'List' voting: a proposal

[afleitch]

Yes it's European but bear with me

If there are for example 4 positions to be filled, each party nominates 4 people to fill that position, or 4 people come forward from that party wishing to be candidates with the most experienced/preferred candidates/leader etc at the top, then the next best second and so on (or they can be in a random order if you wish to be fairer. How a party orders candidates is up to them). If the party took 100% of the vote, they would take all 4 seats

So for example;

BLUE PARTY  RED PARTY  YELLOW PARTY

Matthew       Paul           Crosby
Mark             John            Stills
Luke             George       Nash
John             Ringo          Young

Voters vote for a party of their choice.

Result: Blue Party 52%
            Red Party  32%
            Yellow Party 16% 

52% of 4 is 2.08 seats theoretically
32% of 4 is 1.28 seats theoretically
16% of 4 is 0.64 seats theoretically

The Blue Party takes 2 seats and the Red Party take 1
So Matthew and Mark are elected as they are the top two names on the Blue Party list and Paul is elected for the Red Party as he is their first name.

NOW...There is one seat left, but the Yellow Party only had enough votes for 0.64 seats, ie not a full seat.

You can either give them the seat by default (as 0.64 is closer to 1 than zero. If they had got 0.49 seats they wouldn't be entitled to any at all as that is closer to zero than 1) This is a simpler idea that the alternatives.

Or you can use maths and the D'hondt system, but youll have to get back to me on that!

[bgwah]

But don't all the races only have one winner?? Unless you made the senate seats nationwide...?

[afleitch]

But don't all the races only have one winner?? Unless you made the senate seats nationwide...?

I believe that nationwide or regional voting would be fairer, consider the smallish number of candidates and voters (compared to the real USA) that Atlasia has.

[Joe Republic]

Please allow the Voting Reform Commission a chance to continue their research.  If they don't already intend to consider your proposal, you can recommend that they do by saying so in this thread.

[afleitch]

Please allow the Voting Reform Commission a chance to continue their research.  If they don't already intend to consider your proposal, you can recommend that they do by saying so in this thread.

Thanks!

[KEmperor]

No, listen, all these voting systems being proposed have one major flaw:

They are too complicated.

It is quite clear that the problem we are having is that the current system we use is too damn complicated for everyone to easily count.  This is why we end up with people declaring different people winners.  If there is to be any reform, it needs to be so simple that a member can sit down with a pen and paper and simply tally the votes in a matter of a few minutes.

[Joe Republic]

No, listen, all these voting systems being proposed have one major flaw:

They are too complicated.

It is quite clear that the problem we are having is that the current system we use is too damn complicated for everyone to easily count.  This is why we end up with people declaring different people winners.  If there is to be any reform, it needs to be so simple that a member can sit down with a pen and paper and simply tally the votes in a matter of a few minutes.

I couldn't agree more.  I'm more than happy to see what the Voting Reform Commission concludes, but I plan to fight any attempts to introduce systems that are too complicated.

[afleitch]

The list system is fairly simple. It is proportional, you know who you are voting for and the results can be done fairly simply on Excel.

[minionofmidas]

Right now any member can sit down with a pencil and paper and tally the votes  in about 45-60 minutes. Not counting time to check whether all these voters actually are registered and are voting in the right district and stuff, o/c.
With about a hundred votes, you can't really hope to cut this by much more than half, even if you go by silly unfair unamended fptp.
Straight list voting, such as proposed by afleitch, would take exactly as long to count as fptp - you count the same thing - plus half a minute to figure out seat distribution.

[Peter]

List voting is only really applicable for legislative elections.

Presently our Constitution mandates one person District/Region seats, so accomodating a change like this would require some serious tinkering with the Constitutional structure.

That aside, one of the few things that isn't broken in our electoral system is the Senate electoral system: Because the number of candidates rarely exceeds three, and for the most part is two, most Senate races will essentially reduce to FPTP or FPTP with runoff anyway. I've never known a Senate race to be affected by the tactical voting we see in the Presidential contest, and thats because with so few candidates, its either impossible or practically impossible.

Also our Senate elections seem very much to gravitate away from parties and towards individuals, with voters often crossing ideological lines on the grounds that one candidate is more "active" or more "competent". A list system damages that at a stroke.

