h a l f b a k e r y
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
In the UK three-quarters-want-more-proportional voting-
Votes would not be wasted & individual MP
and geographical representativeness would still be kept
total dissatisfaction minimized if:
The voters vote in the same way they used to vote (1 "x"
for 1 individual candidate, no order numbers, no party
lists); then the constituencies are taken one by one:
1) the 1 MP candidate who has the highest % in his/her
constituency (out of all the constituencies where an MP
not got the seat yet, i.e. in the beginning out of 650,
the remaining 649, etc. constituencies) gets the seat
the most popular candidate got 72%, the second got 70%,
the third got 69.9%, etc.)
2) the votes for the non-winning candidates in this
constituency (which are lost in the current system) are
divided by the number of the remaining
other candidates of the same party (e.g. in the beginning
649) and equally distributed to (i.e. transferred to,
inherited by) the remaining other candidates of the same
party and added to their own votes.
3) The %s in the remaining constituencies are
Go to 1,
- simple to vote,
- every vote counts,
- the geographically concentrated parties are not
advantaged, the geographically scattered voters have a
- the voters are not encouraged to lie about, distort their
preferences (e.g. voting against the most hated
candidate/party: voting for a popular though not really
favorite candidate instead of the real favorite; or giving
misleading high number to the popular rival),
- this system favors the more popular candidates, so the
parties cannot sell secure party list seats to the rich or
lobbyists, who are not elected by voters
- geographically representative system (since each
constituency has exactly 1 MP)
- this system is basically proportional, but discounts the
transferred votes, as more and more total
votes are spent on getting a seat
3/4 want more proportional voting
three-quarters-want-more-proportional-voting-system-new-poll-shows [jratkai, May 17 2015]
Alternative Vote referendum
The public says no. [Loris, May 17 2015, last modified May 18 2015]
real-time forest voting
Generalized representative democracy [Loris, May 18 2015]
[normzone, May 26 2015]
||The public are fickle. It's just over four years since we
had a referendum - and they
overwhelmingly voted against. Well actually most people
||I think the problem with your system as described is that
you're propagating only part of
the 'error', and non-locally. If you're living in a marginal
seat you're likely to get the
protest candidate elected from all the carried-over votes
everywhere else - even if no-one
in the constituency voted for them.
||I've been mulling over this issue, and hadn't quite felt it
worth a full idea post, but for
what it's worth, I offer two proposals:
||1) Error Diffused Voting. This combines the desirable
properties of FPTP (simple voting
and local representation) with mathematical
proportionality. Effectively it's similar to the
method described in the scheme, but all votes (less those
which win the seat) are
propagated to unelected neigbouring seats. (The
candidate specifies the recipient for all
neighbouring districts ahead of time; this is public
||2) Voronoi Voting. Everybody votes for a single candidate;
are decided after the fact.
Effectively, all the candidates gerrymander their own
|| Perhaps because the candidate in question is the
rabid fringe of the undesirable party.
|| I haven't worked through the details.
|| Also, the name isn't necessarily appropriate,
depending on how the boundaries are
||It says simple right in the name, but I don't understand this.
||I vote the idea gets saved to a category.
||It's been proven that no voting system can be perfect, in the
sense of perfectly reflecting the people's wishes.
||However, there are two distinct problems with the current
||(1) At a local level, a single vote doesn't reflect people's
preferences. If you prefer candidate A, don't mind candidate B,
but really hate C, then a single vote cannot reflect this. This
means that a 'compromise candidate' (B) who everybody is fairly
happy with, is unlikely to be elected.
||(2) At a national level, a party could in theory get 49% of the
vote, yet have no MPs.
||The solution to (1) is a voting system that lets you rank the
candidates, or at least specify first and second choices; a second
choice counts as (say) a third of a vote.
||(2) is harder, because in any one constituency, the MP with the
most votes (under whatever system is used) ought indeed to be
elected. If your constituency gave 51% of the vote to the labour
candidate, but a UKIP candidate was elected to reflect the
national voting pattern, that would be unfair. The only fair way
around this is to have a subset of MPs who don't represent
constituencies, and award these seats on the basis of national
||//It's been proven that no voting system can be perfect, in the sense of perfectly reflecting the people's wishes.//
||That doesn't really make sense. It's obvious that in an election selecting a single candidate, a population with a diverse preference cannot be perfectly reflected.
