Talk:Cumulative voting

Market system critics

Critics argue that this simply reduces a voting system to a market system, a criticism applicable to cumulative voting as a whole.

Specifically, which critics? Before putting this back in, please elaborate on the theory. It seems to me budget allocation via cumulative voting, let alone candidate selection, is very different from a market system. DanKeshet 19:55 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Seems very straightforward, and if you want to meet the critics, suggest using a cumulative voting system in an election! In any room of ten people someone will compare it to a market system and tell you they don't want to spend multiple votes like they spend dollars. There may be critics in academia who say the same thing, and it's quite clear that a market of some sort is being created, but most academics who study market systems claim that voting systems are market systems anyway. Read work of Robin Hanson in this regard. Problem with article as it now stands is that it seems to say 'this is a real nice flexible system' without pointing out that it's on the edge of a quite different paradigm of decision making - with its own problems, and some, e.g. Jane Jacobs, would say, it's own ethics. I believe both Jacobs (on the nay side) and Hanson (on the yea side) have compared cumulative voting to market systems, and Hanson is active in prediction market reserach, which is essentially cumulative voting of mock-money on what futures to consider real. It's hard to explain all this complex stuff in the article, so make up your own mind about what to quote. Article on Jacobs particularly recommended - I've heard her say in talks that some voting systems confuse spending with voting, and that this is confusing the Trader Ethic and Guardian Ethic. Not sure if she published that. Also read tolerances versus preferences if you haven't already, this is a very general debate, and thus worth noting here. --142

On the one hand, you say it's straightforward, but on the other hand, you say it's too complicated to explain. You mention both Hanson and Jacobs, but it is unclear from your text whether either of them has ever specifically addressed cumulative voting, or whether they have merely talked about the relationship between markets and voting. I have done a moderate amount of chasing down papers by Hanson, and a little of chasing down papers by Jacobs and have not found anything by either of them specifically addressing cumulative voting. We cannot put this in the article unless we have at least one reproducible reference to one person specifically addressing cumulative voting. DanKeshet

Why CumV abolished in English School Boards?

Why was Cummulative Voting abolished in English School Boards. Since FPTP is a cruder system, that in name of "strong majority" kicks the weak opposition off, how did CumV get replaced? Remember that according to the principles of good governance, a strong opposition is needed to keep the overstrong government accountable. Syd1435 03:44, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

The article does not say that the voting was abolished. Perhaps it was the school boards which were abolished (and replaced by county councils). --Henrygb 10:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link between number of points and number of seats

"In typical cumulative elections using the points system, the number of points allotted to a voter is equal to the number of winning candidates." I have ven come across the assertion that this is a necessary condition for a cumulative voting system. Yet consider that some integers can be parcelled out more conveniently than others, e.g. giving voters six points when three seats must be filled allows individual voters to aim for balance between two candidates whereas three points forces an unsought asymmetry (the "donkey vote"). What are the considerations here? P.M.Lawrence

Removal of Corporate Example

In the course of investigating some edits by User:Donreed, I noticed that the story of the Apple board meeting appears to have come solely from him, and it is not sourced in any of the articles. In a quick search, I was not able to verify this story online anywhere. I think it should remain out until it is sourced. Brianyoumans 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Multi-voting

I hope people are supportive of the addition of "Multi-voting" which is a published facilitation technique but is not documented anywhere else in wikipedia, and it fits the cumulative voting model. Maybe this should be pulled into a separate sub-section of the article? I realize as a facilitation technique it is not really for elections, but it is still voting. I don't think it needs a separate article. Thoughts? --Jasondiceman (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Citation in History

The first sentence in history says it is mandatory but this is not true, it is simply the default rule (in the statute cited). It may be altered by articles of incorporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.197.119.50 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cumulative voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative voting is a cardinal voting system, right?

A sentence in the article says "Unlike choice voting where the numbers represent the order of a voter's ranking of candidates (i.e. they are ordinal numbers), in cumulative votes the numbers represent quantities (i.e. they are cardinal numbers)", so I'm not sure why this article isn't in Category:Cardinal electoral systems... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a conflict of definition in calling Cumulative voting a type of cardinal voting, since the very first sentence of Cardinal voting reads:

"Cardinal voting refers to any electoral system which allows the voter to give each candidate an independent rating or grade

--which cumulative voting does not. As such, either cumulative voting is not a type of cardinal voting, or the definition of cardinal voting is incorrect. Sadly, my understanding of cardinality/ordinality is not super strong, so I am unsure how to proceed! @User:AnonMoos Douginamug (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douginamug -- sorry for my delay in following the discussion from my user talk page to your user talk page to this article talk page. I don't know exactly what "independent" means on the Cardinal voting article, but I suspect that it mainly constrasts Cardinal voting with preference voting -- in preference voting, only one candidate can be ranked as your third-favorite, and so on. That doesn't apply to Cumulative voting -- if you cast a vote for candidate X, that doesn't preclude you from also casting an equal-weighted vote for candidate Y. The constraint with cumulative voting is that you can only cast a certain number of votes overall, or your total fractional votes have to sum to 100% etc... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos Hello again! I understand 'independent' to mean that for every single option, I have the full range with which to score. Cumulative voting can be thought of more as allocating points: indeed, you can give some options the same number of point, but every allocated point reduces the number of point possible to give to other options.

As such, Ordinal voting (preference/ranked), Cardinal (score/range) and Cumulative ('points', arguably including Quadratic voting and Majority voting) seem to represent distinct classes. I'll try and read some literature on this. DougInAMugtalk 12:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not give a source for this claim that cumulative voting is a cardinal system. Ergo, as per WP:V, we should remove the claim, at least until such time as a source is provided. Bondegezou (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou I have just removed the claim that cumulative voting is a type of cardinal voting from the cumulative voting and quadratic voting pages, with a link to this talk page section in both edits. DougInAMugtalk 15:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bloc Voting

The link to bloc voting under the Voting section of the article goes to an internal article that is not titled as Bloc Voting. While it mentions it is some fashion, it is not clear. Therefore, the link is a bad reference. We need discussion on this issue. - --KitchM (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]