Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2014, 11:22:13 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  Electoral Reform
| | | |-+  Not really American, but an idea I had...
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Not really American, but an idea I had...  (Read 5220 times)
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38720
Bangladesh


View Profile
« on: August 05, 2008, 01:14:12 pm »
Ignore

This is a smorgasbord of several different electoral systems; those of Austria, Baden-Württemberg, Australia, and Scotland, along with some innovations of my own. It works as follows:

For the sake of convenience, Germany will be used in this example.

Voters have two votes: one for candidates, and one for parties. Both the candidates and the parties are ranked.

There are two levels of electoral constituencies: the states and the divisions. The size and area of these are fixed. At an election, each constituency is given a certain number of seats, directly proportional to the number of votes cast. The top finishers in that constituency, using STV, are then declared elected in a number equal to the number of seats apportioned to that constituency.

The result in each state is then made proportional through MMP, with a threshold of 5%. Unlike normal MMP, parties are eliminated and their vote redistributed, as in STV, until all parties have at least 5%. Parties do not put forth lists; rather, the unelected candidates from each party are ranked according to how close they were to winning. The same process is repeated at the federal level.

Vacancies are filled in different ways depending on how the seat is apportioned. For district seats, a countback is done without the candidate in question. For national and state seats, the next person on the party list fills the vacancy. There are no by-elections.

There are several advantages to this method:

  • It ensures proportionality.
  • It allows for independent candidacies.
  • It is unsusceptible to gerrymandering.
  • It does not waste votes, despite having a threshold.
  • It preserves constituencies, and the resulting link between voter and legislator.

However, it is quite complex, both to the average voter who sees a strange ballot, and to the more educated voter who wishes to understand the electoral process.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: August 05, 2008, 01:26:31 pm by ޒަހަރު) زَهَـرْ) »Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6019
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2008, 01:13:46 am »
Ignore

I don't mind the Australian federal system - where the House of Representatives is elected in single member electorates, based on population, using instant runoff voting, while the Senate is elected on multi-member electorates with an equal number of Senators per state, who are elected using a single transferrable vote method.

This means that it is more common for a party to be able to form a Government in the House of Reps with a majority and therefore the opinion of the majority is typically followed in terms of who shall form Government, while minority opinions are able to be represented in the Senate, typically leaving minor parties with the balance of power.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2008, 02:28:38 pm »
Ignore

However, it is quite complex, both to the average voter who sees a strange ballot, and to the more educated voter who wishes to understand the electoral process.

It is also quite complex for the purpose of counting votes, to the point of probably requiring three or four days to do a complete count. You will also, I suspect, find a lot of resistance to the idea of "losing" candidates still making it into the legislature. That was the main tactic employed by the anti-PR forces in the Ontario referendum last year.
Logged
defe07
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 666


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2008, 10:44:45 pm »
Ignore

At an election, each constituency is given a certain number of seats, directly proportional to the number of votes cast.
[/quote]

So does this mean that each constituency (state and division) would get a number of seats according to the popular vote in the last election? Does this mean that population wouldn't be considered for allocating seats to the states and divisions?
Logged

A proud Floridian moderate libertarian that believes in small government.
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38720
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2008, 02:32:47 pm »
Ignore

At an election, each constituency is given a certain number of seats, directly proportional to the number of votes cast.

So does this mean that each constituency (state and division) would get a number of seats according to the popular vote in the last election? Does this mean that population wouldn't be considered for allocating seats to the states and divisions?
[/quote]

It would be based on the current election, actually. And yes.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
defe07
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 666


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2008, 05:22:41 pm »
Ignore

However, it is quite complex, both to the average voter who sees a strange ballot, and to the more educated voter who wishes to understand the electoral process.

It is also quite complex for the purpose of counting votes, to the point of probably requiring three or four days to do a complete count. You will also, I suspect, find a lot of resistance to the idea of "losing" candidates still making it into the legislature. That was the main tactic employed by the anti-PR forces in the Ontario referendum last year.

But there tends to be a sports analogy. You know, many sports have wild card spots. Wild cards tend to go to the teams that didn't come 1st but go to teams that did the best out of all the teams that came in 2nd.
Logged

A proud Floridian moderate libertarian that believes in small government.
Sir Coffeebeans
coffeebeans
Full Member
***
Posts: 137
View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2009, 02:00:44 pm »
Ignore

It seems that sports have been able to create a better organized gov't than our own, with courts, rules, and everything in between.
Logged

Economic score: -3.35
Social score: -3.3

Coffeebeans for Pacific Senate
February, 2009
Another reason to get out of bed in the morning. Coffeebeans.
Meeker
meekermariner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14169


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -2.61

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2009, 03:23:43 am »
Ignore

This would be a good idea if we didn't have to explain it to everyone.
Logged
Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30141
France


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2009, 03:39:02 pm »
Ignore

This is a smorgasbord of several different electoral systems; those of Austria, Baden-Württemberg, Australia, and Scotland, along with some innovations of my own. It works as follows:

For the sake of convenience, Germany will be used in this example.

Voters have two votes: one for candidates, and one for parties. Both the candidates and the parties are ranked.

There are two levels of electoral constituencies: the states and the divisions. The size and area of these are fixed. At an election, each constituency is given a certain number of seats, directly proportional to the number of votes cast. The top finishers in that constituency, using STV, are then declared elected in a number equal to the number of seats apportioned to that constituency.

The result in each state is then made proportional through MMP, with a threshold of 5%. Unlike normal MMP, parties are eliminated and their vote redistributed, as in STV, until all parties have at least 5%. Parties do not put forth lists; rather, the unelected candidates from each party are ranked according to how close they were to winning. The same process is repeated at the federal level.

Vacancies are filled in different ways depending on how the seat is apportioned. For district seats, a countback is done without the candidate in question. For national and state seats, the next person on the party list fills the vacancy. There are no by-elections.

There are several advantages to this method:

  • It ensures proportionality.
  • It allows for independent candidacies.
  • It is unsusceptible to gerrymandering.
  • It does not waste votes, despite having a threshold.
  • It preserves constituencies, and the resulting link between voter and legislator.

However, it is quite complex, both to the average voter who sees a strange ballot, and to the more educated voter who wishes to understand the electoral process.

Thoughts?

I agree, German system is a very good system. France should also imitate it.
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines