4 ms·

> The Westminster system is fundamentally about responsible representatives for the purpose of governing. Members with electorates have an incentive to be mild

> The Westminster system is fundamentally about responsible representatives for the purpose of governing. Members with electorates have an incentive to be mild and inclusive, to keep their electorate happy. Whereas parties have incentive to be abrasive to carve out brand. Electorate systems that favour parties have a jobs-for-the-boys culture. That's a very good point. I wonder if it's possible to have a party-based system which does not encourage extreme brands?

cturner 14y ago
> That's a very good point. I wonder if it's possible > to have a party-based system which does not encourage > extreme brands? I had a long think about this and gave up but came back to it. What I write below doesn't reconcile with parties so well, but I expect it would discourage non-mainstream opinions, or aggressive conduct. Two mechanisms: (1) compulsory voting, with (2) compulsory preferences for every candidate in the system. Compulsory preferences. If you make people rank everyone, then they will tend to be harsher on groups they otherwise wouldn't bother with. Compulsory voting. By making voting compulsory, you get input from people who are apathetic, but likely to be scathing towards people who are obsessed with a particular ideology. I thought about negative votes as well, but went hard against it - it leads to intrigue and strategic voting, which rewards ingenuine behaviour and gaming. Another mad option I've thought about: have an upper house, and make parties nominate five people for every upper house position. If the position is won, then the person to fill it must be randomly selected from the pool of nominations (by a computer or similar). I still have some attraction to this.