Talk:Two-round system

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged — no consensus. Most editors acknowledge the similarities between the two systems, but no agreement was reached on whether or not to merge. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 10:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

---

So what exactly is the difference between a Louisiana primary and a two-round system? To me it seems it should be a section under this article Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, the difference is that in a two-round system, if a candidate receives a majority in the first round, no second round is done. It would be too confusing to merge those two when those processes are different. However, I do support in merging the Louisiana jungle primary with the two-round system. @Rankedchoicevoter: @Spitzak: Bbraxtonlee (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  That seems like a really trivial difference. It's just a shortcut to avoid the second election if it is obvious who would win it. If A gets more than 50% of the vote when running against B,C,D, and E, then it seems pretty certain A will get more than 50% of the vote when the only opponent is B.Spitzak (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Spitzak:

  That is true. At this time I think there is enough consensus to merge Lousiana primary and two-round system (the discussion has been out for almost 5 months) but I don't know about the nonpartisan blanket primary. Your call.

  Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm probably not the person to make a final decision on this... Spitzak (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree on merging louisiana primary but also nonpartisan blanket primary should be merged as well. This article seems much better written than either of those and there is lots of redundancy. The differences between them are trivial (what dates the two elections are on, whether a majority in first election negates need for second one, and some weird rules about saying what party you belong to for the first election to avoid some nitpick legal challenge).Spitzak (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose a complete merger. There are differences between these.

One key difference:

A two round system often means that a second round is only held contingent upon there being no candidate obtaining a majority in the first round. For example, :Chicago and Atlanta mayoral elections, or French and Russian presidential elections.

In a jungle primary system, there is a second round REGARDLESS of whether someone obtains an outright majority.

Jungle primaries are also distinct in that party labels are included on the ballot. Not all two-round systems allow for this.

Louisiana and jungle should merge together, but be left separate from this article.

SecretName101 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like that difference is minor as said above. You need to find an actual example where somebody getting 51% in the first round loses the second round, otherwise these schemes are identical in all real situations. Even if there is an example it still seems like the difference is trivial.Spitzak (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spitzak: This does happen. See 2020 Wisconsin elections § State Supreme Court. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Support merge as initially proposed; the differences are subtle (whether or not the second round is held) and can be explained on one page. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so we don't need separate pages for synonymous terms; formal merge reasons are overlap and context. Klbrain (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose; looking at this again, a merge would unbalance Two-round system, and the current structure seems to work for readers, having a WP:SUMMARY at Two-round system#Louisiana and nonpartisan blanket primary systems linking to the Nonpartisan blanket primary for more details. The topic is large enough and important enough to have discussion the Nonpartisan blanket primary that is focussed on the experience of some US states. Klbrain (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American system

A persistent editor keeps inserting the false information that American party primaries make all elections in the US a two round system. This is FALSE. Those primaries are per-party, do not pit all the candidates against each other, and are simply an independent fpp election to pick the candidate who goes into the final fpp election, which can have any number of candidates, not just 2. In addition since 90% of the arguing about this system is whether it should be used in the US, it means that it is NOT used in the US otherwise there would not be any arguments! He has a quote which actually says what is done in the US is different, though it does call it "an unusual form of two-round system", but it then goes on to say it produces undesirable results compared to real two-round systems. Spitzak (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Spitzak, thanks for your comments.

A persistent editor keeps inserting the false information that American party primaries make all elections in the US a two round system. This is FALSE.

First, I'd like to note WP:TRUTH here; what matters is what the sources say. However, the additions I've made haven't made the claim that American party primaries make all elections in the US into a two-round system (or at least they certainly weren't intended to!). The point of them was to point out the structural similarities between the two systems, and how they can produce similar outcomes. Still, I've tweaked this paragraph to clarify.

though it does call it "an unusual form of two-round system", but it then goes on to say it produces undesirable results compared to real two-round systems.

I'll set aside the normative claims associated with this, which shouldn't go on Wikipedia, by WP:NPOV (nonpartisan primaries have both costs and benefits). Small variants on the two-round system can have their own advantages and disadvantages, while still being a kind of two-round system: The 12.5% clause in French election laws allows >2 candidates into the runoff and has disadvantages (more vote-splitting in the second round), as do two-round systems where a candidate can win with <50% of the vote in the first round.
However, the sources I cited, so far as I can tell, do not discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a partisan vs. nonpartisan two-round system in depth. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You reverted a lot of changes by me and other editors. I will try to fix it so it only adds the text you want. I still very much object to the implication that the systems are at all "similar" or that they produce "similar results" which is absolutely false. If they did produce similar results then there would not be any fight over whether to use the system or not. Spitzak (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why that would be true. Politicians fight about dumb things that make no difference all the time. (I'd argue that's their job!)

Sorry about the intervening edits, I hit those by mistake. I'm happy to help out with restoring those! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I may have gotten them, but you might want to check the references that are in the intro section, as they were next to the text you changed so I thought maybe you changed them for a good reason. Spitzak (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Nigerian System

First-past-the-post voting

In Nigeria, the First-past-the-post system is used both for Presidential and Legislative elections. The attached link further confirms this.

To say otherwise is incorrect as this article lists Nigeria amongst the countries that make use of the Two-round system. Otarutestimony (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, according to 2023 Nigerian presidential election they have per-party primaries, which is not a two round system. Spitzak (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Some muddled facts in this article around "blanket" and "jungle" primary, which are distinct and both different than this.

In the lede we have

In the United States, the two-round system is called a jungle primary or nonpartisan blanket primary, and is

This is false. Neither are a two round system, and "non-partisan blanket primary" is not a thing at all, but a "blanket primary" is. See the talk page [1] where we compromised on renaming to "non-partisan primary", but it's probably going to need another change in the future, and will likely be "jungle primary".

