone who knows enough about the topic to site some referecences could add some points in favour.

4829: 4765: 4708: 4667: 4604: 4527: 4470: 4429: 4333: 4276: 4235: 3959: 3917: 3840: 3783: 3741: 3686: 3629: 3584: 3525: 3468: 3422: 3373: 3332: 3297: 3202: 3182: 3162: 3128: 3003: 2944: 2885: 2851: 2660: 2609: 2580: 2532: 2517: 2462: 2432: 2369:

would be that there are exceptional circumstances that justify an exception to the general rule. A discussion is required here to provide such an exceptional justification. --

2129: 2087: 2072: 2011: 2007: 1999: 1939: 1884: 1843: 1810: 1769: 1730: 1682: 1588: 4228: 3176: 2002:

on anonymous talk page edits is outrageous. It seems to be an attempt to silence disagreement, which gets us further away from consensus. I also think there is a refusal to

3967: 3302:

This is yet another attempt to encourage you to communicate on the talk page rather than edit warring. You've added a lot of statements of questionable quality, and as per

2160: 1851: 570: 548: 411: 4369: 4209: 3467:

Likewise, you have ignored my comments. If you want to submit a suggested edit to the section, then go ahead, but stop doing blanket deletions of text which you dislike.--

1960:, and you don't get to tell anyone how they should be editing or not. Btw, with "contributor who just so happens to agree with everythng he/she says" you are referring to 1690: 1445:

Knowing how the electoral system works in the US, it is a textbook example of FPTP. Why does the page say in the beginning that the US and UK are exceptions to the rule?

128: 2668: 2646: 148: 826: 695: 4526:

Are you even attempting to improve the article at this point, or are you just deleting text you don't like? I see you've also tried to get my Knowledge count deleted!--

1587:

An anonymous edit (from IP address 69.157.126.224) has added North Korea as an example of first past the post. I suggest this be deleted, in part because unsourced. --

1476: 113: 4061: 4041: 2121: 1984: 1517: 893: 240:

I just undid an edit by JMFriedman which suggested that FPTP does not meet the majority criterion. This is incorrect - it is one of the few citreria it does meet. See

170: 124: 36: 4837: 4773: 4743: 4716: 4694: 4675: 4612: 4574: 4535: 4505: 4478: 4456: 4437: 4341: 4311: 4284: 4262: 4243: 3925: 3887: 3848: 3818: 3791: 3769: 3694: 3664: 3637: 3615: 3592: 3533: 3503: 3476: 3454: 3430: 3381: 3359: 3340: 3011: 2980: 2952: 2917: 2893: 2080: 1947: 1892: 1870: 1818: 1799: 1636: 1491: 2440: 878:

I also agree that under the Westminster model we theoretically elect MPs and not governments (thus MPs being able to cross the house without calling a bi-election).

768:

does it say that 50% is necessary for a win? I read it as just a sufficiency criterion. Have you forgotten that you understood this last time? Please reconsider.

144: 4646:

However, in practice, tactical voting considerations can make it difficult for voters because they may have to guess which candidate has the best chance of winning.

4401: 4147: 4133: 4097: 4020: 2552:

allegation. "Soapboxing" is not a smear, it is an assessment that your edits amount to a political campaign. I have already advised you privately of the problem of

1531: 793: 751: 2378: 1419: 1286:

election states that 170 independents ran and received a total of 98,711 votes but does not state how many votes were obtained by the single winning independent.

383: 55: 3256: 1671: 1522:

The article has since been changed to note that the UK and US use FPTP, except for the Electoral College in the US, which is only used to pick the President. --

281: 259: 3181:

I also agree that merging into single a "Characteristics" would be a good idea, but it's a lot of work, so probably best to consider it a long term objective -

3391: 70: 3121: 2175: 1022: 732: 1440: 95: 1398: 1251: 830: 699: 1928: 1842:

Why are you making anonymous contributions in a dispute section? Why don't you use a proper Knowledge account for transparency so we can see who you are? -

1729:

does not require articles to give equal weight to dubious claims: and the "benefits" claimed by FPTP supporters are dubious, if not downright fraudulent.--

1310: 1167: 1144: 897: 209: 3281: 1193: 1066: 85: 4828:

I don't really understand your objection here, but I will not revert this edit which you have made (I did inavertendly revert, but have now restored). --

1235: 4079: 4006: 2837: 2810: 2792: 2190: 1434: 3317: 3252: 2937: 2773: 2361:

There is a dispute on whether the section title "Benefits" may be qualified by the word "purported". Knowledge policy on this word is unambiguous, see

2346: 2328: 2309: 1667: 1452: 1404: 606: 2880:

You're editing disputed text without properly considering the extended discussions above and below (and also in the other Talk section below, titled "

2066: 2048: 1539: 3097: 3077: 2797:

On reflection, two factual headings, accompanied by text beneath that makes clear that varying opinions are being presented, might be best. I would

1382: 1345: 1136: 4214:

I've just noticed you've also added another citation for this from the Indy. This citation, too, does not support your claim. Please take a look at

3264: 3229:

Disagree, as this introduces a bias. We should keep it simple, hence why I agree with the claim elsewhere of being "benefits" and "disadvantages" —

3103: 3047: 2867: 1970: 1711:

citations. I don't know enough about the topic to research these but it needs to be done before a proponent chops back all the recent additions. --

1131:) Therefore, your problem with the introduction was not that you are not a "polisci major", but that you misread the semantic logic of the sentence. 174: 3557: 3493:

What points of yours have I ignored? Plus, replying with "yeah but so did you" doesn't address the fact you haven't addressed the concerns here. —

3414: 1411: 867: 664: 104:

I only skimmed the second citation, but it isn't terribly long, and it doesn't appear to mention this sentiment at all, much less substantiate it.

4088:

need to say what fraction of the world's democracies uses FPTP. It is a bit difficult to do that without saying what the other three-fifths do. --

3877:). If you think this statement is important then support it. Don't use shakey sources and try to join things together in order to make it work. — 2291: 1596: 4011:

The word "most" suggests at least 75%. "The majority" would be more NPOV and make the point just as well. Overstatement is counter-productive. --

1361: 4666:

Yet again, you are wilfully failing to properly read the sourced material, and deleting text based on your agenda to silence criticism of FPTP--

2425:

require articles to give equal weight to dubious claims: and the "benefits" claimed by FPTP supporters are dubious, if not downright fraudulent.

625: 517: 461: 40: 3239: 1330: 592: 561:

that will hopefully make the issue more clear. As I see it, FPTP can sometimes meet majority criterion even when it falls short other times. --

3087:

as per John Maynard Friedman. I've made my case elsewhere in this discussion but I thought I'd clear here for easy of browsing this thread. —

2218:! The name First Past The Post is used in some places -- including Canada and the EndFPTP subreddit on Reddit -- but otherwise it's known as 3372:

If you are willing to stop your blanket deletions and edit warring, then we can discuss any valid concerns you might have. What do you say?--

3210: 3068:

point that exceptional circumstances must exist is absolutely correct. I believe that no such circumstances exist, exceptional or otherwise.