[Sam Spade]

List voting is only really applicable for legislative elections.

Presently our Constitution mandates one person District/Region seats, so accomodating a change like this would require some serious tinkering with the Constitutional structure.

That aside, one of the few things that isn't broken in our electoral system is the Senate electoral system: Because the number of candidates rarely exceeds three, and for the most part is two, most Senate races will essentially reduce to FPTP or FPTP with runoff anyway. I've never known a Senate race to be affected by the tactical voting we see in the Presidential contest, and thats because with so few candidates, its either impossible or practically impossible.

Also our Senate elections seem very much to gravitate away from parties and towards individuals, with voters often crossing ideological lines on the grounds that one candidate is more "active" or more "competent". A list system damages that at a stroke.

What Peter said.

[minionofmidas]

I do remember some Senate races with four candidates in them, and they got fairly messy. Not in the last couple months, though.
The Senate system is actually quite broken. It's really hard to find serious candidates willing to run. Many Senate races are de facto uncontested (ie, the only opposition is a joke - and yeah, jokes have won once or twice.) One of the reasons why I've been long proposing proportional representation is to get more people to stand for the Senate.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I do remember some Senate races with four candidates in them, and they got fairly messy. Not in the last couple months, though.
The Senate system is actually quite broken. It's really hard to find serious candidates willing to run. Many Senate races are de facto uncontested (ie, the only opposition is a joke - and yeah, jokes have won once or twice.) One of the reasons why I've been long proposing proportional representation is to get more people to stand for the Senate.

I'd obviously like to see an overhaul of our districts.  If our districts aren't going to be all that different from our regions, why have them in the first place?  At the moment, I have no Senate representation whatsoever.  Anyone want to be my honorary Senator?

[Q]

I'd obviously like to see an overhaul of our districts.  If our districts aren't going to be all that different from our regions, why have them in the first place?

I agree completely about the districts.  As they are, only a few states are in "different" regions and districts, and so their representation is largely reduced.  See Virginia as an example.

At the moment, I have no Senate representation whatsoever.  Anyone want to be my honorary Senator?

Since you are registered in Tennessee, you have two Senators representing you: I am your regional Senator, and Ebowed is your district Senator.  I'm not really sure what you're implying here.

[Sam Spade]

I'd obviously like to see an overhaul of our districts.  If our districts aren't going to be all that different from our regions, why have them in the first place?

I agree completely about the districts.  As they are, only a few states are in "different" regions and districts, and so their representation is largely reduced.  See Virginia as an example.

At the moment, I have no Senate representation whatsoever.  Anyone want to be my honorary Senator?

Since you are registered in Tennessee, you have two Senators representing you: I am your regional Senator, and Ebowed is your district Senator.  I'm not really sure what you're implying here.

I guess htmldon must not consider yall representation for him.  (just guessing)

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Since you are registered in Tennessee, you have two Senators representing you: I am your regional Senator, and Ebowed is your district Senator.  I'm not really sure what you're implying here.

I was actually not referring to you, but to the newly elected Senator who wants to, and I quote, "drag (me) behind a pickup truck".  Senator Ebowed has said that he will make it his personal mission to ensure that I never get elected to anything ever again.  So no, I really don't have representation.

[Gabu]

I was actually not referring to you, but to the newly elected Senator who wants to, and I quote, "drag (me) behind a pickup truck".  Senator Ebowed has said that he will make it his personal mission to ensure that I never get elected to anything ever again.  So no, I really don't have representation.

I don't really know if there's anything that can be done about that, because in any government at all there will always be those unhappy with those in power, and if those in power are replaced with others who make the unhappy happy, then there will inevitably be people who are made newly unhappy by these new politicians.  The only way to make everyone happy with his or her representation is to have there be one representative per person, which obviously wouldn't work too well.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I was actually not referring to you, but to the newly elected Senator who wants to, and I quote, "drag (me) behind a pickup truck".  Senator Ebowed has said that he will make it his personal mission to ensure that I never get elected to anything ever again.  So no, I really don't have representation.

I don't really know if there's anything that can be done about that, because in any government at all there will always be those unhappy with those in power, and if those in power are replaced with others who make the unhappy happy, then there will inevitably be people who are made newly unhappy by these new politicians.  The only way to make everyone happy with his or her representation is to have there be one representative per person, which obviously wouldn't work too well.

