Talk:Single-member district

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

2006 comment[edit]

I just made this, mostly by copying from plurality voting system. I think that the advantages and disadvantages I copied should be removed from there and linked to here (separate links for ad and dis). Please refer discussion of this issue to Talk:plurality voting system, until it is resolved. --Homunq 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2011 comment[edit]

why is the "4th safest seat in Westminster" stated with no explanation considering there all elected by the same method there seems no reason not to state the first and no purpose with out an explanation --95.149.143.252 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2015 comment[edit]

This article is bizarre. Why is the intro about being biased IMMEDIATELY preceded by talking about advantages and disadvantages? The concept of SMD is pretty well covered by the article on plurality voting systems. This seems like an opinion piece. As a political scientist, I think it should be deleted. --98.116.12.171 (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chart changes?[edit]

How much was the chart changed in this "wipeout"? What happened to later-no-harm as a criterion, for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.240.79 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is later-no-harm not included in this chart? It's a fundamentally important to why IRV-AV gets so much more real-world play and these other system don't. Someone with chart skills should put it in.RRichie (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]