1777: 1753:

Czello has repeatedly attempted to carry out bulk deletions of text without first seeking consensus or attempting to first improve the text.

1047: 618: 285: 263: 3958:

Why are you making anonymous contributions to a dispute talk page. In the interests of transparency, you should use a valid Editor account--

194: 1337: 1274:, which has support only in Quebec, got 10 seats with 821,144 votes (4.7%). The issue-based Green Party got 602,944 votes but only 1 seat. 3349:

What do you think I made this entire thread for, if not communication? I'm the only one here who actually has attempted to communicate. —

2010:

has made before consensus is reached. Ive tried to restore a status quo, just to have the edits described as "unjustified". and undone by

4199:. The Guardian article does not mention FPTP once, and the electoral reform article does not support the overall claim of the section — 1675: 3400:

position by linking to manifestos: there is no evidence here that FPTP played a part in their policies, and by linking to manifestos is

539:

still win." I suggest a footnote to clarify this because I suspect that I won't be the first to fall for this mathematical fallacy. --

4234:

This is yet another example of your agenda to silence criticisms of FPTP, in particular where they reflect badly on the Tory Party. --

2537:

No, the prefix 'purported' is contrary to policy and may be removed without even this discussion. Nevertheless I propose a compromise

4640: 4422: 3290: 230: 3782:

Again, another example of your agenda: you are either deliberately failing to read the citations, or you are acting in bad faith. --

912:

has been up there since the beginning of this year. I'm not very familiar with the subjects but is there a major difference between

4407: 2334: 1860:

Knowledge has always had an open, friendly, and welcoming attitude towards anonymous users. S/he is entitled to their anonymity. —

1548:, I reverted va bold edit that asserted that this sacking is evidence that FPTP is a failure. I did this for a number of reasons: 996: 495:

I guess if we adopted your stonger form, several other voting systems would also change wtheir compliance status. But the table in

2387:. The rest of the article provides sufficient demolition of the case for FPTP without any need to 'lead the witness' like this. -- 3583:

Yet another example of your determination to dismiss entire sections of valid and properly sourced text with vague statements. --

2884:"). Your edit is clearly disputed, so you should make your case here, rather than rushing to edit. That's how Knowledge works. -- 1918:

Thank you for your patience and taking the time to contribute to these discussions, as well as your edits on the article page. —

1655: 3025:

I actually had read the article and disregarded that account for the reasons that I stated before. Also please do not engage in

2881: 2608:

willingness or ability to make substantive contributions, then you should restrict yourself to helping formatting links etc. --

1205: 159:

The introduction seems to say two different things, and even if you disagree, I think you might agree that it is far too long.

4428:

Another obvious example of your agenda to delete valid text which draws attention to potentially catastrophic dangers of FPTP--

3943:

This is bad-faith acting from Friend-of-the-planet-99. The question Czello is asking is clear, but being deliberately ignored.

2356: 939: 3002:

whatsoever with their comment. Stop acting like a spoilt child trying to get your own way, and try engaging constructively. --

1938:

seems strange that an anonymous contributor would refuse to set up a Knowledge account before getting involved in a dispute--

1695:

Unfortunately, Knowledge's policies are that such phrasing may only be used when there an overwhelming consensus of external

822: 691: 3307:

going to make a section so we can discuss each one. I encourage you to engage, otherwise they'll just get removed again. —

2484: 2014:. Im ready to share and hear some ideas about how to achieve consensus, but not before a reasonable status quo is reached. 988: 975: 889: 638:

Unsigned, but added by IP 109.158.138.156. The article needs to make clearer what it is saying to avoid misunderstandings.

554: 509: 453: 375: 368: 166: 120: 32: 3916:

If you're going to delete other editors work, then it IS your job to justify the deletions, which you've failed to do. --

3206: 1773: 1707:. It may well be true (I hope it is) but it has not been demonstrated. The article still suffers from a preponderance of 1374: 1227: 140: 4603:

If you genuinely wanted to improve the article you would have done so, but instead you just deleted the entire section--

3944: 3567:

This entire section has a single source, which is an opinion piece/letter. This is not considered a reliable source. —

2206: 1904: 1828: 489: 2739: 2100: 2057:, I was just about to head there myself. You have saved me some time. I certainly agree that its untenable and toxic. 558: 4833: 4769: 4712: 4671: 4608: 4531: 4474: 4433: 4355:

Yes, I saw a bad-faith accusation that I'm acting out of bias. I didn't see you address the original statement about

4337: 4280: 4239: 3963: 3921: 3844: 3787: 3745: 3690: 3633: 3588: 3529: 3472: 3426: 3377: 3336: 3260: 3186: 3132: 3007: 2948: 2889: 2664: 2613: 2584: 2521: 2466: 2436: 2076: 1943: 1888: 1847: 1814: 1734: 1686: 1592: 614: 277: 255: 2071:

And now we see the real agenda: you can't rebut my arguments, so instead you are going to get my account blocked. -

1316: 933: 4807:

political diversity in a country because the larger parties are incentivised to coalesce around similar policies.

4397: 4143: 4093: 4057: 4036: 4016: 3985: 3172: 3117: 2598: 2561: 2392: 2374: 1716: 1643: 1607: 1576: 1513: 1267: 747: 544: 499:

would then have multiple inconsistencies with those in Nurmi or Fairvote, whereas at present they are consistent.

407: 17: 1105:) and understanding "Running 100m in 5s does not necessarily is good enough to become running world champion." ( 1571:

I could go on but the factual inaccuracies are details that could be corrected: the main point is #1 above. --

531:

Ok yes, I understand the mathematics and accept your logic. So to put it succinctly: "If A gets most votes, he

154: 3839:

Then prove me wrong: please suggest an alternate edit, instead of just deleting the work of other editors--

3759:

it'd have to be more than half (which it's not). Or is there another sentence in there that I've missed? —

3167:

Sounds good to me if it can be achieved. It is a lot more work but it is certainly the better end point. --

2033:, and considering the current state of things, Fotp99's persistent edit warring as well as their behaviour 1028: 4385: 2907:

now resumed this discussion in this thread, with some other suggestions above, please actually engage. —

2571: 2545: 1108: 1082: 591:

that FPTP is marked as complying with MC... So this inconsistency does need to be addressed somehow. --

4393: 4139: 4089: 4053: 4012: 3168: 3113: 3065: 2594: 2557: 2388: 2370: 2366: 1712: 1603: 1572: 1509: 917: 743: 631:

one (with all three votes). Blue loses the election even though they had an absolute majority of votes!

540: 403: 337: 274: 235: 26: 4560:

This thread is to improve the article. Now please address the original point about original research.