||Presumably you're referring to Arrows impossibility theorem, GibbardSatterthwaite theorem or similar. These cover ranking systems, and show that they are susceptable to tactical voting.
||But this doesn't mean the system can't be changed (rather more significantly) to give a better result. For example, we could just elect *all* the candidates, and allow them weighted votes in the house of commons - proportional to their electoral mandate. I think that would kill tactical voting stone dead. In the house of commons the votes are all yes/no, so tactical voting isn't a problem there.
||Then there's jutta's real-time forest voting idea, which is much more exciting.
||Votes wasted in the first-past-the-post system would be
reused in the Votes reuse system:
||The voters vote as they used to vote, in the simplest way
(i.e. 1 "x" for 1 individual candidate, no order numbers,
no party lists); then the constituencies are taken one by
one (e.g. the candidate with the highest % got 72%, the
second got 70%, the third got 69.9%, etc.):
||1) 1 candidate who has the highest % gets the seat (in our
example in the first step the candidate with 72%)
||2) the votes for the non-winning candidates in this
constituency would not be lost but inherited by the
remaining other candidates of the same party (equally)
and added to their own votes.
||3) The %s in the remaining constituencies are
recalculated. Go to 1)
||+ Simple to vote (avoiding a serious disadvantage of the
ordering preferential systems e.g. AV alternative vote,
STV single transferable vote)
+ geographically representative system (since each
constituency has exactly 1 representative)
+ tactical voting is not the interest of voters, as every
vote counts, if not in this constituency, then in another
+ the geographically scattered voters can have a
- in some constituencies with smaller differences between
the candidates the original winner might not get the seat,
though the votes on her/him are also reused; in a sense it
is a single-member district, though in a sense all members
belong to 1 district
+ there can be a threshold (e.g. 50-55%): if a candidate's
original % is above the threshold, gets the seat
+ the more popular candidates of a party make use of the
inherited votes, so the parties cannot sell secure party
list seats to those who are not elected by voters
+ the equal inheritance can be equal % point increase or
equal number of votes
+ the votes reuse system provides approximate
proportional representation, though discounts the
transferred votes, as more and more total
(own+inherited) votes are spent on getting a seat.
||Off topic: an overall problem with vote-at-the-polling-station democracy is basic statistics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if 60% of voters vote and 60% say yes, that's only 36% overall making a country-wide decision.
||Achieving a simple majority would be unworkable. Direct democracy alternatives are infinitely feasible and needed.
||[jratkai], if you go to your home page and open this idea, it will give you a drop down menu where you can save it under any number of categories other than other:general.
||You can always adopt the Israeli system, where total
dissatisfaction is promised.
||//Off topic: an overall problem with vote-at-the-polling-station democracy is basic statistics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if 60% of voters vote and 60% say yes, that's only 36% overall making a country-wide decision.//
||In my opinion the people who are theoretically entitled to vote but don't - don't count.
||So in your example, 100% of the people who gave a damn had a say, and the majority of those carried it.
||It seems to me that the glaringly obvious solution
is to maintain two houses. Senate and
Representatives or Commons and Lords - currently
those two houses are temporally partitioned (i.e.
one's membership is redefined every 4 years, while
the other's has a longer term) Instead, we might
redefine one as being organised by 1st pass the post constituency winners , whilst the
other is populated based on party lists the number of candidates of which are determined by proportional representation. You get the long-
term grandee element since it would make sense for
a party to populate its "upper" house with
respected career politicians who have the
experience (and hopefully the wisdom) to take a
longer-term view. It seems so obvious, it must have
been proposed (and possibly implemented) before
||Having known quite a few nonvoters, many of whom felt incapable, most of whom like me increasingly felt it is a waste of time, I take and don't take the people-don't-matter argument. The rest are inscrutable bartlebys.
||You can find annual voter participation rates by country. Places like Bulgaria came out steaming for democracy and gradually dropped like flies. Australia still gets 93% voter participation, because voting's mandatory, which is the other, far less pleasant alternative to just making democracy a mobile phone tap. [On Topic]
||/inscrutable bartlebys/ nice!