I made an update already to the article for correct article titles, but this particular instance is making a statement of fact (which is incorrect) so I can't just change the title and forget about it. That would muddle things even worse. If someone is inclined to look more closely at this and rework that paragraph, that would be helpful. I'm not confident enough in this style of primaries to evaluate what is good and what is not for that lede section. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to explain why you don't think these are two-round systems. As far as I can tell the number of rounds is 2, and the top 2 from the first round are the candidates in the second round. This is exactly what this article is describing. Spitzak (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

A jungle primary is a primary. It does not decide an election. It decides who advances to the election. Nobody can win the election by winning the primary with 50% of votes. An election comes afterwards. Also, primary turnout is very different, and probably regulations are a bit separated in the US context for historical reasons. So the primary is held before election day.

A two-round election is an election, the first round is not a primary. The first round is already the election, on election day, the second round is optional.

At best, you can call jungle primaries de facto two round systems in certain cases. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Number of elections = 2. Number of candidates that enter second election = 2. THEY ARE THE SAME!!!!! Spitzak (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Number of elections in a two round system is one. The number of rounds is one or two, since the second round is contingent.

The number of elections in a jungle primary system is 2, if you count the primary as an election. They are not the same, but can be very similar in effect (however, I am sure, turnout can make a big difference). The article should reflect that.

The number of candidates is of no consequence. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

In addition the term "non-partisan blanket primary" was used specifically to contrast it with the non-constitutional "blanket primary". The same candidates enter the first round in both systems so they are related. Spitzak (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you please explain, with citations, exactly your argument as to how the non-partisan primary is somehow not a two-round system. Yes there are other two-round systems so it is a specific implementation. But I don't see anything that claims it somehow does not fall into the set of systems this page is describing. It is not a "variant" or whatever weasel words you are trying. I'm pretty unclear on what your motivation is as well, though it seems like you don't like some analysis of other two-round systems to be applied to American elections?Spitzak (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Weasel words? Let's AGF please. My motivation is just like any other honest editor: that information is clear and correct.

Here's the two paragraphs that needs to be reworked:

In the United States the two-round system is also called called runoff, and is used in Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana. A similar, but distinct model is called a jungle primary or nonpartisan primary, and is used to elect most officials in California and Washington. In the rest of the country, candidates are elected using a partisan primary system (where in the first round there are two (or more) elections, one for each of the two major parties to select that party's candidate, which then compete in the second round).

Although advocates hoped the two-round method would elect more moderates and encourage turnout among independents, research has found little-to-no difference in results when compared to partisan primaries, or with systems that only require a single round (such as ranked-choice voting). Research by social choice theorists has long identified all three rules as vulnerable to center squeeze, a kind of spoiler effect favoring extremists in crowded elections.

The heavy reliance on the word "round" is much of the issue, I think. In American politics, the "rounds" of any given voting incident are not inherently something related to any "primary election" scheme. In American politics, there is often a "primary", and then there is the election, where the primary is often an intra-party decision usually by vote (so it does look like an election, but it is a private issue). The primary is not a "round" of the election, and indeed candidates in general elections are often "independent", meaning they have been through no primary at all. When the word round is used (in American political context), it is mostly in the RCV/Instant runoff voting sense. I see now that my first thought on this article was that is was yet another primary voting scheme in American politics, so my original talk message was working with that misconception in mind. But this leads to the fact that the second paragraph quoted above (currently paragraph four in the lede) should be removed entirely, as it seems to go on about RCV and jungle primaries, when this has nothing to do with the article.

----

In how some sources liken the American primaries to this "Two-round" system, I can see this reasoning now, now that I understand this two-round thing is not an American thing at all. I believe Source 3 below says it best: In effect, the primary system means that the USA has a two-round runoff system of elections. That's a fair analogy, that seems reasonable to include in the article. However, this is in reference to the whole of American primaries in all it's varieties, while the article text is currently stating that A similar, but distinct model is called a jungle primary or nonpartisan primary. This is not reflected in the sources, and is strangely neglecting how any American primary plus the general election is like this two-round system (as the sources say).

So after working it all out now, I'd say the two paragraphs need a rewrite. I think calling out jungle primaries specifically is not actually what the sources say, thus should not be done here. And also, the muddling of the words "round", "election", and "primary" leaves a lot of ambiguity on when the voting incidents occur and how exactly this is like the two round system.

So here's my crack at a rewrite:

1. The first sentence is very confused. Maybe the runoffs in GA are like this, but there's no source to say so. I'd say that makes it Synth, so should be removed for the time being.
2. The same should be said about the second sentence that calls out the jungle primary specifically. The three sources in this paragraph are referring to all primaries plus their corresponding "general elections" as being like a two-round system in effect.
3. This then leads clearly to the conclusion that the second paragraph in the quote above should be removed entirely.
4. This content should be included, but it is not lede content. In fact, there is nothing in the body that supports this. It is kind of a factoid level bit of content. It should be moved to the body. I suggest the variants section.
5. So spinning off from the third sentence, I recommend this paragraph be changed to:

In the United States the two-round system is effectively in use through two public voting acts that are typically several months apart. The first "round" is called a primary and the second is called the general election. In a primary, candidates are selected usually by party, each party separately selecting their nominee for the general election. Then, in the second "round", the nominees of each party compete in the general election.

And now in looking more closely at the content of the related text in the body, it looks like [2] needs to be removed entirely. I can agree that the LA and GA "runoffs" kind of look like a two round system, but without a source likening them, I call Synth.

References

76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)