2655:

Ehrenkater's assertion that John Maynard Friedman's statements are "obviously true" is the fallacy of

355:

If a majority (more than 50%) of voters consider candidate A to be the best choice, then A should win.

307:

If a majority (more than 50%) of voters consider candidate A to be the best choice, then A should win.

3158: 1696: 1378: 1277:

Using these results would be OR but someone should mention FPTP's preference for highly concentrated

815:

system passes MC (which it does) not if FPTP passes MC (which it does not). What are your thoughts?

3654:

The bit where you said it was reliable. It was an opinion piece. They're not considered reliable. —

2801:

the two sections be titled “Advantages” and “Disadvantages”. That is about as neutral as possible.

2412:

despite extensive independent evidence indicating that FPTP has numerous adverse outcomes in the UK.

2092:

It's you and your behaviour the one that has gotten to the point of deserving a fairly long block.

992: 566: 513: 457: 428:

OK, so we agree exactly on the ananlysis. We disagree on what the criterion actually says or means.

379: 180: 3601:

My statement isn't vague. What bit of it didn't you understand? Opinion pieces aren't reliable --

1666:

use FPTP in a modern liberal democracy. The use of the word of the word "purported" is justified.

1258:

FPTP favors regional-interest small parties over issue-based small parties with nationwide support

1231: 1214: 913: 909: 215: 4630:

Which improved the article. Unless you have real sources to back this up, it'll stay deleted. —

3685:

The citation was valid. Your objection seems to fit a pattern of deleting criticisms to FPTP. --

3948: 2553: 1908: 1832: 1708: 1660: 1306: 190: 3030: 1704: 1472: 610: 109: 66: 51: 678:

B wins 5 out of 9 votes (therefore over 50% so under majority criterion must imply victory)

291:

The chart and explanations at Fairvote.org is quite specific that Plurality Voting does not

4446:

I'm afraid you're just exposing your bias here. Can you address my actual point, please? —

3248: 3198: 3154: 2642: 2298: 1765: 1504: 1448: 1370: 1223: 1140: 984: 927: 885: 818: 687: 602: 251: 241: 162: 136: 4495:

Are you even attempting to improve the article at this point, or are you just trolling? —

8: 4389: 4031: 3980: 3146: 2806: 2769: 2689: 2171: 1582: 1487: 1415: 1357: 1189: 1043: 562: 3732:

Not supported by your source: this source only talks about Europe, and at no point says

1556:

is offered that makes this conclusion: it is an editor's opinion and thus precluded per

369:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tGsQl-wxbKAC&pg=PA174#v=onepage&q&f=false

4381: 4025:

I don't think the word "most" suggests that and I've never heard the 75% thing before.

3628:

My text was compliant with Knowledge policies. What bit of it didn't you understand? --

3142: 2656: 2324: 2287: 1163: 1062: 765: 432: 322: 270: 3195:

I again propose changing the section title to "Benefits asserted by FPTP supporters"

3145:

and instead deal with such material in the prose of a regular section where it can be

2138:. I was hoping that they could cooperate with other editors, but obviously not. The 3709: 2362: 2155: 1681:

I agree. This is why I originally edited the section title to "Purported benefits" --

1425:

This has since been changed, but I clarified the image caption along these lines. --

1326: 1302: 1054: 1018: 186: 349:

No. The criteria at Fairvote is correct, but I think you still midunderstanding it.

3277: 3073: 2593:

I think you will find that you have reverted three times, I have done so twice. --

2448: 2418: 2342: 2245: 2147: 2143: 2062: 2019: 1726: 1651: 1527: 1468: 1430: 1394: 1291: 1247: 226: 205: 105: 81: 62: 47: 3996:

Good point, I misread the second half ("34 systems where it's partially used"). —

2214:(abbreviated as FPTP) is just an alternate name for what the academic world calls 3061: 3034: 2638: 1341: 1321:

What is "the post", please? Shouldn't this be stated somewhere in the article? —

921: 478: 4392:(rather than neutrally reporting reliable sources). What Czello says is true. -- 3808:

Then prove me wrong: please paste the exact sentence you think backs this up. —

672:

For example the following with 9 voters, three seats and two options (A&B).

4026: 3975: 3150: 3127:

I propose changing the section title to "Benefits asserted by FPTP supporters"

2802: 2765: 2167: 1700: 1498: 1483: 1353: 1271: 1185: 1039: 496: 485: 318:

Looks pretty unambiguous to me. I will undo the revert and add this citation.

4469:

Your bias is obvious. You simply refuse to engage in good faith discussion. --

4412:

Another obvious case of WP:OR. Not one of the citations even mentions FPTP. —

4252:

You're assuming bad faith, again. Can you address my actual point, please? —

3874: 3602: 3441: 3303: 3057: 2549: 2447:

John Maynard Friedman also makes a dubious claim re Knowledge's style policy

2320: 2283: 2139: 2135: 2107: 1561: 1557: 1545: 1467:

thing as "Most Votes Wins". The US does not have a "Most Votes Wins" system.

1213:

Um, citation needed. Since when is FPTP associated with some old ABBA song, "

1159: 1058: 903: 588: 439: 248:

satisfies the criterion (indeed you could argue that it over-satisfies it).

76:

There are now Advantages and Disadvantages sections, both with citations. --

1994:

Im by no stretch of the imagination an unopinionated observer here. I think

4561: 4356: 4215: 4196: 3401: 3026: 2111: 2038: 2003: 1974: 1961: 1553: 1322: 1014: 481:

quote 'the inverse of a conditional is not inferable from the conditional'.

4175:

I've moved it under to the section regarding campaigns to replace FPTP. —

2548:

violation so you need to stop to reflect. Please don't add an unwarranted

4815: 4790: 4736: 4687: 4653: 4633: 4567: 4498: 4449: 4415: 4362: 4304: 4255: 4221: 4202: 4178: 4126: 4072: 3999: 3880: 3811: 3762: 3715: 3657: 3608: 3570: 3550: 3496: 3447: 3407: 3352: 3325: 3310: 3273: 3232: 3090: 3069: 3040: 2973: 2910: 2875: 2860: 2830: 2785: 2714: 2338: 2303: 2183: 2058: 2015: 1995: 1966: 1921: 1863: 1792: 1647: 1629: 1523: 1426: 1390: 1287: 1243: 951: 843: 769: 708: 640: 222: 201: 77: 1503:

50% of the popular vote, despite behaving subsequently as though it has

803:

My apologies for putting my criticism in the article in the first place

133:

Arent many of the items listed under "benefits" actually criticisms ?

1057:

part was problematic anyway, given where the link to that redirects.

