Hey all. I don't think there's been too much discussion about this kind of thing on Facepunch, but certainly as some US users here have recently become disenfranchised with the plurality voting system in the US and have become interested in alternatives, I thought we could have a chat thread about it. I'm fairly certain most members here understand why we vote and just the basis of modern democracy, so I want to talk about the voting systems we use.
[B]Single member electorates[/B]
A single member electorate is where voters for a certain electorate (such as a local constituency - a region of a state that elects local representatives) can only nominate one person to represent them. This is a pretty standard for most democracies around the world. There are some different ways to how this can be implemented
[B]Plurality voting[/B]
This is the system used in the United States for electing the US Congress. Under this system, winner takes all. Voters are given a single vote for a candidate. It is simple enough, but the problem with this system is that a candidate doesn't need to have >50% support to win. A candidate only needs the highest proportion of votes to win. For example, a candidate can win an election even if only 30% of voters wanted that candidate, as long as all other candidates each received less of the vote.
[B]Instant runoff[/B]
Voters can give preference to candidates instead of choosing a single one, so a voter puts a '1' against their most preferred candidate, a '2' for their second most preferred and so on. When counting the votes, if a candidate does not receive >50% support, the poorest performing candidate is eliminated and the additional preferences of voters for that candidate are redistributed. This is done until a candidate receives >50% of the vote.
This is slightly more expensive to count, but it results in candidates elected that more people can agree with. This system is used in the Australian House of Representatives. Despite contrary belief, instant runoff does not break away from two party rule, which is inevitable in any single member electorate system. Minority parties may still struggle for any representation. A party can win power in government with only 25% of the natonal vote - >50% support in >50% of constituencies, granting that party a majority in government, despite up to 75% of the nation not supporting that party.
[B]Contingent vote[/B]
Like instant runoff, however if no candidate immediately receives >50% of the vote, all but the most popular two candidates are eliminated, and preferences are distributed between those two candidates. This essentially compresses instant runoff to two rounds maximum, reducing the cost of counting the votes.
[B]Multi-member electorates[/B]
To give proportional representation to parties, multi-member electorate systems are used. But not all multi member systems are proportional. [B]Bloc voting[/B] is where voters are given a number of votes hat are equal to the number of seats for the electorate, this can result in land slide victories for powerful parties. [B]Limited voting[/B] is bloc voting where voters are given less votes than there are seats available, but still results in plurality elections. [B]Single non-transferable vote[/B] is where voters are only given one vote - which may discourage voters from electing candidates from minor parties which may not have a chance of winning.
[B]Party list proportional[/B]
Under this system, voters are given one vote towards a single party. The more votes that party gets, the more representation it gets. If a party receives 20% of the vote, it wins roughly 20% of the seats. This is very proportional, but does not allow for local representatives, and in some cases it does not allow the voters to choose the ordering of which party members get seats first.
[B]Single transferable vote[/B]
This is a very complicated system. Voters give preferences to a list of candidates like in instant runoff voting. Candidates need to secure a quota of votes to be elected. If a candidate exceeds the quota of votes needed, the surplus is redistributed to other candidates through preference(n). If no candidate receives enough votes to meet the quota, the poorest performing candidate is eliminated and preferences(n) of that candidate are re-distributed to the remaining candidates. This is done until all the seats are filled, resulting in roughly proportional representation. This system allows for independent candidates. It is used to elect the Australian Senate.
There are several methods of redistributing the surplus votes. The fairest, but most costly to calculate is the Gregory transfer. Say there are three candidates for a two seat electorate. The candidates are White, Blue and Black. White exceeds the quota by 3 votes, so those 3 surplus votes need to be redistributed. Of the total votes for White, 60% of voters put Blue as their second preference and 40% put Black. So 60% of those three votes (1.8 votes) go to Blue and the remaining 1.2 votes go to Black, and White is elected. Of the two remaining candidates, the one with the most support wins the other electorate seat.
[B]Mixed member proportional[/B]
This is much simpler that STV, while allowing for roughly proportional representation as well as local representation. Voters get two votes - one for a [constituency] local representative (usually through plurality voting) and one for their favourite political party (like party list proportional). The proportion of votes a party receives in the party vote determines how many seats they receive. Those seats are filled first by members elected through the constituency vote, if any. Remaining seats are elected via a party list. This system however allows for overhangs (parties receiving constituency seats but not enough of the party vote) and can be subject to abuse (a party operating under one entity for the constituency vote, and another entity for the party vote) to deliberately cause an overhang and skew the vote. New Zealand uses this system to elect their representatives.
