4 ms·

I don't want politicians to denounce their political parties. Instead, I would rather see an adoption of elements of proportional representation into our politi

by Wilduck 14y ago

I don't want politicians to denounce their political parties. Instead, I would rather see an adoption of elements of proportional representation into our political system. For example, Party List PR[1] in the House of Representatives would provide an avenue for third parties to actually get elected on the national level. This may seem like an extreme example, in that it is highly unlikely to happen any time soon, but it is not an extreme system of voting. The German Bundestag, for example, combines a system of First Past the Post voting and Party List PR to achieve proportional representation in their legislature[2]. Even less extreme would be ditching the Electoral college, and moving to a Single Transferable Vote[3] for presidential elections. At least under these systems you're not "Throwing your vote away" when voting third party. There is evidence that proportional systems of representation increase voter participation, and voter confidence. I would love to see prominent technologists espousing these sorts of changes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_represe... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag_(Germany)#Distribution_of_seats_by_party_in_the_17th_Bundestag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag_(Germany)#Distributio... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

mtgx 14y ago
I would also like to see the "Approval Voting" system being implement. It would make sure the politician that most people agree with the most, will get elected. It would also make it a lot easier for a 3rd party candidate to be elected president. For example, if 45% would vote for Obama (Democrats), 45% would vote for Romney (Republicans), and each of those 2 factions would also vote for Gary Johnson in proportion of 30% each (out of total voters), then it would be Gary Johnson who would win the election, because he would have the support of 60% of the population, rather than 45% for Obama and 45% for Romney. The reason this result would be more satisfactory for a larger portion of voters, is because more people actually approved of this candidate from both sides, instead of 45% approving Obama and absolutely hating Romney as a president, or 45% approving of Romney and absolutely hating Obama. The winner would be the candidate that is liked or approved by the largest portion of the population, which leads to higher satisfaction for the voters after the election. http://electology.org/approval-voting http://electology.org/approval-voting AV vs IRV (for those wanting to see the IRV system being applied): http://electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv/ http://electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv/
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  As an added bonus, because it creates more [viable] parties, it makes attack adds less effective: If you have one opponent, causing that opponent to lose a vote is just as good as gaining a vote for yourself. If you have two or more viable opponents then attacks against any individual opponent helps the remainder as much as you. And in that case, better to be positive about yourself than negative about the opposition.
specialist 14y ago
I whole heartedly support replacing winner takes all with approval voting, which is easier to administrate, far more robust, and more fair. But that's a huge change. Fortunately, there are smaller, more beneficial changes we can do while working to replace winner takes all. (See other comment.)

by Wilduck 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago

I would also like to see the "Approval Voting" system being implement. It would make sure the politician that most people agree with the most, will get elected. It would also make it a lot easier for a 3rd party candidate to be elected president. For example, if 45% would vote for Obama (Democrats), 45% would vote for Romney (Republicans), and each of those 2 factions would also vote for Gary Johnson in proportion of 30% each (out of total voters), then it would be Gary Johnson who would win the election, because he would have the support of 60% of the population, rather than 45% for Obama and 45% for Romney. The reason this result would be more satisfactory for a larger portion of voters, is because more people actually approved of this candidate from both sides, instead of 45% approving Obama and absolutely hating Romney as a president, or 45% approving of Romney and absolutely hating Obama. The winner would be the candidate that is liked or approved by the largest portion of the population, which leads to higher satisfaction for the voters after the election. http://electology.org/approval-voting http://electology.org/approval-voting AV vs IRV (for those wanting to see the IRV system being applied): http://electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv/ http://electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv/

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
As an added bonus, because it creates more [viable] parties, it makes attack adds less effective: If you have one opponent, causing that opponent to lose a vote is just as good as gaining a vote for yourself. If you have two or more viable opponents then attacks against any individual opponent helps the remainder as much as you. And in that case, better to be positive about yourself than negative about the opposition.

specialist 14y ago

I whole heartedly support replacing winner takes all with approval voting, which is easier to administrate, far more robust, and more fair. But that's a huge change. Fortunately, there are smaller, more beneficial changes we can do while working to replace winner takes all. (See other comment.)