4 ms·

I'm of the opinion that majority governments are a problem. I would actually go even further than PR in evening out the seats. That is, as a party wins seats, e

by tormeh 12y ago

I'm of the opinion that majority governments are a problem. I would actually go even further than PR in evening out the seats. That is, as a party wins seats, each new seat should require more votes to win. Capturing more than, say, 40% of the seats should be impossible, and the biggest party has to form a minority government.

platz 12y ago
Sounds like a recipe for even more gridlock. Seems like the party with the most votes couldn't pass anything (i.e. satisfy voter mandates), even though they won.
- tormeh 12y ago
  No, remember that the opposition is similarly divided. The governing party just have to shop around for votes, with a variety of smaller parties to bargain with. Promises to voters (which I think is what you mean with voter mandates) are just the worst. They tend towards the unrealistic and assume party control over a majority of seats without defectors. Everything about them is dumb. Good riddance.
  - platz 12y ago
    I agree promises to voters end up being silly. Interesting ideas though, I'm sure given enough thought (I certainly don't have the experience in these theings) it could work.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Would you prefer China's model more then? Just one party. No gridlock, ever. Having more parties is a good thing. It implies negotiation between them and it leads to more rational laws. When you have just one or two parties it's much easier for them to abuse their power and pass crazy laws.
  - platz 12y ago
    No, but maybe something like Canada's. If the majority loses favor with the public, (simplifying a bit here) they just schedule an election and vote them out .
    - xemoka 12y ago
      I'm not sure you realise how the Canadian government works then. Once you have a majority in the House, you are effectively in power until your term is up and you ask the Governor General to dissolve the house and hold an election. Now if a party holds a minority government (the way parliamentary systems are meant to be), there can be a vote of non-confidence to oust the governing party. At that point, the governor general has to choose between allowing a coalition (if that is indeed what the other parties want) or hold another election. Public opinion does not hold sway in these matters. Our current majority government (now branded The Harper Government) was elected with ~24% of eligible voters (40% of those who actually showed up to vote). Take a look at some of the Ekos [1] polls, our governing party does not have the majority of Canadian support. There is also no way to do a MP recall campaign at the federal level, some provinces provide this though, such as BC. We very much need electoral reform in Canada. Our senate is too partisan (not to mention, appointed at the whims of the governing party) and first-past-the-post is a broken electoral system. My hopes are for Mixed Member Proportional Representation similar to Germany and New Zealand. [1] http://www.ekospolitics.com/ http://www.ekospolitics.com/
      - platz 12y ago
        Thanks for this summary
panarky 12y ago
Similar to quadratic voting. http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/ http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/
- tormeh 12y ago
  But you can buy votes here and it's designed by economists... The field of economics generally assume wildly improbably things about the distribution of money. Look, there's already too much money in politics, and I'm just going to dismiss any idea that advocates more money in politics. I guess that in lieu of money, you could portion out votes. 1000 votes per person, for example. And then they can be spent in the same way that money is spent in quadratic voting.
BurningFrog 12y ago
So the big parties would split into a few smaller ones. That might not be bad.
- vidarh 12y ago
  It's basically what you often get in PR systems anyway. New parties form, or split off to fill perceived voids to the left or right of one of the big parties and eat into their voting base. Many countries with PR systems rarely if ever have single party majorities. In Norway the current two party coalition is a minority government that needed a supply agreement with two further parties (technically one of them would be sufficient) to secure a majority. In the recent past we've had coalitions with up to four parties, several of the coalitions being minority governments. Our last single party majority government was in the 60's I think.
- hackerboos 12y ago
  There are parties within parties already. Only when three-line whips are in place does the entire party toe the line. Think 'Blue dog' democrats.

by tormeh 12y ago

platz 12y ago

Sounds like a recipe for even more gridlock. Seems like the party with the most votes couldn't pass anything (i.e. satisfy voter mandates), even though they won.

tormeh 12y ago
No, remember that the opposition is similarly divided. The governing party just have to shop around for votes, with a variety of smaller parties to bargain with. Promises to voters (which I think is what you mean with voter mandates) are just the worst. They tend towards the unrealistic and assume party control over a majority of seats without defectors. Everything about them is dumb. Good riddance.
- platz 12y ago
  I agree promises to voters end up being silly. Interesting ideas though, I'm sure given enough thought (I certainly don't have the experience in these theings) it could work.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Would you prefer China's model more then? Just one party. No gridlock, ever. Having more parties is a good thing. It implies negotiation between them and it leads to more rational laws. When you have just one or two parties it's much easier for them to abuse their power and pass crazy laws.
- platz 12y ago
  No, but maybe something like Canada's. If the majority loses favor with the public, (simplifying a bit here) they just schedule an election and vote them out .
  - xemoka 12y ago
    I'm not sure you realise how the Canadian government works then. Once you have a majority in the House, you are effectively in power until your term is up and you ask the Governor General to dissolve the house and hold an election. Now if a party holds a minority government (the way parliamentary systems are meant to be), there can be a vote of non-confidence to oust the governing party. At that point, the governor general has to choose between allowing a coalition (if that is indeed what the other parties want) or hold another election. Public opinion does not hold sway in these matters. Our current majority government (now branded The Harper Government) was elected with ~24% of eligible voters (40% of those who actually showed up to vote). Take a look at some of the Ekos [1] polls, our governing party does not have the majority of Canadian support. There is also no way to do a MP recall campaign at the federal level, some provinces provide this though, such as BC. We very much need electoral reform in Canada. Our senate is too partisan (not to mention, appointed at the whims of the governing party) and first-past-the-post is a broken electoral system. My hopes are for Mixed Member Proportional Representation similar to Germany and New Zealand. [1] http://www.ekospolitics.com/ http://www.ekospolitics.com/
    - platz 12y ago
      Thanks for this summary

panarky 12y ago

Similar to quadratic voting. http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/ http://ericposner.com/quadratic-voting/

tormeh 12y ago
But you can buy votes here and it's designed by economists... The field of economics generally assume wildly improbably things about the distribution of money. Look, there's already too much money in politics, and I'm just going to dismiss any idea that advocates more money in politics. I guess that in lieu of money, you could portion out votes. 1000 votes per person, for example. And then they can be spent in the same way that money is spent in quadratic voting.

BurningFrog 12y ago

So the big parties would split into a few smaller ones. That might not be bad.

vidarh 12y ago
It's basically what you often get in PR systems anyway. New parties form, or split off to fill perceived voids to the left or right of one of the big parties and eat into their voting base. Many countries with PR systems rarely if ever have single party majorities. In Norway the current two party coalition is a minority government that needed a supply agreement with two further parties (technically one of them would be sufficient) to secure a majority. In the recent past we've had coalitions with up to four parties, several of the coalitions being minority governments. Our last single party majority government was in the 60's I think.
hackerboos 12y ago
There are parties within parties already. Only when three-line whips are in place does the entire party toe the line. Think 'Blue dog' democrats.