Best system of election for the legislative branch

[buritobr]

In order to avoid hijacking the thread about the system of government (presidential vs. parliamentary), let's make another poll, for the system of elections for the legisliative branch. These are separate debates. Presidential systems can have FPTP (USA) or PR (many countries in Latin America), parliamentary systems can have FPTP (UK) or PR (Spain).

FPTP one round: the country is divided in many constituencies. Each constituency elects one representative. Plurality is enough. Examples: USA, UK

FPTP two rounds: the country is divided in many constituencies. Each constituency elects one representative. Majority is required. If there is no majority in the first round, there is a second round. Example: France

PR open list: the seats are allocated according to the proportion of votes of each party. The voters can choose candidates. Example: Denmark, Finland, Brazil

PR closed list: the seats are allocated according to the proportion of votes of each party. The voters can choose only the party. The seats are filled according to the lists created by the parties. Examples: Spain

Mixed FPTP & PR: a system which uses both FPTP and PR mechanisms. Examples: Germany, Mexico, Japan

We have already discussed these systems in other threads, but let's see now what do the majority (or the plurality) of the Atlas Forum members think.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Danish/Swedish model: open-list PR in small constituencies with a handful of national compensation seats to ensure overall proportionality.

[Kingpoleon]

Mixed.

[Goldwater]

If we use FPTP, it should either be two round or use IRV, while if we have PR it should be open list.

[beaver2.0]

FPTP one round!

[OSR stands with Israel]

FPTP one round!

[Goldwater]

FPTP one round!

Why? IMO that's the worst of these options.

[Vosem]

I've thought the House should consist of about half elected through IRV FPTP, and another half through closed-list PR based roughly on the Australian model (so, parties determine lists beforehand; you number the parties; a vote "1" for a party is a vote for the first candidate on that list until that person is elected by reaching the threshold, when it goes to the second person on the list; when the party as a whole is eliminated, you go to the party marked "2"; someone could perhaps simultaneously run for an FPTP spot and a list spot, so that politicians in areas unfavorable to the party can still represent it and become prominent; I understand this isn't quite the Australian Senate but it's inspired by it). The idea being that the large majority of seats would go to large, "mainstream" parties, and a very small number can go to "third" or "off-the-wall" parties (or even joke outfits like AMEP) so that there's some diversity of views.

[muon2]

There's also the two-round system that requires the top two candidates go to the second round even if there's a majority for one in the first round. Examples NE, WA, CA. This avoids issues about low turnout in the primary (first round).

[Derpist]

PR Open List.

[Santander]

FPTP one round!

[politicallefty]

I'm partial to the MMP system. I'm thinking something along the lines of 25-30% of seats being chosen through a closed party list, the remainder being chosen through individual districts. The ideal threshold would probably be 5%, regardless of whether or not a party won an individual district (and therefore unlike New Zealand, where a party can win list seats just from winning one electorate). To go one step further, I would have the individual districts elected through IRV where a voter numbers their choices.

I think it really is a shame that our country can't debate these big constitutional issues. It seems like we're still fighting the battles other countries had 30-50 years ago. I have my ideas, but it'd be nice to see the debate opened on issues of electoral reform in this country. While gerrymandering is a big issue, it doesn't change the fact that simple FPTP can be unrepresentative of the people. As recently as 2012, Democrats won the popular vote in the House by over 1.4 million votes and yet were relegated to a 201-234 minority. I think MMP combines the best elements of having single-member districts with proportionality.

[IceAgeComing]

I voted mixed FPTP/PR; because I think that describes the two systems that I most like (MMP and STV).  I used to be big on STV; but I've swung a lot more towards STV recently, especially after the... interesting results of the recent Irish election.

Ideally you'd use MMP with open lists for a national parliament; although that necessitates smaller regions to make ballot papers a decent size.  Then again you don't need that many regional seats to get a decent amount of proportionality - Scotland only has seven seat regions and the effective threshold is around 6.4%.  Another option would be to have larger lists but award the list seats to the losers with the highest percentage of the vote - anything to get rid of the parties being able to put an unpopular person number 1 on the list and make it all but impossible to kick them out.  I'm turn on whether you'd want AV for the constituency vote: it'd probably be better but probably more confusing to explain to people that they have to number one ballot paper but not the other one, that threw a lot of people off here in 2007 (along with idiots deciding to introduce a new ballot paper that has both parliament votes on the same paper without putting instructions on the actual paper - probably sounds perfectly natural to people from other countries but apparently it confused people who ended up voting twice for one vote and not at all for another).

Local elections you'd use STV in four or five member wards; it creates the same effect and MMP is unworkable at that level.

[Hatman 🍁]

Mixed. Anyone who voted FPTP hates democracy and should be monitored by the CIA.

[Bojack Horseman]

First past the post one round, but with strict anti-gerrymandering laws and a nonpartisan/apolitical panel drawing the districts based on nothing more than population shifts.

[Virginiá]

Can we just ban Republicans from elections for the next 10 years and keep everything else the same?

hehe, heheeeeeeeeee

[This account no longer in use.]

Ideally, instant runoff.

[dax00]

NONE OF THE ABOVE - STV (single transferable vote) to decide the representative split statewide, and then those can be divvied up using the same data back into the respective CDs. With no more incentive to gerrymander states, hopefully they wouldn't be gerrymandered.