View source for Talk:Two-round system

{{check talk wp}}{{tmbox
|type=notice
|small=
|image=[[Image:Clipboard.svg|40px|link=]]
|imagesmall=[[Image:Clipboard.svg|25px|link=]]
|text=This article was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Merging|merging]] with [[Nonpartisan blanket primary]] and [[Louisiana primary]] on June 12, 2022. The result of [[Talk:Two-round system#Merger discussion|the discussion]] was '''Not merged — no consensus'''.
}} <!-- Substituted from [[Template:Old merge]] -->
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C |1=
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums }}
}}
{{archives}}

== Merger discussion  ==

{{Discussion top |result='''Not merged — no consensus'''. Most editors acknowledge the similarities between the two systems, but no agreement was reached on whether or not to merge. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:TechnoSquirrel69|TechnoSquirrel69]]</span> ([[User talk: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 [[User:Rankedchoicevoter|Rankedchoicevoter]] ([[User talk: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. {{Ping|Rankedchoicevoter}} {{Ping|Spitzak}} [[User:Bbraxtonlee|Bbraxtonlee]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 17:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
:*::{{Ping|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.
:*::[[User:Bbraxtonlee|Bbraxtonlee]] ([[User talk:Bbraxtonlee|talk]]) 04:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:*:::I'm probably not the person to make a final decision on this... [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk: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).[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 00:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Spitzak}} This does happen. See {{slink|2020 Wisconsin elections#State Supreme Court}}. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 06:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
:<strike>'''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 [[WP:NOTDICT|isn't a dictionary]], so we don't need separate pages for synonymous terms; formal merge reasons are [[WP:MERGEREASON|overlap and context]].</strike> [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk:Klbrain|talk]]) 10:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

== 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. [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 01:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:Hi Spitzak, thanks for your comments.{{talkquote|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.{{talkquote|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.<br>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. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Otarutestimony|Otarutestimony]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk: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 

{{talkquote|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nonpartisan_primary#Requested_move_2_December_2024] 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. [[Special:Contributions/76.178.169.118|76.178.169.118]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Rankedchoicevoter|Rankedchoicevoter]] ([[User talk:Rankedchoicevoter|talk]]) 10:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Number of elections = 2. Number of candidates that enter second election = 2. THEY ARE THE SAME!!!!! [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Rankedchoicevoter|Rankedchoicevoter]] ([[User talk:Rankedchoicevoter|talk]]) 17:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|They are not the same, but can be very similar in effect}} This is correct, and this is what the sources say. Unfortunately, the article's current text muddles this a lot, and frankly doesn't say what the citations say. I made a long comment below, illustrating the issue and making a sweeping suggestion. Please have a look. [[Special:Contributions/76.178.164.53|76.178.164.53]] ([[User talk:76.178.164.53|talk]]) 22:53, 11 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. [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk: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:
:::{{talk quote|In the United States the two-round system is also called called runoff, and is used in [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], [[Mississippi]]{{Citation needed|date=February 2025}} and [[Louisiana]]. A similar, but distinct model is called a '''jungle primary''' or [[Nonpartisan primary|'''nonpartisan primary''']], and is used to elect most officials in [[California]] and [[Washington (state)|Washington]]. In the rest of the country, candidates are elected using a [[partisan primary]] system<ref name=":032">{{Cite web |last1=Santucci |first1=Jack |last2=Shugart |first2=Matthew |last3=Latner |first3=Michael S. |date=2023-10-16 |title=Toward a Different Kind of Party Government |url=https://protectdemocracy.org/work/toward-a-different-kind-of-party-government/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240716205506/https://protectdemocracy.org/work/toward-a-different-kind-of-party-government/ |archive-date=2024-07-16 |access-date=2024-07-16 |website=Protect Democracy |language=en-US |quote="Finally, we should not discount the role of primaries. When we look at the range of countries with [[first-past-the-post]] (FPTP) elections (given no primaries), none with an assembly larger than Jamaica’s (63) has a strict two-party system. These countries include the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Canada]] (where multiparty competition is in fact nationwide). Whether the U.S. should be called ‘FPTP’ itself is dubious, and not only because some states (e.g. [[Georgia (US State)|Georgia]]) hold runoffs or use the [[alternative vote]] (e.g. [[Maine]]). '''Rather, the U.S. has an unusual two-round system in which the first round winnows the field. This usually is at the intraparty level, although sometimes it is without regard to party (e.g. in Alaska and California).'''"