1009: 681:

However B secures only 1 out of 3 seats (therefore loses under FPTP)

587:

about MC, or the references, where that is disputed. I note that on

1969:

used back then to criticize that new account, because it looks like

275:

http://www.fairvote.org/single-winner-voting-method-comparison-chart

2902:

I have considered the arguments above or below; it seems that it's

2451:

in order to justify his deletion. The policy actually states that "

2106:

within a 24-hour timespan is just unnaceptable and in violation of

3331:

engage, otherwise your blanket deletions will be reverted again.--

4375:

Everyone who wants to achieve an NPOV article that is persuasive

2659:. Stating that something is "obviously true" does not make it so. 2503:

benefit of FPTP included in this section with adequate citations.

1749:

Political agenda and repeated attempts at bulk deletion by Czello

1077:"the person with a majority of the votes doesn't necessarily win" 295:

to meet the plurality criterion, that the winning candidate does

4707:

You haven't addressed my point. The text is properly sourced. --

3728:

Most modern democracies use forms of proportional representation

2516:

Your "soapboxing" smear is, in itself, an example of soapboxing.

1266:

Here in Canada, we see a similar phenomenon, for example in the

3393: 2140:

groundless accusations and attempts to intimidate other editors

1998:

is right on most of the relevant points, and the commentary by

1953: 435:. Similarly all of the external sources I've previously cited. 2273:

Thank you for any assistance in helping to make this change.

492:. The MC is stated in the first form. Does that clear it up? 367:

Here's some more standard texts confirming this very point:

3708:

Opinion pieces are not valid. Please take the time to read

2335:

Talk:Plurality voting#Merge with First-past-the-post voting

1502:

minority. No government in living memory has achieved : -->

2499:

benefits" unless and until consensus can be reached and a

4650:

Completely unsourced, sounds like invented guesswork. —

2453:

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Knowledge

2006:

going on here. Im also troubled by the number of edits

1367:

you are in the lead when the vote count ends you win.

3524:

Why are you continuing to ignore my earlier replies?--

1540:

Sacking of Long-Bailey as evidence that FPTP is flawed

402:

acheiving majority does not pass the test. It fails.--

4684:

You haven't addressed my point. This is unsourced. —

4332:

Haven't you bothered to read the previous comments?--

4191:

Vulnerability to manipulation by single-issue parties

2934:

discussion as you claimed, then you'd have seen that

1111: 1085: 2715:"The Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto 2019" 2248:

article, which already explains this voting method.

2222:. (In the United States this method is just called 811:

individually." Can someone else phrase this better?

3153:

and balanced. That is what we should strive for.--

2276:FYI, I'm also waiting for a split request -- here: 684:Simple as that FPTP fails the majority criterion. 4123:phrasing we use, but move the PR bit elsewhere. — 1123: 1097: 3029:by resorting to that kind of reply. This isn't a 2235:Advantages and disadvantages of plurality voting 2229:Please rename this article to something such as 1952:Creating an account is encouraged in Knowledge, 1007:(a standard weaker than absolute majority) with 325:has been hacked, so will go there to correct it. 3108:I propose that the section title be changed to 2538: 2337:and was closed with no consensus to merge. -- 2237:. Whatever fits with Knowledge naming rules. 2180:I agree to "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" — 2231:Plurality voting advantages and disadvantages 1441:United States and the UK not practicing FPTP? 299:have to have a majority over all other voters 96:Disproportionate influence of smaller parties 4787:There were no citations for this section. — 3563:Representation versus "winners" and "losers" 2487:and it seems to me that you are soap-boxing. 338:Single-winner Voting Method Comparison Chart 4275:Can you address my actual points please? -- 3444:if we're going to work together on this. — 61:to see cited evaluations for this as well. 1646:as part of a larger edit. Im removing it. 1405:Plurality Voting vs Multiple-Member System 535:win. But if A does not get most votes, he 1759:2019 UK general election campaign article 3062:indiscriminate collection of information 2278:] -- that will add a new article named 14: 3873:That's not my job, it's yours (as per 2740:"Democracy: we've never had it so bad" 2029:The issue has been already brought to 837:50%+ of the vote therefore MC fails). 3736:modern democracies work in this way. 2480:is not helped by tendentious framing, 1567:it used the pejorative term "claimed" 1220:Is this some sort of UK phenomenon? 908:So this merge template to merge with 4562:You do know what that is, don't you? 1482:to get more votes than anyone else. 4052:be true. :-) Ok, point conceded. -- 2574:violation for this same section so 1971:you viciously attacked him for that 1389:Added explanation to the intro. -- 1184:That's a huge improvement, thanks! 1124:{\displaystyle B\not \Rightarrow A} 1098:{\displaystyle A\not \Rightarrow B} 371:(see table 7) or Democracy defended 23: 3060:, and most importantly, its not a 1003:99.224.228.119 appears to confuse 490:necessary and sufficient condition 24: 4849: 3291:Original research and bad sources 2150:. It's a pity, if this had been 4166: 4138:Agreed. I'll leave it to you. -- 2402:Reply to John Maynard Friedman: 1699:say so – as with, for example, 1617: 1242:This has since been deleted. -- 1053:I agree, and revised a bit. The 2455:..." and that the guidance "... 2144:Knowledge is not a battleground 1642:North Korea has reappeared, in 1268:Canadian federal election, 2015 1075:@Monolith2: Where did you find 18:Talk:First-past-the-post voting 3740:A new source has been added -- 2930:If you'd bothered to read the 2732: 2707: 2682: 2417:Knowledge's neutrality policy 1725:Knowledge's neutrality policy 1420:20:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC) 1331:01:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 1296:15:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC) 1236:02:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1023:01:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 331: 13: 1: 2485:WP:Knowledge is not a soapbox 2458:should not be applied rigidly 2365:. So the only basis to apply 2148:campaigning against something 1518:19:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC) 1492:19:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC) 1477:18:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) 1461:13:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC) 1311:12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 626:Criticism moved from article: 175:19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC) 149:21:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC) 3112:, which I believe is NPOV.-- 3058:Knowledge is an encyclopedia 2260:advantages and disadvantages 1453:2601:84:8801:E500:0:0:0:13F4 1383:21:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 1346:23:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC) 1206:What's with the ABBA lyrics? 976:08:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 940:01:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC) 898:23:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 868:09:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 831:23:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 794:08:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 353:Majority Favorite Criterion: 305:Majority Favorite Criterion: 114:21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 71:21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 7: 3147:balanced with other content 2329:15:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2310:17:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC) 2292:14:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC) 1194:22:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 1168:16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1145:20:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 1067:00:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 1048:16:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 752:20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC) 733:22:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 700:22:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 665:22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 619:06:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 242:Voting_system#Summary_table 10: 4854: 2539:#Alternative section title 2207:Article name change needed 2053:Thanks for mentioning the 918:First-past-the-post voting 195:08:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 129:12:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC) 119:a disproportionate voice. 4838:12:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4823:10:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4798:09:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC) 4774:13:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4744:13:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4717:13:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4695:12:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4676:12:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4661:10:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4641:13:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4613:13:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4575:13:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4536:13:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4506:13:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4479:13:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4457:12:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4438:12:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4423:10:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4402:19:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4370:13:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4342:13:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4312:13:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4285:12:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4263:12:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4244:12:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4229:12:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4210:12:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4186:10:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC) 4148:22:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4134:20:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4098:20:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4080:20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4062:20:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4042:19:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4021:19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 4007:18:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3991:14:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3968:13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3953:13:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3926:16:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3888:13:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3849:13:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3819:13:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3792:12:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3770:12:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3750:12:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3723:09:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC) 3695:13:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3665:13:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3638:13:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3616:13:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3593:13:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3578:10:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3558:13:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3534:13:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3504:13:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3477:12:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3455:12:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3431:12:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3415:10:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3382:12:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3360:12:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3341:12:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3318:10:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3282:17:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 