I think that's quite enough for now. I didn't really explain too much of these different systems in-depth, but I gladly will if any of you are curious about one of them. I don't study politics at all, it's just a hobby thing for me. I'm going to post my idea for an election system soon once I figure out how to word it,
[editline]8th December 2013[/editline]
If I had a favourite among the systems, it would be mixed member proportional for being relatively simple, allowing for local representation and approximate proportional representation. However it does have its problems. most implementations use plurality voting for local constituencies, the same system used in the US. Two votes might confuse voters, especially as not everyone is savvy with politics. Also, as there are two voting lists, it is subject to abuse as has happened in Italy, where a party operates under one entity for constituency seats, and a similarly named one but different entity for the party vote. Eg, securing 40% of the party vote and filling those seats with party list members, then causing an overhang with winning seats in the constituencies. Skewing the proportionality of the vote.
My proposal is having a single list - for constituent representatives only. The system uses preferential voting, ensuring the constituent representative is one that most voters agree with. However, the highest preferenced party receives the party vote, as generally candidates are members of political parties. Independent candidates can still stand, but the party vote as I said goes to the highest preferences party, so it might go to the party of the candidate that is the second preference. As preferential voting is used, voters are free (and encouraged) to vote for smaller parties without wasting their vote.
This system could prevent the abuse that was seen in Italy, it might have the potential of reducing overhangs occurring (nonetheless they could still occur). It could prevent extremist and single-issue parties (like the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts party) from being elected, as those parties would have to field candidates across a wide range of constituencies to receive enough support and be on enough voting lists. But best of all, it's easy for voters to understand. They just need to preference the candidates. Like in MMP, the seats allocated to a party are first filled by constituent representatives, then party list members (and party list members should be ordered through caucuses held by the parties). I hope this system makes sense,
[QUOTE=onebit;43111254]How about no representatives and laws are voted on over the internet by the whole country? (Voting would have to be mandatory.) Would remove all weaknesses in the political system I think.[/QUOTE]
first thing that comes to mind is how would you defend against the inevitable massive wave of hackers, ddos attacks, protect against things like vote skewing, arresting people for forgetting/refusing to vote over the internet, etc. Also people faking identities or spamming identities to ensure actual, real law change. Sure you could require a huge verification system, with massive personal information required, but then since these things would be such big deals it would attract all sorts of malicious intent from hackers and people wanting to change the law unjustly.
Voting booths and whatnot might be a secure way to do it without any of that; as it is done now, but then you would have to have the entire population going to voting booths daily for the most menial of laws. There is a huge amount of laws that keep modern society running. And, if representatives decide menial laws, then who decides what 'big laws' are? And all of that then requires that the society be completely politically involved, which would require a huge change as of now.
So unless you can come up with a completely secure, completely uncorrupt, completely equal, and completely crowd based political system in which all of society is willing to participate in, I don't think that's anywhere near viable.
[QUOTE=lifehole;43111456]first thing that comes to mind is how would you defend against the inevitable massive wave of hackers, ddos attacks, protect against things like vote skewing, arresting people for forgetting/refusing to vote over the internet, etc. Also people faking identities or spamming identities to ensure actual, real law change. Sure you could require a huge verification system, with massive personal information required, but then since these things would be such big deals it would attract all sorts of malicious intent from hackers and people wanting to change the law unjustly.
Voting booths and whatnot might be a secure way to do it without any of that; as it is done now, but then you would have to have the entire population going to voting booths daily for the most menial of laws. There is a huge amount of laws that keep modern society running. And, if representatives decide menial laws, then who decides what 'big laws' are? And all of that then requires that the society be completely politically involved, which would require a huge change as of now.
So unless you can come up with a completely secure, completely uncorrupt, completely equal, and completely crowd based political system in which all of society is willing to participate in, I don't think that's anywhere near viable.[/QUOTE]
Corruption, vote skewing and inequality in voting already happens - so for all practical concern, so you only have to be better than the current system, though.
I think Random Ballot is the best system. Using the magic of Excel here is 10 runs of what the results of the last general election would have looked like under Random Ballot.
Con-Lab-LD
230-175-155
231-198-135
220-188-164
208-200-149
236-194-138
228-177-157
222-193-163
255-181-136
243-194-143
242-192-146
These results are far more proportional to the actual vote share than FPTP and still keeps a local link.