}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Gallagher |first1=Michael |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Igdj1P4vBwMC&q=%22American+elections+become+a+two-round+run-off+system+with+a+delay+of+several+months+between+the+rounds.%22&pg=PA3 |title=The Politics of Electoral Systems |last2=Mitchell |first2=Paul |date=2005-09-15 |publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-153151-4 |page=192 |language=en |chapter=The American Electoral System |quote="American elections become a two-round run-off system with a delay of several months between the rounds."}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last1=Bowler |first1=Shaun |title=The United States: A Case of Duvergerian Equilibrium |date=2009 |work=Duverger's Law of Plurality Voting: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States |pages=135–146 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-09720-6_9 |access-date=2024-08-31 |place=New York, NY |publisher=Springer |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-0-387-09720-6_9 |isbn=978-0-387-09720-6 |quote=In effect, the primary system means that the USA has a two-round runoff system of elections. |last2=Grofman |first2=Bernard |last3=Blais |first3=André}}</ref> (where in the first round there are two (or more) elections, one for each of the [[Two-party system|two major parties]] to select that party's candidate, which then compete in the second round).}}
:::{{talk quote|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,<ref name=":232">{{cite news |last=Kousser |first=Thad |title=California's jungle primary sets up polarized governor's race for November |url=https://theconversation.com/californias-jungle-primary-sets-up-polarized-governors-race-for-november-97772 |access-date=2018-06-23 |work=The Conversation |quote=The idea was that by opening up primaries to all voters, regardless of party, a flood of new centrist voters would arrive. That would give moderate candidates a route to victory .. Candidates did not represent voters any better after the reforms, taking positions just as polarized as they did before the top two. We detected no shift toward the ideological middle.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hill |first1=Seth J. |last2=Kousser |first2=Thad |date=2015-10-17 |title=Turning Out Unlikely Voters? A Field Experiment in the Top-Two Primary |url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/86v1k0v3 |journal=Political Behavior |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=413–432 |doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9319-3 |issn=0190-9320 |s2cid=54541384 |quote=Two groups that were predicted by advocates to increase their participation in response to this reform—those registered with third parties or ''no-party-preference'' registrants (independents) who were not guaranteed a vote in any party's primary before the move to the top-two—also show declines in turnout}}</ref> or with systems that only require a single round (such as ranked-choice voting).<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=McGhee |first1=Eric |last2=Masket |first2=Seth |last3=Shor |first3=Boris |last4=Rogers |first4=Steven |last5=McCarty |first5=Nolan |date=April 2014 |title=A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12070 |journal=American Journal of Political Science |language=en |volume=58 |issue=2 |pages=337–351 |doi=10.1111/ajps.12070 |issn=0092-5853}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Patterson |first=Shawn |date=2020-12-01 |title=Estimating the unintended participation penalty under top-two primaries with a discontinuity design |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379420301116 |journal=Electoral Studies |volume=68 |pages=102231 |doi=10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102231 |issn=0261-3794}}</ref> Research by [[Social choice theory|social choice theorists]] has long identified all three rules as vulnerable to [[center squeeze]], a kind of [[spoiler effect]] favoring extremists in crowded elections.<ref name=":032" /><ref name="Merrill 19842">{{Cite journal |last=Merrill |first=Samuel |date=1984 |title=A Comparison of Efficiency of Multicandidate Electoral Systems |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110786 |journal=American Journal of Political Science |volume=28 |issue=1 |pages=23–48 |doi=10.2307/2110786 |issn=0092-5853 |jstor=2110786 |quote=However, squeezed by surrounding opponents, a centrist candidate may receive few first-place votes and be eliminated under Hare. |via=}}</ref><ref name="Merril 1985222">{{Cite journal |last=Merrill |first=Samuel |date=1985 |title=A statistical model for Condorcet efficiency based on simulation under spatial model assumptions |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00127534 |journal=Public Choice |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=389–403 |doi=10.1007/bf00127534 |issn=0048-5829 |quote=the 'squeeze effect' that tends to reduce Condorcet efficiency if the relative dispersion (RD) of candidates is low. This effect is particularly strong for the plurality, runoff, and Hare systems, for which the garnering of first-place votes in a large field is essential to winning |via=}}</ref>}}
:::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: {{tq|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 {{tq|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:
:::# 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 [[WP:SYNTH]], so should be removed for the time being.