3265:18:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC) 3240:19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 3215:18:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 3104:Alternative section title 3098:09:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC) 3078:08:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC) 3048:19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 3012:18:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2981:17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2953:17:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2918:16:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2894:16:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2868:16:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2838:17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2827:I would agree to this. — 2811:16:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2793:15:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2774:15:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 2347:17:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 2191:18:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 2176:18:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 2161:17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 2122:16:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 2081:16:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 2067:14:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 2049:14:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 2024:14:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1985:14:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1948:14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1929:13:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1913:13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1893:14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1871:13:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1852:13:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1837:13:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1819:12:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1800:12:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1782:12:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 1656:03:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC) 1637:12:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 1612:12:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 1597:11:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 1532:16:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 1435:17:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 1399:16:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 1252:16:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 997:19:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC) 210:16:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 86:16:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC) 4048:Well I made it up so it 3191:08:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC) 3177:21:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 3163:18:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 3143:avoid criticism sections 3137:17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 3122:16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 2669:13:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 2647:13:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 2618:10:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC) 2603:21:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 2589:17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 2566:16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 2526:13:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 2471:10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 2441:10:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 2397:10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 2379:10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 1739:12:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC) 1721:13:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC) 1691:08:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC) 1676:21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 1602:it's a spoof. delete. -- 1317:please explain the title 571:05:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 549:11:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC) 518:06:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC) 462:15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 438:I've given links to the 412:11:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 384:10:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 56:20:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 41:20:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 4830:Friend-of-the-planet-99 4766:Friend-of-the-planet-99 4709:Friend-of-the-planet-99 4668:Friend-of-the-planet-99 4605:Friend-of-the-planet-99 4528:Friend-of-the-planet-99 4471:Friend-of-the-planet-99 4430:Friend-of-the-planet-99 4334:Friend-of-the-planet-99 4277:Friend-of-the-planet-99 4236:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3960:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3918:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3841:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3784:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3742:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3687:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3630:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3585:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3526:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3469:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3423:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3392:An example of this was 3374:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3333:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3298:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3203:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3183:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3129:Friend-of-the-planet-99 3004:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2945:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2886:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2852:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2661:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2610:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2581:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2533:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2518:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2463:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2433:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2240:Then, please point the 2130:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2088:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2073:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2012:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2008:Friend-of-the-planet-99 2000:Friend-of-the-planet-99 1940:Friend-of-the-planet-99 1885:Friend-of-the-planet-99 1844:Friend-of-the-planet-99 1811:Friend-of-the-planet-99 1770:Friend-of-the-planet-99 1731:Friend-of-the-planet-99 1683:Friend-of-the-planet-99 1589:Friend-of-the-planet-99 1362:21:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC) 1215:The Winner Takes It All 914:Plurality voting system 910:Plurality voting system 286:14:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 264:14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 231:12:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 73:(resigned after login) 2333:This was discussed at 2280:Pairwise vote counting 1125: 1099: 557:, I added in language 357: 315: 155:Confusing Introduction 4394:John Maynard Friedman 4140:John Maynard Friedman 4090:John Maynard Friedman 4054:John Maynard Friedman 4013:John Maynard Friedman 3421:or leave it alone. -- 3169:John Maynard Friedman 3114:John Maynard Friedman 3066:John Maynard Friedman 2690:"First Past the Post" 2595:John Maynard Friedman 2558:John Maynard Friedman 2389:John Maynard Friedman 2371:John Maynard Friedman 1713:John Maynard Friedman 1705:Race and intelligence 1604:John Maynard Friedman 1573:John Maynard Friedman 1510:John Maynard Friedman 1126: 1100: 744:John Maynard Friedman 707:majority criterion. 541:John Maynard Friedman 404:John Maynard Friedman 350: 302: 4386:wp:original research 2572:wp:three revert rule 2546:wp:three revert rule 2357:"Purported" benefits 1958:required for editing 1505:divine right to rule 1109: 1083: 1029:Terrible intoduction 4803:The effect of this 3603:that's pretty clear 3110:Arguments in favour 2367:wp:ignore all rules 2242:First Past The Post 2212:First Past The Post 2126:I've just reported 1697:wp:reliable sources 474:misinterpretations. 4084:True but the lead 2657:proof by assertion 2570:You are also on a 2544:You are also on a 1644:Revision 969207094 1121: 1095: 766:Majority criterion 675:(AAB) (AAB) (BBB) 433:Majority Criterion 323:Majority criterion 271:Majority criterion 244:which is correct. 236:Majority criterion 27:Evaluation section 3442:assume good faith 3267: 3251:comment added by 3217: 3201:comment added by 3033:so I suggest you 2719:Conservatives.com 2694:Make Votes Matter 2146:or somewhere for 2142:are also noted. 