`  == Comments on the re-write, 2012-03 ==  I see there's been quite a lot of work on this article lately, but there still seems to be a few problems with it. I'm not an expert in politics, so I can't just fix most of it - some of my understanding of the topic may be incorrect. * The lead section does not - but probably should - mention that the 2PP/2CP is the percentage (usually) of votes for each of the two preferred parties/candidates after distribution of preferences. Defining it as ``express a ... vote after the distribution of preferences`` is not sufficient because it doesn't explicitly indicate that the 2PP/2CP result tells us not just how much the winner won by, but also who the major opponent was. * Corollary to the above: the lead should briefly mention why the 2PP is important. * The lead paragraph as currently worded implies that 2PP and 2CP are synonyms - ie it says ``the 2PP, or 2CP, ...`` and doesn't mention that they are not always the same. Yet the cited reference (AEC glossary) defines them differently. (We mention the differences later, but the lead paragraph should standalone as an accurate summary and not mislead the reader.) * The article is explicitly about Australian politics, we rely heavily on the Australian Electoral Commission for references, and the lead paragraph cites the AEC glossary for definitions of the terms. Given that we are using AEC definitions, I suggest that we should use the same abbreviations as the AEC glossary, ie TCP/TPP, not 2CP/2PP. * The AEC glossary explicitly defines the TCP as ``where preferences have been distributed to the likely final two candidates`` - where I presume ``likely`` is still based on ``available information such as historic voting patterns``. Based on this definition, we should probably note that TCP may vary in some cases during an election count. The nature of the TCP as defined by the AEC Glossary is that it is used as an early indicator of results during counting - not just a static result at the end of the count. * The article (after the lead section) distinguishes between 2PP and 2CP, stating that they are not always the same and even giving examples, but doesn't give any indication of how the 2PP vote is determined when it not the same as the 2CP. (This AEC page just says ``a notional distribution of preferences to find the result of preference flows to the ALP and Coalition candidates``.) * The article notes that ``opinion polls [always produce a a 2PP] ... calculated based on preference flows at the preceding election rather than at the time of polling``. It's probably worth noting why they do this. * We could probably remove some of the ``commentary`` in the examples - eg ``the result being uncertain for over a week``, ``By 21 January 2009 ...``, ``The commissioner rejected a request for a recount...``, etc. It doesn't add any value to the illustration of the 2PP/2CP methodology, or why the final 2PP/2CP values are important (eg for swings). * I suspect that History section is too long, and could be trimmed. Eg the first paragraph seems to be more the history of full-preference instant-runoff voting, rather than 2PP. Possibly the penultimate paragraph could be moved into a separate section about where 2PP is and is not used. I'll probably fix the more trivial of these (eg TPP vs 2PP), unless someone explicitly objects. Other points need may need some discussion (or pointing out my mistakes!) or addressing by someone who better understands the issue.   `