DRMacIver

15 ms·

121.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
> Not only would this rob the legislature of experience, I'm not sure it does, or at least not drastically: It robs the legislature of individual experience, but on average there's no reason you'd expect each politician to be in for the
122.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
You know, this is a much better way of doing it. I feel like for a complete idiot for not spotting that up front.
123.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
> It seems we've argued over different things. That happens with annoying regularity. I have a system for dealing with that too, but that's a different blog post. ;-) > I picked up the "perfect" from the headline and came up with a
124.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
The proposal someone provided on my blog was that you should require X signatures for a nomination. e.g. if you have a constituency with 10,000 people and you want 10ish candidates require 1000 signatures for nomination.
125.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
It's worth noting that this solution utterly blows the safe seats problem out of the water. This is probably my favourite feature of it.
126.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
I sketched a process for how this could work in a blog comment: http://www.drmaciver.com/2011/04/a-perfect-voting-system/com...
127.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
I agree completely, but you've not argued convincingly for this one being a more broken system. The current one is guaranteed unfair, this one is expected-fair even if the unfairness may be geographically concentrated.
128.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
How do those who currently get 40% of the vote and 10% of the seats feel? I'm guessing pretty cheated.
129.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
> I'm slightly confused about voting multiple people for a larger area. Is this PR, or something else good? It may or may not be PR. It depends on how you elect those multiple people: They may be elected under a PR system, or they may b
130.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
Yes. Agreed. I suspect it would be ridiculously hard to get this through (witness how much trouble we're having with IMO the far less controversial AV), 'though with the right framing and a sufficiently disgruntled populace I could see it h
131.
by DRMacIver 15y ago
I don't think it's that hard to understand. Certainly as a voter it's very easy to understand what it is you should do - easier than under FPTP where you are forced to think tactically. The consequences are slightly hard to think through if
132.
by DRMacIver 16y ago
I actually stand by most of the positive things I said in the article back then. It's really about the core philosophical design of Scala, which hasn't changed much over times.