[QUOTE=onebit;43111254]How about no representatives and laws are voted on over the internet by the whole country? (Voting would have to be mandatory.) Would remove all weaknesses in the political system I think.[/QUOTE]
Making sure everyone is up to date on everything would be a complete mess and a waste of everyone's time. Politician is a full time job, not everyone wants to work with politics every single week. If you'd do that most people would make a completely uninformed vote.
How about a law that impacts everyone's current wellbeing for a longer term tradeoff which is worth it? Most people would vote against it. Every single "socialist" or public service issue would probably be voted against because most people's attitude is "it's not my problem" or "it should be free anyways" or "everyone should pay for it equal".
Of course, that would all depend on people's attitude. But honestly, I don't see it working.
i think direct democracy is a better answer. let people vote on the decisions that affect them. you can get more complicated than that like giving different voters different numbers of votes based on how disproportionately a decision affects them or using consensus forming techniques to make decisions. however, the idea of representation is outdated and not in the spirit of any free country.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43118961]i think direct democracy is a better answer. let people vote on the decisions that affect them. you can get more complicated than that like giving different voters different numbers of votes based on how disproportionately a decision affects them or using consensus forming techniques to make decisions. however, the idea of representation is outdated and not in the spirit of any free country.[/QUOTE]
While I think that would be a great idea on paper, I think putting it into practice would be an absolute nightmare, plus in a representative system of government you have people who (hopefully) dedicate their lives to deciding upon these issues, I'm not sure that ordinary people would do the research required to make an informed decision. Though of course this could also be said about a representative system of government.
[QUOTE=Vollybomb;43119079]While I think that would be a great idea on paper, I think putting it into practice would be an absolute nightmare, plus in a representative system of government you have people who (hopefully) dedicate their lives to deciding upon these issues, I'm not sure that ordinary people would do the research required to make an informed decision. Though of course this could also be said about a representative system of government.[/QUOTE]
who cares? why should some well-informed tyrant make decisions on our behalf?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43119127]who cares? why should some well-informed tyrant make decisions on our behalf?[/QUOTE]
Is that implying that only one person under a democracy makes a decision (simply not true), or can you just never avoid using hyperbole? Representatives are not tyrants, individually they have zero power. As you should know the decision making process is incredibly thorough and designed to ensure separation of powers, such as through separating the legislature, executive and judiciary functions.
When we vote, we choose who we want to make decisions on our behalf. If we don't like their decisions, we vote for someone else. We have someone else make decisions for us because being a politician is a full-time job and not everyone has the time to devote research into political matters, nor do many people actually care about them. Also, if people think that it's bad enough now with certain interests 'buying out' politicians, I wouldn't like to see the media do the same to all of us if the population was the legislature.
[editline]9th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Scrappa;43112027]I think Random Ballot is the best system. Using the magic of Excel here is 10 runs of what the results of the last general election would have looked like under Random Ballot.
Con-Lab-LD
230-175-155
231-198-135
220-188-164
208-200-149
236-194-138
228-177-157
222-193-163
255-181-136
243-194-143
242-192-146
These results are far more proportional to the actual vote share than FPTP and still keeps a local link.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. For the Conservative party, the margin of having as little as 208 seats to as many as 255 seats simply by randomness of selecting a ballot just makes me feel uneasy. Maybe if a system was used where multiple runs were taken and the most median result for distribution of seats to parties used might be okay. But anyways there are alternatives like instant runoff that remove some of the disadvantages of plurality voting, such as the spoiler effect (leading to minority rule) and tactical voting, without creating any further disadvantages.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43119127]who cares? why should some well-informed tyrant make decisions on our behalf?[/QUOTE]
This is the literal political equivalent attitude of a child not wanting to listen to his parents.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43120054]Is that implying that only one person under a democracy makes a decision (simply not true), or can you just never avoid using hyperbole? Representatives are not tyrants, individually they have zero power. As you should know the decision making process is incredibly thorough and designed to ensure separation of powers, such as through separating the legislature, executive and judiciary functions.
When we vote, we choose who we want to make decisions on our behalf. If we don't like their decisions, we vote for someone else. We have someone else make decisions for us because being a politician is a full-time job and not everyone has the time to devote research into political matters, nor do many people actually care about them. Also, if people think that it's bad enough now with certain interests 'buying out' politicians, I wouldn't like to see the media do the same to all of us if the population was the legislature.[/QUOTE]
maybe not many people are informed or care about politics because we have almost no power in politics? people would be interested in learning about decisions if they were an active participant in those decisions.
[QUOTE=barttool;43120142]This is the literal political equivalent attitude of a child not wanting to listen to his parents.[/QUOTE]
that's a good attitude to have.
especially considering that dictators and authoritarian states have used the idea of "government is like a father" to perpetuate oppression.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43120504]
that's a good attitude to have.
especially considering that dictators and authoritarian states have used the idea of[B] "government is like a father" to perpetuate oppression.[/B][/QUOTE]
I feared you'd misunderstand my comment. What I meant to say is pretty much what the guy above said. People elect representatives because nobody has the time / can be arsed with being entirely informed on all the aspects that involve being in a government position. Ideally, the people you choose as a representative would do a better job than you since they actually dedicate their life to study and have knowledge that will be helpful for solving problems a country/community faces. In other words: The people you should choose for office are those that know how to solve the problems you want to solve but don't know how to; and furthermore introduce new ideas and solutions you'd like but you'd never come up with them.
So to better explain my phrase, your attitude is akin to a teenager being stubborn against his parents and not taking advice from them on things like studying/drugs when the parents obviously have learned from experience.
If only China had merely one of the voting systems mentioned by the OP. Die! Autocrats!
[QUOTE=barttool;43120616]I feared you'd misunderstand my comment. What I meant to say is pretty much what the guy above said. People elect representatives because nobody has the time / can be arsed with being entirely informed on all the aspects that involve being in a government position. Ideally, the people you choose as a representative would do a better job than you since they actually dedicate their life to study and have knowledge that will be helpful for solving problems a country/community faces. In other words: The people you should choose for office are those that know how to solve the problems you want to solve but don't know how to; and furthermore introduce new ideas and solutions you'd like but you'd never come up with them.
So to better explain my phrase, your attitude is akin to a teenager being stubborn against his parents and not taking advice from them on things like studying/drugs when the parents obviously have learned from experience.[/QUOTE]
so what sort of issues do you think the average person is too stupid to do on their own behalf?
I've always thought that direct democracy will always lead to some form of representative democracy given a large enough population.
Consider this scenario:
Direct democracy is implemented and John is excited. He finally gets to have a say in everything that affects his life. He does his research on every law that comes up and then votes for it.
One day John lands an exciting new job, and has less free time than he used to. He still wants to participate, but doesn't have enough time to do extremely thorough research.
A new political commentator, named Clark, is rising rapidly in popularity. Clark's job is simple: he researches the laws being proposed and advises his readers on issues and how they should vote on them. John reads some of Clark's detailed analysis, and decides that Clark's view align with his, which allows John to simply read Clark's analysis and vote based on that, rather than doing all the research himself. John ends up agreeing with Clark on everything, and trusts Clark to make informed decisions.
Years go by and John is being rapidly promoted in his company. He has even less time than before, and now instead of reading Clark's analysis, he simply votes the way Clark told him to vote. Millions of other people do this, and Clark suddenly has enormous legislative power.
I'm sure we can all imagine the problems with a legislator having control of a large portion of the voting power of everyone.
In this scenario, Clark has become a politician, the only difference between him and regular politicians is that he is not regulated at all.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43124714]so what sort of issues do you think the average person is too stupid to do on their own behalf?[/QUOTE]
economical policies. Your average person (including myself) understands fucking nothing about economics. I'd much rather have someone who has prepared himself in the field to create policies (given that this person aligns with the majority of the electors interests) than have a bunch of people talk about shit they probably don't understand.
so is with things like urban planning, public services, security, etc...
[QUOTE=barttool;43127200]economical policies. Your average person (including myself) understands fucking nothing about economics. I'd much rather have someone who has prepared himself in the field to create policies (given that this person aligns with the majority of the electors interests) than have a bunch of people talk about shit they probably don't understand.
so is with things like urban planning, public services, security, etc...[/QUOTE]
could you name some specific things? i'm against centralization as well so i don't think "nation-wide" economic planning or security is really applicable in the first place.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43127379]could you name some specific things? i'm against centralization as well so i don't think "nation-wide" economic planning or security is really applicable in the first place.[/QUOTE]
As much as you'd like to see your anarcho-communist dream become reality (which barely anyone else in the world wants to see, which is why it's only ever going to be a dream), the fact is that due to how interconnected today's society is, macroeconomic decision making is absolutely essential to fiscal policy. Microeconomic decisions send ripples throughout the macroeconomy. But the macroeconomy simply isn't the sum of all microeconomics, it is something more and just cannot be ignored.
I believe referendums can in some cases take place, such as with changes to constitutions (which affect our rights, rather than fiscal matters). However, your average person is not going to care, and even if they did care, they are not going to have the time to research different options on fiscal policy matters to come up with an informed opinion on which option to pursue - which is why we have politicians to take away the burden.
You're not completely powerless under representative democracy, if you don't like a decision your representative makes you vote for another one instead.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43128037]
You're not completely powerless under representative democracy, if you don't like a decision your representative makes you vote for another one instead.[/QUOTE]
what if i don't like either representative and want to make decisions regarding my life for myself?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43128106]what if i don't like either representative and want to make decisions regarding my life for myself?[/QUOTE]
Well usually there's more than two candidates. On the ballot for electing my federal member for the House of Reps a few months ago there were eight candidates - everyone from progressives to conservatives, environmentalists, christian democrats, family values campaigners and borderline socialists. And for the Senate there were more than 100 candidates from an even more diverse pool of candidates.
You can make decisions for your life by yourself. I do, I chose this unit to live at, I chose to apply for the job at where Im working, I chose what car I drive and choose to save up my money to get another car. Having the ability to choose on tough fiscal policy matters is not going to give you any more empowerment than those examples above - as you aren't the sole decision maker. But under representative democracy you still have that same power as under direct democracy, except you're telling someone roughly what you want and they'll take your beliefs to the legislature.
so how does that work for lawmaking? what if my little town decides that maybe we should legalize marijuana? why can't we make that decision directly on our behalf instead of petitioning the legislature?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43128418]so how does that work for lawmaking? what if my little town decides that maybe we should legalize marijuana? why can't we make that decision directly on our behalf instead of petitioning the legislature?[/QUOTE]
Well generally issues like that aren't exclusive to single towns, if your town wants it legalised I'm pretty sure that there's going to be plenty of support in other towns. There is of course a middle ground on the issue - the nation being a federal state, so that the states of the nation have their own legislatures.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43128558]Well generally issues like that aren't exclusive to single towns, if your town wants it legalised I'm pretty sure that there's going to be plenty of support in other towns. There is of course a middle ground on the issue - the nation being a federal state, so that the states of the nation have their own legislatures.[/QUOTE]
but it isn't my business if another town wants marijuana legalized. mine does.
Ok, fine. But who signs the bill into law? You have your legislative, but you haven't mentioned an executive yet.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43129009]Ok, fine. But who signs the bill into law? You have your legislative, but you haven't mentioned an executive yet.[/QUOTE]
there is no need for an executive in such a decentralized structure.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43129059]there is no need for an executive in such a decentralized structure.[/QUOTE]
Yes there is. Separation of powers. Combining the two functions creates a society that is much more tyrannical than any western democracy today. Guess what happens when all three functions (legislative, executive and judiciary) are combined? I'd argue something that could be considered despotism.
If in your town, which is composed of two racial demographics (a majority being of one demographic), what is to stop the majority demographic from implementing a law that discriminates and disadvantages the minority demographic? Yes, the law could still be passed if the legislative and executive were separated (given that the executive agreed with the legislative), but separating the functions provides at least one additional check against tyranny.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43129255]Yes there is. Separation of powers. Combining the two functions creates a society that is much more tyrannical than any western democracy today. Guess what happens when all three functions (legislative, executive and judiciary) are combined? I'd argue something that could be considered despotism.
If in your town, which is composed of two racial demographics (a majority being of one demographic), what is to stop the majority demographic from implementing a law that discriminates and disadvantages the minority demographic? Yes, the law could still be passed if the legislative and executive were separated (given that the executive agreed with the legislative), but separating the functions provides at least one additional check against tyranny.[/QUOTE]
provide a different check that doesn't require an executive. you could use a "people's court" or some form of proportional voting that ensures minority rights are followed.
[editline]10th December 2013[/editline]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics#Council_Courts[/url]
Fair enough. What is your opinion on the nested councils?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43129991]Fair enough. What is your opinion on the nested councils?[/QUOTE]
they are preferable to modern parliamentary or republican models since they use delegation instead of representation. i am an anarchist so i don't find participism the preferable model, but if we have to have a libertarian state then i think a participatory model is preferable to a republican model.
Wall of text, I'm surprised noone posted CGPGrey's video on types of voting process.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