:::# 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.
:::# This then leads clearly to the conclusion that the second paragraph in the quote above should be removed entirely.
:::# 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.
:::# So spinning off from the third sentence, I recommend this paragraph be changed to:
:::{{talk quote|In the United States the two-round system is effectively in use through two public voting acts that are typically several months apart.<ref name=":032">{{Cite web |last1=Santucci |first1=Jack |last2=Shugart |first2=Matthew |last3=Latner |first3=Michael S. |date=2023-10-16 |title=Toward a Different Kind of Party Government |url=https://protectdemocracy.org/work/toward-a-different-kind-of-party-government/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240716205506/https://protectdemocracy.org/work/toward-a-different-kind-of-party-government/ |archive-date=2024-07-16 |access-date=2024-07-16 |website=Protect Democracy |language=en-US |quote="Finally, we should not discount the role of primaries. When we look at the range of countries with [[first-past-the-post]] (FPTP) elections (given no primaries), none with an assembly larger than Jamaica’s (63) has a strict two-party system. These countries include the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Canada]] (where multiparty competition is in fact nationwide). Whether the U.S. should be called ‘FPTP’ itself is dubious, and not only because some states (e.g. [[Georgia (US State)|Georgia]]) hold runoffs or use the [[alternative vote]] (e.g. [[Maine]]). '''Rather, the U.S. has an unusual two-round system in which the first round winnows the field. This usually is at the intraparty level, although sometimes it is without regard to party (e.g. in Alaska and California).'''"}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Gallagher |first1=Michael |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Igdj1P4vBwMC&q=%22American+elections+become+a+two-round+run-off+system+with+a+delay+of+several+months+between+the+rounds.%22&pg=PA3 |title=The Politics of Electoral Systems |last2=Mitchell |first2=Paul |date=2005-09-15 |publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-153151-4 |page=192 |language=en |chapter=The American Electoral System |quote="American elections become a two-round run-off system with a delay of several months between the rounds."}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last1=Bowler |first1=Shaun |title=The United States: A Case of Duvergerian Equilibrium |date=2009 |work=Duverger's Law of Plurality Voting: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States |pages=135–146 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-09720-6_9 |access-date=2024-08-31 |place=New York, NY |publisher=Springer |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-0-387-09720-6_9 |isbn=978-0-387-09720-6 |quote=In effect, the primary system means that the USA has a two-round runoff system of elections. |last2=Grofman |first2=Bernard |last3=Blais |first3=André}}</ref> The first "round" is called a [[primary election|primary]] and the second is called the general election. In a primary, candidates are selected usually by [[partisan primary|party]], each party separately selecting their [[Candidate#Candidates in elections|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system#Top-two_primaries] 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 [[WP:Synth]].
::: [[Special:Contributions/76.178.169.118|76.178.169.118]] ([[User talk:76.178.169.118|talk]]) 20:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:IMHO the set of things called "two round systems" entirely includes the set of things called "American nonpartisan primaries (plus the final election)". You are right that "rounds" is the correct term, this is what they have all have two of. The partisan primaries used most often in American elections have at least three rounds (one for each party and then the final election) so they are not a two-round system.
:My objection is the repeated insertion of "variant" or "unusual form of" and so on which implies that the American systems are somehow different in any way that changes analysis. Considering that there is lots of argument contrasting this with partisan primaries, it is confusing to say that there are three different systems being argued about. I think the wording should clearly indicate that the American elections are a SUBSET of the elections that this article covers, which I think is accurately communicated by saying "non-partisan primaries ARE a two round system".
:Alternative is to list an actual fact which is true of the American systems and is stated as false for two-round by this article and by a cited source.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 23:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::Reading your text again, I think you are confusing the normal American primary system with what I am arguing about, which is the non-partisian primary. There was another editor who kept putting in text about American primaries being "an unusual form of two-round system" which is nonsense, I agree. The paragraph that talks about RCV is I think from the same, the fact that RCV has some problem shared with two-round is irrelevant to a statement that is comparing two-round with partisan primaries.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 23:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Leaving aside all the other things we are discussing, are you in agreement that the RCV section does not belong on this article? And this section too [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system#Top-two_primaries]? (New IP, same person) [[Special:Contributions/76.178.164.53|76.178.164.53]] ([[User talk:76.178.164.53|talk]]) 22:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:Hey guys, reading all this and noticed the discussion getting a little heated, so I want to leave a couple gentle reminders on our [[WP:EW|edit-warring]] and [[WP:staying cool|staying cool]] (but TBC I don't think anyone's violated any rules here). Also remember that [https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/ categories were made for man, not man for categories]—terms are usually a bit unclear around the edges.{{pb}}I'm a bit confused as to what you're arguing about here—are you saying Georgia or Louisiana's rule isn't a two-round system? How would they not qualify? [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 17:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::I am unsure exactly what the problem is. My current suspicion is that the other party considers "non-partisian primary" is a name for the ''first round'' of a two-round system and thus says it is not actually equal to a two-round system. I can see that and have attempted some new wording to try to fix this, so that it says "a non-partisian primary ''is the first round'' of a two-round system", removing problematic "variant of" and "contrasts with" wordings that imho implied that it was a different unrelated system. [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 18:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::That's fine and well. I'm quite sure the sources are best interpreted to say that the "primary" is round one and the "general elections" is round two. This is how I read the sources. However there are more issues. I'll first give all the sources here in direct links so I can refer to them easily: [https://protectdemocracy.org/work/toward-a-different-kind-of-party-government/][https://books.google.com/books?id=Igdj1P4vBwMC&q=%22American+elections+become+a+two-round+run-off+system+with+a+delay+of+several+months+between+the+rounds.%22&pg=PA3#v=snippet&q=%22American%20elections%20become%20a%20two-round%20run-off%20system%20with%20a%20delay%20of%20several%20months%20between%20the%20rounds.%22&f=false][https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-09720-6_9]
:::# Verbiage like "variant" and "contrasts" is found in source 1: {{tq|the U.S. has an ''unusual'' two-round system in which the first round winnows the field.}} If it is unusual, it goes to follow that it is a variant and contrasts with what is typical. My point in reinforcing this is that it is actually quite different, though you can claim it is similar in effect, as all three sources do.
:::# None of the sources differentiate between the few non-partisan primary schemes in the US and the typical partisan primaries that are much more common. You may have a point that some of the non-partisan primary schemes are even ''more'' like the two round system in effect, but the sources do not single them out, so I do not believe that we should on the article.
:::# The diction is mostly confused, as stated above. In American parlance, a "primary" is not an election, the "general election" is ''the'' election, and nowhere in this process do people use the term "round" unless they are referring to some kind of instant runoff scheme. I think it is the most important thing that we use the correct words strictly here, so that we can confer the correct ideas to the reader. In my suggested paragraph above, I focus heavily on this.
