I support either mixed proportional representation or proportional representation in a umtlicameral legislature. The proportional aspect gives minority voters in a territory more of a voice, while the localized districts gives voters who live in sparsely populated regions (rural areas for example) a voice and does not make them essentially serfs to more populated regions (coasts and especially urban areas for example).
Wikipedia on Mixed Member Proportional Representation
So it seems that Mixed Member Proportional representation (with the Macanese "d'Hondt method", which "greatly favors small parties") or Dual Member Proportional are the best options.
I do lean towards an open list, because I feel that it gives smart people the most power in politics and are not limited to being members of some political party.
I lean against closed party lists and closed primaries because it limits the power of smart individuals to influence who gets to represent them. Let me elaborate.
What if I vote for the Republican party. What if I am a Jeffersonian who wants Ron Paul, Thomas Massie, and Thomas Sowell, not an Evangelical Neoconservative who wants John McCain, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee.
What if I vote for the Democratic party. What if I prefer, say, Tulsi Gabbard, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich, and not, say Hillary Clinton, Joe Liberman, or Bernie Sanders.
What if I vote for the Libertarian party. What if I want, say, Tom Woods, Ryan Dawson, and Robert Nozick, not Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, or Vermin Supreme.
Do you see where I am going here?
As Ryan Dawson once said in his video "The problem with voting is dumb people", "the intelligent are always a minority to the stupid/politically ignorant."
Though this is likely because of the USA's First-past-the-post voting system, which creates two large "big tent" parties.
Anyways, I am looking at proportional non-majoritarian party-agnostic multi-winner methods:
Wikipedia on Mixed Member Proportional Representation
So it seems that Mixed Member Proportional representation (with the Macanese "d'Hondt method", which "greatly favors small parties") or Dual Member Proportional are the best options.
I do lean towards an open list, because I feel that it gives smart people the most power in politics and are not limited to being members of some political party.
I lean against closed party lists and closed primaries because it limits the power of smart individuals to influence who gets to represent them. Let me elaborate.
What if I vote for the Republican party. What if I am a Jeffersonian who wants Ron Paul, Thomas Massie, and Thomas Sowell, not an Evangelical Neoconservative who wants John McCain, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee.
What if I vote for the Democratic party. What if I prefer, say, Tulsi Gabbard, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich, and not, say Hillary Clinton, Joe Liberman, or Bernie Sanders.
What if I vote for the Libertarian party. What if I want, say, Tom Woods, Ryan Dawson, and Robert Nozick, not Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, or Vermin Supreme.
Do you see where I am going here?
As Ryan Dawson once said in his video "The problem with voting is dumb people", "the intelligent are always a minority to the stupid/politically ignorant."
Though this is likely because of the USA's First-past-the-post voting system, which creates two large "big tent" parties.
Anyways, I am looking at proportional non-majoritarian party-agnostic multi-winner methods:
Universally liked candidates?: Yes.
Warren's Multi-Winner Participation Criterion?: No.
Monotone?: Yes.
Consistency?: No.
No favorite betrayal?: No.
Semi honest?: No.
Universally liked candidates?: No.
Warren's Multi-Winner Participation Criterion?: Yes.
Monotone?: Yes.
Consistency?: Possible/unknown.
No favorite betrayal?: No.
Semi honest?: No.
Universally liked candidates?: Possible/unknown.
Warren's Multi-Winner Participation Criterion?: Yes.
Monotone?: Depends on tiebreaker used.
Consistency?: Possible/unknown.
No favorite betrayal?: No.
Semi honest?: No.
Universally liked candidates?: Yes.
Warren's Multi-Winner Participation Criterion?: Possible/unknown.
Monotone?: No.
Consistency?: Possible/unknown.
No favorite betrayal?: Possible/unknown.
Semi honest?: Possible/unknown.
Universally liked candidates?: Yes.
Warren's Multi-Winner Participation Criterion?: Possible/unknown.
Monotone?: Possible/unknown.
Consistency?: Possible/unknown.
No favorite betrayal?: No.
Semi honest?: No.
All of them fail "no favorite betrayal" and "semi honest" criteria, with the exception of Bid voting, which is Possible/unknown for both and everything else except for Universally liked candidates.
So Schulze STV is safest if you value Universally liked candidates, Psi/Harmonic is safest if you value Warren's Multi-Winner Participation Criterion, while Monroe's and Bid voting are wildcards, especially the latter.
So my first option would be Schulze Single Transferable Vote, followed by Psi/Harmonic.
But that's not all of the options.
has more options.
By process of elimination, by eliminating the previously mentioned Monroe's and predecessors to modified systems (such as Single Transferable Vote, which is not monotone, Sequential Proportional Approval and Reweighted Range, both of which fail Warren's Multi-Winner Participation Criterion, and Sequentially Spent Score, which has worse free-riding than Sequentially Shrinking Quota), and narrowing down to score voting methods (also called cardinal, evaluative, rated, graded, or range).
There's also Sequential Phragmen, which has "perfect representation". And there's Proportional STAR voting, but as far as I know, it's a partisan system.
Unlike the other systems of voting that was previously listed, I do not know which criteria these systems succeed or fail in.
Some alternate systems that are honorable mentions but I'm not considering, with one exception, would be PAL representation, PLACE voting, and PAD voting.
PLACE voting is only semi-proportional if there are more than two parties, and both PLACE and PAL incentiveise forming coalition governments (which I oppose for my system, though others have opposite leanings).
I'd only support PAD voting for small towns (like for a Board of selectmen like in New Hampshire to oversee the day-to-day operations of the government) or specific government agencies (like a police board, for example).
There's also Reddit user's unusual_sneeuw's system.
For single-winner elections, there is score/range, STAR, and Borda count.
More articles and Quora answers:
Maybe the Federal Government could adopt one system, ie, and state/local governments will adopt their own systems. Maybe MMP, DMP, and party-list proportional representation.
I have my own system, called "Threshold Voting". It's a voting system for legislatures, in which anyone with 10,000 signatures or more can become a legislator. It may work for a minarchist system.
So what do you think? Please comment below.
No comments:
Post a Comment