http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
Could this be a way to bring about a new dawn of centrism? Would you want to implement this system in your country?
Single transferable votes for everyone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
Could this be a way to bring about a new dawn of centrism? Would you want to implement this system in your country?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Combined with PR no. I hate PR.
Under a single member system the name for this is Alternative Vote and it is used successfully in Australia. I would have absolutely no problem with that at all.
However we had a referendum recently on switching to AV and I voted along with 66% of the country No. I voted no as the yes arguments and proponents were for PR and AV was being introduced as a stepping stone to multi-member STV and I would not give succour or support to that.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Soz, but no. It seems pretty awesomely difficult to understand and, in its complexity, we would risk voter disengagement or confusion.
It strengthens the outliers, not the center. I would prefer a two-step voting process, a winnowing vote and a run-off set a few weeks to a month later.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It also creates pathetically absurd results that allow gerrymandering easier to determine more on the number of members per constituency rather than the victor of the constituency.
Take as an example where STV has been foisted upon us for the European Parliament elections the result of the 2009 North-East England region. The North East of England is a Labour stronghold and you'd think that as a result Labour would win the vote. It went as follows:
Labour 147,338
Conservative 116,911
Lib-Dem 103,644
And others ...
Who would you think was the victor there? As far as I'm concerned you'd say Labour won that one (much as I dislike Labour, they rightfully did IMO). Under STV as it was a 3-member consituency so the result was that elected were: 1 Labour, 1 Conservative, 1 Lib-Dem. Despite getting about 44,000 more votes than the LDs apparently Labour didn't actually defeat them and didn't win that area any more than the LDs did. Pathetically stupid system.
How people actually voted plays second fiddle to the voting system and the number of members per area. Elections should determine winners and losers based upon how people choose to vote.
OTOH, a 1-1-1 split in seats is closer to the actual vote distribution than all to Labour.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Only because its artificially restricted to 3. The party on 80k got nothing.
I have few sympathies with a loser not getting elected when they lose. That's the point in having a vote, they lost. If you want to be elected, try winning and not losing.
If there's another party with 80K, that means Labour got less than a third of the votes, yet would get 100% of the seats - so in fact the 1-1-1 distribution would still be closer to the actual population's preference. Much closer, even, it's simple math.Well, thanks for an argument that has nothing to do with the issue? And the point of a vote is not to determine a 'winner' and a 'loser', it's supposed to elect a representation of your population to run your country.I have few sympathies with a loser not getting elected when they lose. That's the point in having a vote, they lost. If you want to be elected, try winning and not losing.
The how and why differs from country to country, obviously, but your argument here is rather silly. Every system has its good and bad sides, but your argument here simply fails completely because the result is actually closer to the actual population's choices. And if there hadn't been STV, wouldn't there have been three different constituencies? Therefore, depending on how they are shaped, you could have anywhere between 1 and 3 Labour seats - which makes the entire election rather arbitrary to begin with.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
The alternative vote system is a good small step in the right direction! In a lot of cities in the US we mostly have run-offs at the moment.
This isn't a game or a sport. It's about to determine the representatives as close to the will of the people as possible.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
First part, yes, second part, well, will of the people is a somewhat subjective term. And another big factor is that the country is actually governable, otherwise we wouldn't have vote thresholds either.
Frankly, in certain situations I can definitely see the advantage of district voting (which will always lead to a non-perfect representation of the population, since the winner might not be equally popular in every district). Especially in larger countries with bigger differences between the parts, it has clear advantages, and the fact that you have a personal representative who is responsible for your local needs, that has obvious advantages (though some disadvantages too). It's just that Rand's point that giving 3 seats to the party with 1/3 of the vote and 0 to the rest is somehow more representative and fair is ridiculous.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It's also dangerous for democracy if you vote and your vote then counts for nothing.
Because then you'll think: "Why vote at all?"
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
We don't. The only threshold we have is that you need to get at least one seat.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Absolutely there should be 3 different constituencies and the victor in all 3 constituencies should be the one with the greatest support in it. The losers need to work harder to become the most popular. Nobody who isn't the most popular in their area should be elected.
No it isn't. Its to determine how the state or country (or in this case the EU) is governed. That absolutely should be about winners and losers and is more important than trying to paint a rainbow of pretty colours and kow-towing to extremists.
Being defeated doesn't mean your vote counts for nothing, it just means you lost. It means you need to try again harder next time and that is good for democracy. Jobs-for-life where politicians needn't even try to please the electorate because it doesn't matter if they come first, second or third etc is bad for democracy. If its not the result of the people's votes but the result of bartering between parties and politicians that determines the government then that is bad too. Then your vote counts for nothing.
This is a good point.
However, I think that feeling is probably best mitigated by having clear and decisive choices with each vote. I've certainly had very very few people I've voted for win office (John Kerry, John McCain, etc). But at least the vote was reasonably clear to me.
Wrong. Representative vote is about the legislative not the executive. The way the laws are made. And they should be based on a maximal representation of the population. We would have prety much have a referendum on every single topic (remember 50000 signs are enough to force a referendum) if only the winners of an election would get through.
The government is a different issue. But then again, there is a very good reason why our ministers are voted independently, to make our government represent the diversity of the country.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think laws should be written by those who lost their vote.
By this reasoning we should just switch over to totalitarian dictatorships
What it means is that you have no de facto representation in your own government. So what did your vote count for? Absolutely nothing. In practice you may as well have thrown your vote into the toilet.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It is a different system, and I prefer ours. It would need a change of the constitution to implement anything close to what you suggest.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
This is neither a war nor a sports game.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
For the Brits everything is either a war, a game or a sport.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
I view that more as a "Fuck you, I got mine!"-attitude which is not a very healthy attitude civilization-wise in the long run.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
He probably also thinks he has won in sex when he comes first.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
We should simply stop having elections, we should have a lottery to appoint people as representatives for a single term. Probably you'd get a number of breathtakingly stupid representatives, but in an honest lottery you'd at least no longer get a repeat of the present situation where the so-called representation isn't representative in the least.
Congratulations America
I would love to see it experimented-with on a small scale just for kicks. Though I imagine this person would be forced to rely on advisors who would really run the show.
It would work in a system with a separation of powers like the US Constitution foresees. You'd have the administration doing the preparatory work and Congress voting on it. To ensure representativity you'd probably have to make Congress a bit bigger. But you could keep costs in hand by having just one chamber that convenes for like a week a month, with members working back home for the rest of the month. But it would have to be something you couldn't get out of for any reason at all; no excuses like with jury duty.
Congratulations America
This sounds a bit like the system that Naboo used in Star Wars.
Keeping in mind that I barely paid attention to the early prequals and might be totally mischaracterizing them.
I've heard the Greeks also used it, though I really wouldn't know which Greeks.
Wikipedia says Athens did.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote