Talk:Center squeeze

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

Politics

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Content of at least one revision of the associated article was derived in whole or part from non-free copyrighted material on the website https://electowiki.org/wiki/Electowiki:Terms_of_Use. This material was (prior to placement or subsequently) freely licensed in a manner compatible for Wikipedia's use by the posting of one or more compatible copyright licenses on the external website. Though the release notice for the material, which is irrevocable, may have been later removed from view, or the URL may have changed or gone dead, an archive of that webpage, including the copyright release notice, is available at https://web.archive.org/web/20240820012550/https://electowiki.org/wiki/Electowiki:Terms_of_Use.

IRV images

@Jasavina could you combine the two rounds of IRV into one image? I think a basic .gif that cycles between the two would work, or you could just display them side-by-side. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(And normalize the values to make them add up to 100%, so we can intuitively understand them?) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? I don't currently have the skills to make a gif that would be non-trash. Jasavina (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, no worries, I can make it myself then. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Distribution of winning candidates under RCV, showing a bias towards extremes

~~... that in Burlington's second election using ranked-choice voting, independent Bob Kiss was elected despite his opponent being preferred by over half the voters?~~
- ~~ALT0a:... that in Burlington's second election by ranked-choice voting, Bob Kiss was elected despite his opponent being preferred by a majority of voters?~~
*ALT0b:... that in Alaska's first election by ranked-choice voting, Mary Peltola was elected despite her opponent Nick Begich being preferred by a majority of voters?
ALT1a:... that candidates can win under ranked-choice voting, even if their opponent is preferred by more than half of all voters?
- ALT1b:... that a candidate can win under ranked-choice voting even if their opponent is preferred by more than half of all voters?
ALT2a:... that ranked-choice voting tends to favor extremists over consensus picks?
ALT3a:...that the image to the right depicts how ranked-choice voting tends to favor extremist candidates, not a black hole?
ALT4a:... that center squeeze has been blamed for costing Gary Johnson and Bernie Sanders the 2016 US election?

- Reviewed:

Created by Closed Limelike Curves (talk) and Jasavina (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

