Voting System Reform Commission: Part 2

[afleitch]

REDIRECTED HERE FROM A PREVIOUS THREAD.

Proposal for electoral reform.

Yes it's European but bear with me

If there are for example 4 positions to be filled, each party nominates 4 people to fill that position, or 4 people come forward from that party wishing to be candidates with the most experienced/preferred candidates/leader etc at the top, then the next best second and so on (or they can be in a random order if you wish to be fairer. How a party orders candidates is up to them). If the party took 100% of the vote, they would take all 4 seats

So for example;

BLUE PARTY  RED PARTY  YELLOW PARTY

Matthew       Paul           Crosby
Mark             John            Stills
Luke             George       Nash
John             Ringo          Young

Voters vote for a party of their choice.

Result: Blue Party 52%
            Red Party  32%
            Yellow Party 16% 

52% of 4 is 2.08 seats theoretically
32% of 4 is 1.28 seats theoretically
16% of 4 is 0.64 seats theoretically

The Blue Party takes 2 seats and the Red Party take 1
So Matthew and Mark are elected as they are the top two names on the Blue Party list and Paul is elected for the Red Party as he is their first name.

NOW...There is one seat left, but the Yellow Party only had enough votes for 0.64 seats, ie not a full seat.

You can either give them the seat by default (as 0.64 is closer to 1 than zero. If they had got 0.49 seats they wouldn't be entitled to any at all as that is closer to zero than 1) This is a simpler idea that the alternatives.

Or you can use maths and the D'hondt system, but youll have to get back to me on that!

[afleitch]

No, listen, all these voting systems being proposed have one major flaw:

They are too complicated.

It is quite clear that the problem we are having is that the current system we use is too damn complicated for everyone to easily count.  This is why we end up with people declaring different people winners.  If there is to be any reform, it needs to be so simple that a member can sit down with a pen and paper and simply tally the votes in a matter of a few minutes.

That's my two cents.

So one vote, FPTP then? That's the simplest there is. The List System is simple, you just vote once, for your preferred candidate/party, your vote is only counted once, it is not split.

[afleitch]

No, listen, all these voting systems being proposed have one major flaw:

They are too complicated.

It is quite clear that the problem we are having is that the current system we use is too damn complicated for everyone to easily count.  This is why we end up with people declaring different people winners.  If there is to be any reform, it needs to be so simple that a member can sit down with a pen and paper and simply tally the votes in a matter of a few minutes.

That's my two cents.

So one vote, FPTP then? That's the simplest there is. The List System is simple, you just vote once, for your preferred candidate/party, your vote is only counted once, it is not split.

Problem with that is if you want to split your ticket.

I thought tickets only applied in Presidential elections; a list system would obviously not be applied in a presidential election.

[afleitch]

Please bear in mind I was throwing ideas to the wind. I just wanted to introduce different arguments into the debate. I have problems with the list system myself, but I believe that those whose interests are best served by the current system will not want any change at all, hence people like myself who have never stood for election and do not hold power will naturally propose reforms that those in power will disagree with. It's all part of a healthy debate.