" 

  
  and     

 BalCoder's response 
 Numbering system I use is the same way I ordered and Balcoder responded.  Balcoder, the sentence in the lede is tied to this paragraph, that is why I mentioned it. 
 2. Section was in there before Ontario started editing.  Before that, it was in the lede. (Yes, Reallavergne and Ontario look suspiciously like socks).  Personally, I think it is a good idea to briefly mention PR's place among other systems. Not only would it help the reader understand there are other ways, but also be able to click on the wikilinks to read the other ways.  It also tells how PR is in other systems.  As to  comments about, ""Single non-tranferable vote, Borda, limited vote, etc.: these are not PR ...""  Note what I said in section 3, ""I don't think a listing of every system should be included""  
 3. Dump the table and go to the type of list you had before.  I'm being vague on what ""systems"" are mentioned.  But something more needs to be added. 
 :3.3  I hadn't a clue what these systems are and where they use it.  My feelings and thoughts while I was reading it might be the same as some random bloke reading it.  Also, most American's are clueless that there are other systems.   I think it is a good idea to mention a country or two that uses it. 
 :3.4  BalCoder you are misunderstanding what I said.  I didn't say keep or drop.  I said both sides use unreferenced or a misconstrued references.  Without good refs, saying what percentage of countries uses what is automatically dropped.  However, if I were to be put on the spot, I'd say drop it.  Some countries use multiple systems.  It would be hard to quantify a number. 
 4 
 :4.2  Balcoder, could you point out what refs 6, 7 and 8 are?  With different versions going around, I don't know which ones you are pointing to. 
 :4.2 Balcoder you are misunderstanding me saying ""partially PR"", you didn't add the rest of the quote...""MMP is hybrid as it has a component of PR, so its partially PR.""  PR is a component of MMP. I'm saying MMP is ""partially PR"" because there are two systems of which PR is one, not that PR is hobbled. 
 5 
 :5.1 The point I was trying to make is that PR systems can be highly, moderately and so-so depending on how/what PR is being used.  Just saying highly is not neutral when it can run the gamut.  Need to add info about this.  Parallel voting does have a PR component. 
 :5.2  Yes, without a reliable source it is gone. 

 Ontario's response 
 This will be a bit jumbled. 
 #  doesn't need to be referenced.  It's there as a jumping off point.  Similar with the navboxes at the end of the article.  It's perfectly fine to keep.  The table/listing in the article is separate from the template. 
 # I agree some sort of classification system should be used and that is what I previously said.  What is listed and with what info is upto debate. 
 # ""I am opposed to framing semi-proportional MMP ... 'deliberately hobbled'""  I agree.  It's not a good word. Which leads to... 
 # "" Are we in agreement that MMP can be semi-proportional""  Yes it can, but its not that simple and ""semi"" is also not a good word.  The key is how/what PR component is used in each system generates how proportional a system is. MMP can be highly or moderately.  It all depends.  As you mentioned in your Scottish/Wales section, not all two MMP systems are alike.  This was my #5 point from above.  I can't judge what system is used more as I haven't seen a ref that says either way. 
   "