This is more of a comment than a review for now, but I have some reservations about the hook. For instance, the subject of the hook is Center squeeze, but the article is more about Burlington's second election. Unless you want to make it a double hook, I'm not sure if the current hook as written is appropriate or at least meets WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE regarding hooks being primarily about the subject. My suggestion would be to write a hook that's specifically about Center squeeze itself (perhaps something about its spoiler effect?), as opposed to a specific example. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, maybe? I'm a bit torn, since I feel like concrete examples make it easier to understand the topic. I've added some possible alternatives, though.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - ALT1a might have potential, but it's currently a WP:SEAOFBLUE and so may need to be fixed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed as best I could in Alt1b. I also added Alt0a, because I think an example of center squeeze is closely related (enough to satisfy the DYK guideline). I've also suggested the example of the AK special election, since I think it gets brought up in the lead of the article.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some formatting to the hooks which may or may not rectify your concerns.--Laun chba ller 12:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the new hooks should work. Given how the hooks based on examples are not only specific but may require specialist knowledge, I've struck them. The nom is ready for a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Closed Limelike Curves: There are huge amounts of unsourced content in this! Please fix them. When you've done that, I will give this a proper review.--Laun chba ller 11:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Fixed. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still see unsourced content.--Laun chba ller 07:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify where/how? I can't see any, apart from the fictional example. That one doesn't have citations because I thought examples of basic computations didn't require sources; I've seen similar examples on other math pages.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My gut says the Alphabet example, First past-the-post and Ranked choice runoff sections shouldn't be there, although I'm not sure on what policy grounds. (Maybe WP:DUE?) The sentence beginning "In the 2009 election" needs a cite that isn't Wikipedia and there are two WP:MEDIUM sources - what makes them reliable?--Laun chba ller 07:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 2009 election is cited now. The Medium posts are written by a published expert in the field, and their claims are backed up by other sources I've added (but the blog posts have a more in-depth discussion).– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Closed Limelike Curves and Launchballer: There is less than a week to go before the nomination times out, so any issues will need to be addressed before the 28th. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple passages in the "Examples" section where the source is unclear, or not listed. Flibirigit (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Closed Limelike Curves: implied above that the Alphabet example came under WP:CALC, although I would argue that it probably isn't necessary when you have two further examples to illustrate the point and so I've cut the section. As for a review, this is long enough and new enough, with no QPQ needed. Earwig flags similarity with [1], but the article attributes this so this should be fine. If source #23 says what I think it says, then ALT4: ... that the center squeeze has been blamed for costing Gary Johnson the 2016 US election? is more interesting than all of the above hooks but probably should be added to the article.--Laun chba ller 18:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, I like that one. Done. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: There are just over two days left until timeout, is this ready to go? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Closed Limelike Curves and Narutolovehinata5: No, because I can't approve my own hook, and it isn't in the article anyway. Also, there can only be one winner, and so it will only have cost one of them the win.--Laun chba ller 00:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well time is running out, so if this is to still run, all remaining issues have to be addressed ASAP. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the article, so that's good to go. (I think @Launchballer: is saying he'd approve ALT4a, which is also my favorite, if it wasn't his own.)– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer ALT4, but I'll let an independent reviewer such as @Narutolovehinata5: decide.--Laun chba ller 05:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think ALT4 is fine. My only concern, and this is a minor one, is that it might need slight reliance on knowing who Gary Johnson is or the circumstances of his presidential run. However, the main point works well enough that I think even someone who doesn't know him would find the hook intriguing enough. I'm probably not the best person to approve the hook, but I'd endorse ALT4 as the choice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It helps, but I don't think it's necessary. Without it, the hook says 'the US election would otherwise have been won by someone else'.--Laun chba ller 00:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: ALT4 is definitely the best of the choices. Not big on the image, as the concept doesn't lend itself well to a 100x100 depiction. I can see this potentially getting an "American centric" tag, especially since the source cited for Sanders/Johnson mentions that the phenomenon was noted extensively in French elections (and Australian elections being ranked choice suggests that examples from there could be found). As such, I'd recommend adding a few more global examples. That being said, the tag doesn't exist on the article now, so it meets the criteria as I understand them. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that the possibility of it being US-centric could make the article fail WP:DYKCOMPLETE, although that criterion can be rather subjective, so I guess the best decider in this case would be the promoter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the term center squeeze?

Hi,

I am not sure the term "center squeeze" is that common in academic social choice research. Are there any notable pointers for it appearing somewhere? @Closed Limelike Curves Jannikp97 (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example here and another here. I think the exact phrase "center squeeze" is fairly new, but the phenomenon has been studied for a loooooong time, going back to Black's original papers. The citations mostly call it a "squeezing effect" or talk about candidates being "squeezed out", though I think one or two actually use the term "center squeeze."

BTW, on self-published sources, the WP:SPS policy is they're generally not preferred, but can be included on a case-by-case basis. IIRC personal blog posts by experts in the field are mentioned as an explicit exception. I generally try to use SPS only as "supplementary" sources when I already have another citation; that way, readers interested in learning more can go through these themselves. Often that's because the backup source makes the same point as a different citation, but more explicitly or in greater detail.

I assume you deleted the Handbook of Approval Voting reference because you couldn't find what it was referring to; sorry about forgetting to include the page number! Generally the best tag for that is {{page number needed}}. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, one last thing; MOS:LEADCITE allows for skipping citations in the lead if they're just repeating or summarizing information in the body. I've added citations to the parts you tagged, though.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet example

@Launchballer could you explain further what you think needs to be cited in the alphabet example? The results with the hypothetical example fall under WP:CALC, but I can see why the commentary might kinda skirt the line. The idea with the alphabet example is to walk the reader through the mechanics of a center squeeze using a nonpartisan example, before moving into a real-life situation, where someone might have more of an emotional stake in the outcome. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments at the DYK nom, I don't think the Alphabet example is necessary when the other two satisfactorily illustrate the point without it.--Laun chba ller 00:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]