Proportional Representation

[Northwest Slobovia]

My question to NSG is this: Do you like proportional representation, and if so which form? If not, what form of elections do you like?

Single-transferable vote systems are the least offensive, since they're essentially at-large votes with a fancy ranking scheme. Any party-list system gives too much power to party bosses, and it's not like we (US) don't already have enough problems with corruption and machine politics.

I like systems with districts, because then I know which bastard represents me, and thus who in principle gives a damn about my interests. So, I'm not entirely opposed to a system which halves the number of Congressional districts and elects two bastards via single-transferable vote. As I understand current US politics (about a third each Democrat, Republican, and independent/unaffiliated/minor party), such a system should weaken both big parties' extremes (except in districts where in fact a plurality of voters do want such a person) and benefit more moderate members of the big parties and candidates from small parties. So, the results ought to look more like what Americans appear to want.

[Good Old Money]

My question to NSG is this: Do you like proportional representation, and if so which form? If not, what form of elections do you like?

Single-transferable vote systems are the least offensive, since they're essentially at-large votes with a fancy ranking scheme. Any party-list system gives too much power to party bosses, and it's not like we (US) don't already have enough problems with corruption and machine politics.

I like systems with districts, because then I know which bastard represents me, and thus who in principle gives a damn about my interests. So, I'm not entirely opposed to a system which halves the number of Congressional districts and elects two bastards via single-transferable vote. As I understand current US politics (about a third each Democrat, Republican, and independent/unaffiliated/minor party), such a system should weaken both big parties' extremes (except in districts where in fact a plurality of voters do want such a person) and benefit more moderate members of the big parties and candidates from small parties. So, the results ought to look more like what Americans appear to want.

I think this situation might work, but I think there would be a problem if a 55% conservative district was combined into a 60% liberal district. The liberals would probably win both seats, don't you think? Wouldn't the liberals vote for two liberal candidates, and since STV transfers votes, the majority of votes who voted for the Democrat, would vote their second choice as a Democrat.

I think that this would just take away some district's power, if their political majority is less of a majority.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Single-transferable vote systems are the least offensive, since they're essentially at-large votes with a fancy ranking scheme. Any party-list system gives too much power to party bosses, and it's not like we (US) don't already have enough problems with corruption and machine politics.

I like systems with districts, because then I know which bastard represents me, and thus who in principle gives a damn about my interests. So, I'm not entirely opposed to a system which halves the number of Congressional districts and elects two bastards via single-transferable vote. As I understand current US politics (about a third each Democrat, Republican, and independent/unaffiliated/minor party), such a system should weaken both big parties' extremes (except in districts where in fact a plurality of voters do want such a person) and benefit more moderate members of the big parties and candidates from small parties. So, the results ought to look more like what Americans appear to want.

I think this situation might work, but I think there would be a problem if a 55% conservative district was combined into a 60% liberal district. The liberals would probably win both seats, don't you think?

No. Given those facts, the combined district would be 27.5% conservative, 30% liberal, and 42.5% unknown, assuming the original districts had approximately equal populations. Without more information about that 42.5%, I can't say who might win how many seats.

[Good Old Money]

In the conservative district, I meant 45% would vote liberal and in the 60% liberal district, the other 40% would vote conservative. Maybe a few percentage points here or there, but I think in the US, most, even if they are independent, would vote conservative or liberal.

With these numbers, wouldn't my scenario work out?

I think this situation might work, but I think there would be a problem if a 55% conservative district was combined into a 60% liberal district. The liberals would probably win both seats, don't you think?

No. Given those facts, the combined district would be 27.5% conservative, 30% liberal, and 42.5% unknown, assuming the original districts had approximately equal populations. Without more information about that 42.5%, I can't say who might win how many seats.

Well, I assumed that the rest of the constituencies I didn't talk about were the opposite ideology. I wasn't referring to party membership but ideological opinions. I believe that in this circumstance, the liberals would win both seats.

[Quelesh]

The current strength of the Republican and Democratic parties is the main reason why I support instant runoff voting. A lot of people don't vote for third party candidates not because they don't agree with the candidates' positions but because they're afraid that their vote will be "wasted." People know that only the Republican and Democratic candidates have any realistic chance of winning an election, so they vote for the lesser of two evils instead of the candidate they genuinely prefer.

Remember how a lot of Democrats were angry at Ralph Nader in 2000, saying that he helped Bush win by drawing votes away from Gore? That wouldn't happen with instant runoff. Nader would have gotten a significantly higher percentage of the votes than he actually got in 2000 because he'd get the votes of a lot of people who would have voted for him in 2000 were it not for the "wasted vote" / helping Bush win effect. Most Nader voters would have had Gore as their second choice, so most of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore anyway in states where Nader is eliminated due to no one getting a majority in the first round.

I think we would see third party support (in the form of vote totals) increase significantly. Not overly dramatically, not overnight, but they'd start getting more votes, and we'd probably have at least a handful of Green and/or Libertarian Party members in Congress (maybe Socialist Party USA in a couple districts). Instant runoff voting would help create viable third parties, in my opinion.

I see your point, because this system would in a way, do away with wasted votes.

And I think it is time for some third parties to spring up. I think the most noticeable changes would be in state legislatures and such.

I agree. There would be a lot more ideological diversity in state-level and local-level politics, which would do a world of good.

[Ipsenia]

Proportional representation is a form of electing officials in which the seats are allocated proportionally based on the percentage of votes received. This is proportional representation in its simplest form. To accomplish this, different methods are used.

For these methods and some other basic info, check out this link.

My question to NSG is this: Do you like proportional representation, and if so which form? If not, what form of elections do you like?

In my opinion, proportional representation lets a very small minority rule, and does not actually represent the country's best interests, because 15 or 20% of a nation, who might be radical, can ruin the other 80%, especially when the winning party only gets 40% of the vote and must form a coalition. Also, it encourages parties and dogma over individual candidates. I prefer constituencies, like in the US, which gives voters a greater choice.

If I had to have PR though, I would definitely want open-list, which means voters can pick which candidates represent each party in that nation's Parliament.

My IRL nation (Indonesia) always prefers PR, due to diverse nature of the nation (diverse culture, diverse religion, diverse ideologies, etc.). All these diversities are best served with PR. If FPTP (plurality/majority) system is used, parties will most likely ignore the diverse reality of their constituent, since winner takes all the votes, no matter how big the winning candidate's vote is. Even in UK where FPTP is used, there are more and more people demanding of changing to PR, alongside with House of Lords abolishment (or replacement).

[The Blaatschapen]

Don't gravedig.