2004:Assume good faith 1784: 1768:comment added by 1463: 1451:comment added by 1385: 1373:comment added by 1226:comment added by 1055:absolute majority 987:comment added by 888:comment added by 821:comment added by 690:comment added by 639: 622: 605:comment added by 273:, or for example 254:comment added by 165:comment added by 151: 139:comment added by 4845: 4818: 4793: 4739: 4733:No, it isn't. — 4690: 4656: 4636: 4570: 4501: 4452: 4418: 4365: 4307: 4258: 4224: 4205: 4181: 4174: 4170: 4169: 4129: 4075: 4039: 4034: 4029: 4002: 3988: 3983: 3978: 3883: 3814: 3765: 3718: 3660: 3611: 3573: 3553: 3547:Again, which? — 3499: 3450: 3410: 3355: 3329: 3313: 3301: 3246: 3235: 3196: 3093: 3043: 3027:personal attacks 2976: 2941: 2913: 2879: 2863: 2855: 2833: 2788: 2755: 2754: 2752: 2750: 2736: 2730: 2729: 2727: 2725: 2711: 2705: 2704: 2702: 2700: 2686: 2536: 2253:Plurality voting 2246:Plurality voting 2220:plurality voting 2216:plurality voting 2186: 2158: 2133: 2118: 2115: 2091: 2045: 2042: 1981: 1978: 1924: 1866: 1795: 1763: 1632: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1446: 1368: 1238: 1130: 1128: 1127: 1122: 1104: 1102: 1101: 1096: 999: 972: 971: 968: 965: 962: 959: 956: 936: 930: 924: 900: 864: 863: 860: 857: 854: 851: 848: 833: 790: 789: 786: 783: 780: 777: 774: 729: 728: 725: 722: 719: 716: 713: 702: 661: 660: 657: 654: 651: 648: 645: 637: 621: 599: 340: 335: 313: 266: 200:Since fixed. -- 181:Grammar/Spelling 177: 134: 4853: 4852: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4816: 4809: 4791: 4737: 4688: 4654: 4648: 4634: 4568: 4499: 4450: 4416: 4410: 4408:nuclear weapons 4363: 4305: 4301:What points? — 4256: 4222: 4203: 4193: 4179: 4167: 4165: 4127: 4073: 4037: 4032: 4027: 4000: 3986: 3981: 3976: 3881: 3812: 3763: 3730: 3716: 3658: 3609: 3571: 3565: 3551: 3497: 3448: 3408: 3397: 3353: 3323: 3311: 3295: 3293: 3233: 3155:Darryl Kerrigan 3106: 3091: 3041: 2974: 2935: 2911: 2873: 2861: 2849: 2831: 2786: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2748: 2746: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2723: 2721: 2713: 2712: 2708: 2698: 2696: 2688: 2687: 2683: 2554:WP:SINGLESOURCE 2530: 2359: 2209: 2184: 2156: 2127: 2116: 2113: 2085: 2043: 2040: 1979: 1976: 1922: 1864: 1793: 1751: 1709:WP:SINGLESOURCE 1663: 1630: 1618: 1616: 1585: 1542: 1443: 1407: 1319: 1270:. The regional 1260: 1221: 1208: 1110: 1107: 1106: 1084: 1081: 1080: 1031: 982: 969: 966: 963: 960: 957: 954: 953: 934: 928: 922: 906: 883: 861: 858: 855: 852: 849: 846: 845: 823:109.152.233.103 816: 787: 784: 781: 778: 775: 772: 771: 726: 723: 720: 717: 714: 711: 710: 692:109.158.138.156 685: 658: 655: 652: 649: 646: 643: 642: 628: 600: 479:Inverse (logic) 374:(Gerry Mackie) 344: 343: 336: 332: 321:I suspect that 314: 311: 249: 238: 218: 216:2005 GE results 185:"an majority"? 183: 160: 157: 98: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4851: 4841: 4840: 4808: 4801: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4764:Yes, it is. -- 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4679: 4678: 4647: 4644: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4441: 4440: 4409: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4247: 4246: 4192: 4189: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4066: 4065: 4064: 3971: 3970: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3753: 3752: 3729: 3726: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3596: 3595: 3564: 3561: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3434: 3433: 3396: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3344: 3343: 3292: 3289: 3287: 3285: 3284: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3105: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3081: 3080: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2897: 2896: 2882:FPTP Arguments 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2777: 2776: 2757: 2756: 2731: 2706: 2680: 2679: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2650: 2649: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2542: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2481: 2477: 2444: 2443: 2427: 2426: 2414: 2413: 2408: 2407: 2400: 2399: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2313: 2312: 2208: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2124: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1932: 1931: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1855: 1854: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1803: 1802: 1750: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1701:Climate change 1662: 1661:FPTP Arguments 1659: 1640: 1639: 1614: 1584: 1581: 1569: 1568: 1565: 1541: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1499:musical chairs 1442: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1406: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1349: 1348: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1272:Bloc Quebecois 1259: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1207: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1132: 1120: 1117: 1114: 1094: 1091: 1088: 1070: 1069: 1030: 1027: 1026: 1025: 989:99.224.228.119 979: 978: 905: 902: 890:109.145.38.155 873: 871: 870: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 757: 756: 755: 754: 736: 735: 636: 634: 632: 627: 624: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 563:Sgt. R.K. Blue 510:144.32.196.109 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 497:Voting systems 493: 486:if and only if 482: 475: 454:144.32.196.109 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 436: 429: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 389: 388: 387: 386: 376:144.32.196.109 372: 362: 361: 360: 359: 342: 341: 329: 328: 327: 326: 319: 309: 301: 300: 237: 234: 217: 214: 213: 212: 182: 179: 167:128.112.16.224 156: 153: 121:84.112.114.146 97: 94: 93: 92: 91: 90: 89: 88: 33:86.160.156.109 28: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4850: 4839: 4835: 4831: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4806: 4800: 4799: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4775: 4771: 4767: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4745: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4696: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4677: 4673: 4669: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4643: 4642: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4614: 4610: 4606: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4576: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4563: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4537: 4533: 4529: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4507: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4458: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4378: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4358: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4313: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4264: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4217: 4212: 4211: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4198: 4188: 4187: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4173: 4149: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4040: 4035: 4030: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4005: 4004: 4003: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3989: 3984: 3979: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3889: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3876: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3820: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3771: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3735: 3725: 3724: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3711: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3666: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3617: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3604: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3560: 3559: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3505: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3456: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3443: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3403: 3395: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3361: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3327: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3305: 3299: 3288: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3099: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3086: 3085:Not justified 3083: 3082: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3054:Not justified 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2982: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2939: 2933: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2919: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2905: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2877: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2853: 2839: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2762: 2761: 2745: 2741: 2735: 2720: 2716: 2710: 2695: 2691: 2685: 2681: 2678: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2635: 2634: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2540: 2534: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2502: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2459: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2429: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2415: 2410: 2409: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2385:Not justified 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2311: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2300: 2299:WP:COMMONNAME 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2274: 2271: 2268: 2264: 2261: 2256: 2254: 2249: 2247: 2243: 2238: 2236: 2232: 2227: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2192: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2159: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2131: 2125: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2098: 2096: 2089: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2047: 2046: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1972: 1968: 1963: 1959: 1957: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1930: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1872: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1760: 1754: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1658: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1638: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1624: 1615: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1580: 1578: 1574: 1566: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1547: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1506: 