Talk:Bloc voting

Don't we mean Bloc voting? -- Zoe

Strangely, the Google Dictionary of Contemporary English Usage gives "about 2,110" for both forms. Although "bloc" probably makes more sense, "block" seems to be widely used in reference to the Australian Senate, at least.

Maybe we should move the page, and leave "block voting" as a redirect

Pde 23:58 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Regarding this addition: From User:Henrygb

If each voter can vote for an unlimited number of candidates (including the possibility of voting for more than the number to be elected), then the system becomes block approval voting, a multiple winner variant of approval voting.

This does not belong here. Bloc Voting and Limited Voting are REAL election methods. Both are based on the limitation that voters have less votes than winners. Approval voting doesn't belong here since it is not used anywhere in the world as an election method, and it failed one-person-one-vote ideal of democracy. --Tom Ruen 18:54, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hearing no comments, I reverted the page changes --Tom Ruen 20:20, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but what is it?[edit]

From time to time I come across articles like this, that talk about a thing without ever telling you what it is.

I'll quote two bits of the first paragraph to illustrate:

1. Bloc voting (or block voting) refers to a class of voting systems which can be used to elect several representatives from a single multimember constituency.

From this we know that it's a type of voting system, and that it can be used in conjunction with multimember constituencies. Doesn't tell us what it is though.

2. There are several variations of bloc voting [but] they all produce similar results

What is similar about the results? What do the variations have in common that makes them examples of block voting?

An article that doesn't even define what it's about might as well be deleted.

Ben Arnold 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken. This article could use an example section just as all the other voting systems articles can. I'll make one in the next few days. Scott Ritchie 07:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought of that.[edit]

When I removed the voting wikilink behind the Robert's Rules link in the Bloc voting article, I should have reset it to Robert's Rules, as you did. Thanks for doing that. ~ Parlirules (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a split[edit]

This article covers three different topics that should probably be split into separate articles: plurality-at-large voting, preferential bloc voting, and voting as a bloc. The latter should probably be merged into a section of voting bloc, however the former two are different enough with regards to history, usage, and counting to warrant the split. Barring objection I'll be bold and do this myself. Scott Ritchie (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]