Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Proportional representation/Archive 4) (bot |
→Edits from 18-19 Aug 2015 reverted: new section |
||
Line 42:
* Measuring proportionality: "Deviation from proportionality" denotes rather obviously a degree of malapportionment ("malapointment" is presumably a typo) but you call that "inflammatory"!. It's a technical term used by political scientists. The para.was a separate article and was recently merged here. It's incomplete but inoffensive. --[[User:BalCoder|BalCoder]] ([[User talk:BalCoder|talk]]) 14:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
== Edits from 18-19 Aug 2015 reverted ==
[[Special:Contributions/Ontario Teacher BFA BEd|Ontario Teacher BFA BEd]]: You have re-inserted statements I reverted so I am again reverting them. Here are the reasons.
1, Link between constituent and representative:
In your new first sentence, "ridings do not exist" is wrong (you contradict yourself in the next sentence - "half of the electoral ridings" - for this reason alone your revision should be reverted). Ridings exist in all PR systems, they are simply bigger than in an FPTP system. So your claim that "there is no link between voters and their parliamentary representatives" is wrong, only where the district encompasses "larger districts, especially those with a nationwide district" is the point justified but you have deleted that. Why? With STV there are no rules saying Nunavut cannot continue to be a single member district if that's what people want. When STV was used in Alberta and Manitoba all rural districts were single member; in the recent STV plan for the UK mentioned elsewhere in the article the Outer Hebrides would continue to be a single member district. Perhaps I misunderstand the word "ridings" which appears here for the first time in the article. I assume it means electoral "districts" but, not knowing Canada, I am not sure. In WP it is a good idea when a term is used for the first time to provide a link to the appropriate WP article.
In "The disadvantage of the proportional representation system..." the first "The" is wrong because, as the rest of the article makes clear, there are other PR disadvantages: you must use the indefinite article. The next "the", in "of the proportional representation system", is also wrong: There is not one PR system but three (see the top of the article). Better would be "of proportional representation..." referring to just the concept.
In MMP, you write, "half of the electoral ridings are elected through PR". That too is wrong, in NZ they have 50 list members and 70 districts and are thinking of fixing a 40:60 ratio; Lesotho has a still lower ratio. But you have deleted the words that hinted at this, "up to half". MMP is normally "mixed member proportional representation<s>al</s>" even with an appended "system".
You have deleted the essay template (<nowiki>{{essay|section|date=May 2015}}</nowiki> at the beginning of the section). Why? The rest of the section doesnt't have an essay-like style?
The text you replaced may not have been much good but you have clearly not improved it. What point are you trying to make which wasn't already addressed? Can't you integrate it into the existing text?
2, Party list PR: you have added the statement "Unfortunately, this can result in candidates that appeal more to their respective political bases than to the general public as a whole." That may be so but you haven't provided a source. Please see [[WP:VERIFY]]: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." An example too would be good. --[[User:BalCoder|BalCoder]] ([[User talk:BalCoder|talk]]) 08:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
| |||