1500: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1464: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1375:174.3.203.119 1372: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1283: 1280: 1275: 1273: 1269: 1264: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1228:68.197.91.136 1225: 1218: 1216: 1211: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1133: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1092: 1089: 1086: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1035: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011: 1006: 1002: 1001: 1000: 998: 994: 990: 986: 977: 974: 973: 948: 947: 946: 942: 941: 937: 931: 925: 919: 915: 911: 901: 899: 895: 891: 887: 879: 876: 869: 866: 865: 840: 839: 838: 834: 832: 828: 824: 820: 812: 808: 804: 795: 792: 791: 767: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 753: 749: 745: 740: 739: 738: 737: 734: 731: 730: 705: 704: 703: 701: 697: 693: 689: 682: 679: 676: 673: 670: 667: 666: 663: 662: 623: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 595: 594: 590: 589:Voting System 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 551: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 515: 511: 498: 494: 491: 487: 483: 480: 476: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 459: 455: 441: 440:Voting System 437: 434: 430: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 413: 409: 405: 400: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 385: 381: 377: 373: 370: 366: 365: 364: 363: 356: 354: 348: 347: 346: 345: 339: 334: 330: 324: 320: 317: 316: 308: 306: 298: 294: 290: 289: 288: 287: 283: 279: 276: 272: 267: 265: 261: 257: 253: 245: 243: 233: 232: 228: 224: 211: 207: 203: 199: 198: 197: 196: 192: 188: 178: 176: 172: 168: 164: 152: 150: 146: 142: 141:124.170.17.45 138: 131: 130: 126: 122: 116: 115: 111: 107: 102: 87: 83: 79: 75: 74: 72: 68: 64: 59: 58: 57: 53: 49: 45: 44: 43: 42: 38: 34: 19: 4814: 4813: 4810: 4805:is to reduce 4804: 4789: 4788: 4786: 4735: 4734: 4686: 4685: 4652: 4651: 4649: 4632: 4631: 4629: 4566: 4565: 4497: 4496: 4448: 4447: 4414: 4413: 4411: 4390:wp:synthesis 4376: 4361: 4360: 4354: 4303: 4302: 4254: 4253: 4220: 4219: 4213: 4201: 4200: 4194: 4177: 4176: 4171: 4164: 4125: 4124: 4085: 4071: 4070: 4049: 3998: 3997: 3972: 3945:62.255.9.122 3942: 3879: 3878: 3810: 3809: 3761: 3760: 3733: 3731: 3714: 3713: 3707: 3656: 3655: 3607: 3606: 3569: 3568: 3566: 3549: 3548: 3546: 3495: 3494: 3446: 3445: 3406: 3405: 3398: 3351: 3350: 3309: 3308: 3294: 3286: 3247:— Preceding 3243: 3231: 3230: 3228: 3197:— Preceding 3109: 3107: 3089: 3088: 3084: 3053: 3039: 3038: 3024: 2972: 2971: 2931: 2909: 2908: 2903: 2859: 2858: 2848: 2829: 2828: 2798: 2784: 2783: 2747:. Retrieved 2744:The Guardian 2743: 2734: 2722:. Retrieved 2718: 2709: 2697:. Retrieved 2693: 2684: 2676: 2575: 2500: 2457: 2456: 2452: 2422: 2401: 2384: 2360: 2304: 2302: 2279: 2275: 2272: 2269: 2265: 2259: 2257: 2252: 2250: 2244:name to the 2241: 2239: 2234: 2230: 2228: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2182: 2181: 2157:Escape Orbit 2151: 2136:edit warring 2112: 2103: 2094: 2093: 2039: 2034: 1993: 1975: 1962:this account 1955: 1920: 1919: 1905:62.255.9.122 1901: 1862: 1861: 1829:62.255.9.122 1825: 1791: 1790: 1764:— Preceding 1755: 1752: 1664: 1641: 1628: 1627: 1622: 1586: 1570: 1543: 1480: 1465: 1447:— Preceding 1444: 1408: 1369:— Preceding 1365: 1350: 1320: 1303:FormularSumo 1284: 1278: 1276: 1265: 1261: 1222:— Preceding 1219: 1212: 1209: 1076: 1036: 1032: 1008: 1004: 983:— Preceding 980: 952: 943: 907: 884:— Preceding 880: 877: 872: 844: 835: 817:— Preceding 813: 809: 805: 802: 770: 709: 686:— Preceding 683: 680: 677: 674: 671: 668: 641: 629: 601:— Preceding 596: 585: 536: 532: 508: 452: 398: 352: 351: 333: 312:Fairvote.org 304: 303: 296: 292: 268: 246: 239: 219: 187:Frognsausage 184: 158: 135:— Preceding 132: 117: 103: 99: 30: 4382:WP:ADVOCACY 3253:45StanJames 3031:battlefield 2938:45StanJames 1668:45StanJames 1583:North Korea 1497:I doubt if 1469:Aaronfranke 607:Encycloknow 555:this change 278:2.123.56.49 256:2.123.56.49 250:—Preceding 161:—Preceding 106:Erik Carson 63:Erik Carson 48:Heyitspeter 3710:WP:NEWSORG 2677:References 2639:Ehrenkater 2637:listed.--- 2363:WP:ALLEGED 2035:even after 1137:Arno Nymus 923:Devourer09 553:Following 443:compliant. 2857:works. — 2803:MapReader 2766:MapReader 2449:WP:MOSWTW 2419:WP:WEIGHT 2255:article. 2168:MapReader 2152:discussed 1954:but it's 1809:invalid-- 1727:WP:WEIGHT 1484:MapReader 1412:Cherifiic 1354:MapReader 1186:Monolith2 1040:Monolith2 1010:pluralism 1005:plurality 764:Where in 399:necessary 269:See also 4195:This is 3261:contribs 3249:unsigned 3211:contribs 3199:unsigned 3035:WP:CHILL 2799:propose 2476:editors. 2321:VoteFair 2284:VoteFair 1778:contribs 1766:unsigned 1449:unsigned 1371:unsigned 1279:regional 1224:unsigned 1160:Sgelbman 1059:Sgelbman 985:unsigned 886:unsigned 819:unsigned 688:unsigned 615:contribs 603:unsigned 252:unsigned 163:unsigned 137:unsigned 4377:because 3151:WP:NPOV 2749:26 June 2501:genuine 2297:As per 2104:reverts 1323:Tamfang 1038:sucks. 1015:Tamfang 593:DannoNZ 4817:Czello 4792:Czello 4738:Czello 4689:Czello 4655:Czello 4635:Czello 4569:Czello 4500:Czello 4451:Czello 4417:Czello 4364:Czello 4306:Czello 4257:Czello 4223:Czello 4204:Czello 4180:Czello 4128:Czello 4074:Czello 4028:Number 4001:Czello 3977:Number 3882:Czello 3875:WP:BRD 3813:Czello 3764:Czello 3717:Czello 3659:Czello 3610:Czello 3572:Czello 3552:Czello 3498:Czello 3449:Czello 3409:Czello 3394:Brexit 3354:Czello 3326:Czello 3312:Czello 3304:WP:BRD 3274:Beland 3234:Czello 3092:Czello 3070:Rklahn 3042:Czello 2975:Czello 2932:entire 2912:Czello 2876:Czello 2862:Czello 2832:Czello 2787:Czello 2724:3 July 2699:3 July 2550:WP:NPA 2541:below. 2339:Beland 2305:Czello 2224:voting 2185:Czello 2108:WP:3RR 2059:Rklahn 2016:Rklahn 1996:Czello 1967:Czello 1923:Czello 1865:Czello 1794:Czello 1648:Rklahn 1631:Czello 1562:wp:SYN 1558:wp:NOR 1546:wp:BRD 1524:Beland 1427:Beland 1391:Beland 1288:Roches 1244:Beland 223:Wereon 202:Beland 78:Beland 4357:WP:OR 4216:WP:OR 4197:WP:OR 3402:WP:OR 2421:does 2258:This 2114:Impru 2097:EIGHT 2095:Seven 2041:Impru 1977:Impru 1554:wp:RS 1338:Norvo 904:Merge 16:< 4834:talk 4770:talk 4713:talk 4672:talk 4609:talk 4532:talk 4475:talk 4434:talk 4398:talk 4388:and 4359:. — 4338:talk 4281:talk 4240:talk 4172:Done 4144:talk 4094:talk 4086:does 4058:talk 4050:must 4017:talk 3964:talk 3949:talk 3922:talk 3845:talk 3788:talk 3746:talk 3734:most 3712:. — 3691:talk 3634:talk 3605:. — 3589:talk 3530:talk 3473:talk 3427:talk 3378:talk 3337:talk 3278:talk 3257:talk 3207:talk 3187:talk 3173:talk 3159:talk 3133:talk 3118:talk 3074:talk 3037:. — 3008:talk 2949:talk 2904:your 2890:talk 2807:talk 2770:talk 2751:2020 2726:2020 2701:2020 2665:talk 2643:talk 2614:talk 2599:talk 2585:talk 2562:talk 2556:. -- 2522:talk 2467:talk 2437:talk 2393:talk 2375:talk 2343:talk 2325:talk 2288:talk 2172:talk 2134:for 2077:talk 2063:talk 2020:talk 1944:talk 1909:talk 1889:talk 1848:talk 1833:talk 1815:talk 1774:talk 1735:talk 1717:talk 1687:talk 1672:talk 1652:talk 1626:. — 1623:Done 1608:talk 1593:talk 1577:talk 1560:and 1544:Per 1528:talk 1514:talk 1488:talk 1473:talk 1457:talk 1431:talk 1416:talk 1395:talk 1379:talk 1358:talk 1342:talk 1327:talk 1307:talk 1292:talk 1248:talk 1232:talk 1190:talk 1164:talk 1141:talk 1063:talk 1044:talk 1019:talk 993:talk 916:and 894:talk 827:talk 748:talk 696:talk 611:talk 567:talk 559:here 545:talk 533:must 514:talk 458:talk 408:talk 380:talk 293:need 282:talk 260:talk 227:talk 206:talk 191:talk 171:talk 145:talk 125:talk 110:talk 82:talk 67:talk 52:talk 37:talk 2576:you 2423:not 2233:or 2226:.) 2055:ANI 2031:ANI 1956:not 1703:or 1552:no 1217:?" 1013:. — 537:may 297:not 4836:) 4772:) 4715:) 4674:) 4611:) 4564:— 4534:) 4477:) 4436:) 4400:) 4340:) 4283:) 4242:) 4146:) 4096:) 4060:) 4019:) 3966:) 3951:) 3924:) 3847:) 3790:) 3748:) 3693:) 3636:) 3591:) 3532:) 3475:) 3429:) 3380:) 3339:) 3280:) 3263:) 3259:• 3213:) 3209:• 3189:) 3175:) 3161:) 3135:) 3120:) 3076:) 3056:. 3010:) 2951:) 2943:-- 2892:) 2809:) 2772:) 2742:. 2717:. 2692:. 2667:) 2645:) 2616:) 2601:) 2587:) 2564:) 2524:) 2469:) 2461:" 2439:) 2395:) 2377:) 2345:) 2327:) 2290:) 2174:) 2117:20 2102:) 2079:) 2065:) 2044:20 2022:) 1980:20 1973:. 1946:) 1911:) 1891:) 1850:) 1835:) 1817:) 1780:) 1776:• 1737:) 1719:) 1689:) 1674:) 1654:) 1610:) 1595:) 1579:) 1530:) 1516:) 1508:-- 1490:) 1475:) 1459:) 1433:) 1418:) 1397:) 1381:) 1360:) 1344:) 1329:) 1309:) 1294:) 1250:) 1234:) 1192:) 1166:) 1143:) 1135:-- 1065:) 1046:) 1021:) 995:) 938:) 920:. 896:) 829:) 750:) 698:) 617:) 613:• 569:) 547:) 516:) 488:, 460:) 410:) 382:) 310:— 284:) 262:) 229:) 208:) 193:) 173:) 147:) 127:) 112:) 84:) 69:) 54:) 39:) 4832:( 4768:( 4711:( 4670:( 4607:( 4530:( 4473:( 4432:( 4396:( 4336:( 4279:( 4238:( 4142:( 4092:( 4056:( 4038:7 4033:5 4015:( 3987:7 3982:5 3962:( 3947:( 3920:( 3843:( 3786:( 3744:( 3689:( 3632:( 3587:( 3528:( 3471:( 3425:( 3376:( 3335:( 3328:: 3324:@ 3300:: 3296:@ 3276:( 3255:( 3205:( 3185:( 3171:( 3157:( 3131:( 3116:( 3072:( 3006:( 2947:( 2940:: 2936:@ 2888:( 2878:: 2874:@ 2854:: 2850:@ 2805:( 2768:( 2753:. 2728:. 2703:. 2663:( 2641:( 2612:( 2597:( 2583:( 2560:( 2535:: 2531:@ 2520:( 2465:( 2435:( 2391:( 2373:( 2341:( 2323:( 2286:( 2170:( 2132:: 2128:@ 2099:( 2090:: 2086:@ 2075:( 2061:( 2018:( 1942:( 1907:( 1887:( 1846:( 1831:( 1813:( 1772:( 1733:( 1715:( 1685:( 1670:( 1650:( 1606:( 1591:( 1575:( 1564:. 1526:( 1512:( 1486:( 1471:( 1455:( 1429:( 1414:( 1393:( 1377:( 1356:( 1340:( 1325:( 1305:( 1290:( 1246:( 1230:( 1188:( 1162:( 1139:( 1119:A 1116:⇏ 1113:B 1093:B 1090:⇏ 1087:A 1061:( 1042:( 1017:( 991:( 970:s 967:r 964:i 961:f 958:b 955:D 935:c 932:· 929:t 926:( 892:( 862:s 859:r 856:i 853:f 850:b 847:D 825:( 788:s 785:r 782:i 779:f 776:b 773:D 746:( 727:s 724:r 721:i 718:f 715:b 712:D 694:( 659:s 656:r 653:i 650:f 647:b 644:D 633:+ 609:( 565:( 543:( 512:( 456:( 406:( 378:( 280:( 258:( 225:( 204:( 189:( 169:( 143:( 123:( 108:( 80:( 65:( 50:( 35:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index