:::# This article is sorely lacking in sources, so I would like that we not argue so hard and make such huge sections without a single source to base them on. Just on this policy alone, that unverified content can be deleted until consensus is met, huge portions of this article are suspect and could be removed until we find sources for them. With this in mind, notice that I am arguing from the sources first, and deciding to leave alone the big sections with no sources at all. This article needs a lot more work with probably much more gravity than what I've brought up.
:::There might be a few more points I can make, but I've run out of time for the day. [[Special:Contributions/76.178.164.53|76.178.164.53]] ([[User talk:76.178.164.53|talk]]) 23:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|1=None of the sources differentiate between the few non-partisan primary schemes in the US and the typical partisan primaries that are much more common. You may have a point that some of the non-partisan primary schemes are even ''more'' like the two round system in effect, but the sources do not single them out, so I do not believe that we should on the article.}}<br>We don't have to cite the obvious (per [[WP:NOTCOM]] and [[WP:BLUE]]), but here they are:
::::# Paper: [https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2131219?casa_token=pZ1TcMKB4ZwAAAAA:bJ4O9w1kdICD9kfxVSTRaE49PuCanPxaOhAAmJ5NBQ5KRqSdNiyhGJs1cYs8_RRogMJDJxJxzqQ "Runoff elections in Georgia"]
::::# [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nonpartisan_Primary_Election_Reform/MeNwBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=second%20round ''Nonpartisan primary election reform''] repeatedly refers to the general election as the "second round" of an election after a nonpartisan primary
::::# [https://search.issuelab.org/resources/38554/38554.pdf Lee Drutman's report] says "The top-two open primary is effectively a two-round system".
:::: [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 01:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
::::1. The text you quoted I strongly object to. Partisian primaries are NOT a two-round system.
::::2. Are you kidding? EVERY source that talks about about jungle/non-partisian/etc systems in the USA clearly states that they are DIFFERFENT from partisian primaries. If they were not different there would not be lawsuits and court cases and referendums to change between the systems!
::::3/4. Not sure what you are getting into here. I think any text that claims that the American *non-partisian primary* is not a subset of "two round system" is the text that needs some citations. This means actual tangible reasons for it to somehow produce a different set of winning candidates than if some a "real" two-round system were used on the exact same set of candidates and voters. [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 18:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
::At the moment, the issue is the conflation of the two round system with the American "primaries" and "general elections". They are indeed ''not'' the same thing, however, the sources do say that the two in tandem is in effect very much like the two round system with a month's long gap between the two rounds. Spitzak seems to be confused on this point. I will illuminate in another comment directly to him soon, though I think my big comment above already covers this. [[Special:Contributions/76.178.164.53|76.178.164.53]] ([[User talk:76.178.164.53|talk]]) 23:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I 100% agree that American "primaries" ARE NOT a "two round system". Please stop claiming that. I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!
:::What is called a "jungle" or "non-partisian" or "non-partisian blanket" primary *IS* a subset of things called "two round system". And these are NOT American "primaries" (if they were then there would not be court cases trying to switch between the systems). Got it? [[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 18:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
::::I got that I don't really like your attitude. You have ''started'' your conversations with me in this way, and I've already addressed it, leaving you the benefit of the doubt, but now you are whittling away at that benefit. Forgot all about any of this, until you correct your attitude. I do not deserve this, did not give any of it to you first, nor will I tolerate it. Got it? [[Special:Contributions/76.178.164.53|76.178.164.53]] ([[User talk:76.178.164.53|talk]]) 19:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:Hi @[[Special:Contributions/76.178.164.53|76.178.164.53]], I tried rewriting to emphasize that primaries are only "de facto"/very similar to the two-round system, but not true two-round systems. Does this sound good to you? [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 17:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I would either not say anything, or say that normal primaries are the usual alternative to a two-round system in USA.
::[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 00:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
{{Sources talk|hide=true}}