5 ms·

I find it hard to believe the House of Reps could be any more unwieldy than it already is though. More seats would make it far harder to buy and corrupt legisla

I find it hard to believe the House of Reps could be any more unwieldy than it already is though. More seats would make it far harder to buy and corrupt legislation votes and make it easier for independents and 3rd parties to gain seats.

wqaatwt 1y ago
Just replacing FPTP or any other proportional non-party list system would accomplish that.
- smitty1e 1y ago
  You can't physically seat them in the current venue, for starters. Also, for all of the defects of First Past the Post, it's well-understood and supports entry-level participation. The theoretical superiority of Ranked Choice Voting is overshadowed by the hidden assertion that everyone casting a ballot in RCV has done the homework. Having served as an election officer for the last 12yrs, the KISS superiority of FPTP is the least-worst alternatives. I wouldn't want RCV even at the county level.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    > can't physically Why? There is no need to increase their number. > overshadowed by the hidden assertion Even then it’s still superior. Even if everyone ignores the individual candidates and votes for a party in e.g. a 5 member constituency where the vote is split ~70:30 the minority party would likely get at least one seat when now votes are effectively thrown into the thrash bin. > Having served as an election officer for the last 12yrs The implication being that it would make the job too hard for you? FPTP is a horrible system any way you look at it. It results in almost 50% of the votes being outright discarded and permanently entrenches a 2 party system.
    - smitty1e 1y ago
      > It results in almost 50% of the votes being outright discarded and permanently entrenches a 2 party system. I don't see how either of these assertions follow. The size of the mandate is important, and the connection between a 2 party "system" and FPTP is something that you'd need to elaborate upon, because there is nothing about the ballot as such stipulating the number of parties. I. Fact, other parties are frequently on the ballot, so the dominance of 2 parties is not obviously connected to FPTP as such.
      - aragilar 1y ago
        FPTP has a well documented effect of producing a 2 party system (along with numerous other issues): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Two-party_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Two... RCV works and is simple to understand.
        smitty1e 1y ago
        It's so obviously superior that it's facing substantial rejection: https://responsivegov.org/statement-voters-reject-ranked-choice-voting-rcv-in-seven-states-protect-rcv-in-alaska/ https://responsivegov.org/statement-voters-reject-ranked-cho...

wqaatwt 1y ago

Just replacing FPTP or any other proportional non-party list system would accomplish that.

smitty1e 1y ago
You can't physically seat them in the current venue, for starters. Also, for all of the defects of First Past the Post, it's well-understood and supports entry-level participation. The theoretical superiority of Ranked Choice Voting is overshadowed by the hidden assertion that everyone casting a ballot in RCV has done the homework. Having served as an election officer for the last 12yrs, the KISS superiority of FPTP is the least-worst alternatives. I wouldn't want RCV even at the county level.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  > can't physically Why? There is no need to increase their number. > overshadowed by the hidden assertion Even then it’s still superior. Even if everyone ignores the individual candidates and votes for a party in e.g. a 5 member constituency where the vote is split ~70:30 the minority party would likely get at least one seat when now votes are effectively thrown into the thrash bin. > Having served as an election officer for the last 12yrs The implication being that it would make the job too hard for you? FPTP is a horrible system any way you look at it. It results in almost 50% of the votes being outright discarded and permanently entrenches a 2 party system.
  - smitty1e 1y ago
    > It results in almost 50% of the votes being outright discarded and permanently entrenches a 2 party system. I don't see how either of these assertions follow. The size of the mandate is important, and the connection between a 2 party "system" and FPTP is something that you'd need to elaborate upon, because there is nothing about the ballot as such stipulating the number of parties. I. Fact, other parties are frequently on the ballot, so the dominance of 2 parties is not obviously connected to FPTP as such.
    - aragilar 1y ago
      FPTP has a well documented effect of producing a 2 party system (along with numerous other issues): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Two-party_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Two... RCV works and is simple to understand.
      - smitty1e 1y ago
        It's so obviously superior that it's facing substantial rejection: https://responsivegov.org/statement-voters-reject-ranked-choice-voting-rcv-in-seven-states-protect-rcv-in-alaska/ https://responsivegov.org/statement-voters-reject-ranked-cho...