There is a difference between making someone "unhappy", and outright being insulting.  There is a difference between disagreement among mainstream political viewpoints, and dispute with extremists over basic human rights.

[Brandon H]

I do remember some Senate races with four candidates in them, and they got fairly messy. Not in the last couple months, though.
The Senate system is actually quite broken. It's really hard to find serious candidates willing to run. Many Senate races are de facto uncontested (ie, the only opposition is a joke - and yeah, jokes have won once or twice.) One of the reasons why I've been long proposing proportional representation is to get more people to stand for the Senate.

I'd obviously like to see an overhaul of our districts.  If our districts aren't going to be all that different from our regions, why have them in the first place?  At the moment, I have no Senate representation whatsoever.  Anyone want to be my honorary Senator?

I think it would be nice to re do the regions maybe every year or every two years. The districts aren't perfect, but I think given Atlasia's population and such, it's the best it's going to get. The only other idea I have is if we had a 10 district house and 5 region senate but I think we need more people for that. Having a bicarmel legislature would also make it harder for congress to have the votes to easily overide a presidential veto and would thus give more power to the president.

Proportional Representation (though going by party numbers vs. actual votes for party members found here: http://store.goldenagecartoons.com/network/voterrolls/sheet001.htm)

ACA - 14 - 11.29%
SDP - 8 - 6.45%
CDP - 10 - 8.06%
CUP - 23 - 18.55%
ILP - 21 - 16.94%
Loony - 4 - 3.23%
Other / I - 44 - 35.48%
Total - 124

Maybe I will look over the results and see how percentages went with actual candidates.

[Brandon H]

Taken percentages based on the party vote on first preferences from the Senate elections:

CUP - 26 - 34.67%
ACA - 24 - 32%
Lny -  4 - 5.33%
SDP -  6 - 8%
CDP -  6 - 8%
URP -  6 - 8%
ILP -  1 - 1.33%
I   -  2 - 2.67%

Total - 75 Votes.

[minionofmidas]

On these figures, D'Hondt would have led to the election of 3 CUP and 2 ACA members! With Hare/Niemeyer, we'd have 2 CUP, 2 ACA, and an unbreakable tie between SDP, CDP and URP. (URP?)
But I doubt your figures are correct...Hughento got 9 votes in the Pacific and is an independent.

[Brandon H]

On these figures, D'Hondt would have led to the election of 3 CUP and 2 ACA members! With Hare/Niemeyer, we'd have 2 CUP, 2 ACA, and an unbreakable tie between SDP, CDP and URP. (URP?)
But I doubt your figures are correct...Hughento got 9 votes in the Pacific and is an independent.

I was writing things in notepad and using calc, so there is a good chance I got something wrong. I will try again sometime.

[Bono]

I was actually not referring to you, but to the newly elected Senator who wants to, and I quote, "drag (me) behind a pickup truck".  Senator Ebowed has said that he will make it his personal mission to ensure that I never get elected to anything ever again.  So no, I really don't have representation.

I don't really know if there's anything that can be done about that, because in any government at all there will always be those unhappy with those in power, and if those in power are replaced with others who make the unhappy happy, then there will inevitably be people who are made newly unhappy by these new politicians.  The only way to make everyone happy with his or her representation is to have there be one representative per person, which obviously wouldn't work too well.

There is a difference between making someone "unhappy", and outright being insulting.  There is a difference between disagreement among mainstream political viewpoints, and dispute with extremists over basic human rights.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
A few centuries ago, equality before the law was a totally extremist, out of mainstream view.

[Jake]

I was actually not referring to you, but to the newly elected Senator who wants to, and I quote, "drag (me) behind a pickup truck".  Senator Ebowed has said that he will make it his personal mission to ensure that I never get elected to anything ever again.  So no, I really don't have representation.

Move then. I would rather not have to listen to your whining  or act like I care what you say for four months.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I was actually not referring to you, but to the newly elected Senator who wants to, and I quote, "drag (me) behind a pickup truck".  Senator Ebowed has said that he will make it his personal mission to ensure that I never get elected to anything ever again.  So no, I really don't have representation.

Move then. I would rather not have to listen to your whining  or act like I care what you say for four months.

Pardon me, carpetbagger, I live here and I'm not going anywhere.  You don't.