What would be your perfect voting system?

[Euroslavia]

This would be mine.

1. The house of reps gets turned into a parliament of 1000 members.
2. The president gets elected by parlament
3. The Senate only has the power to approve appointments

The way voting for parliament would work is each party would be registered as long as they have enough members to fill the full parliament 1000 members.
Then each state would get a proportional number of seats in the parliament ex. CA would get 120 or 12% for having 12% of the population.

The elections would be 2 months long. month 1 would be primaried. All the candidates in each state for each party would be on a ballot. The registered party members or independents who decide to vote in that party would rank their choices from 1- however many reps they have from their state.

The people who rank the highest would be on the ballot under that party. ex. The top 120 candidates for the Dem party in CA would make the general ballot. The person with the most rank 1 votes would be the parties nominee for president.

General elections would work by each person voting for 1 party. Each party would get to have members in parliament based on % of the vote. if the Dem party got lets say 40% in CA the top 48 highest ranked would get into the parliament under the dem party

The vote for president. The leaders of every party would stand before parliament. The parliament would 1st vote who they want to be president. If 1 person gets more then 50% they win. If they don't then the top 2 go for a revote and the winner is chosen.

[Fartsniffage]

My perfect voting system would be one man, one vote. And I would be the man.

[Kenmoria]

Democratic semi-technocracy is my preferred system. Every person with an IQ over 80 votes for an elected MP in their local area. The party with the most votes has their candidate made Prime Minister.

[Community Values]

I would agree, but make it a semi-presidential system, like Russia or Turkey, except the PM has a bit more power.
Multi-member districts with the threshold to get a seat being 2.5%
FPTP for the president.

[Greed and Death]

The one where my side wins.

[Thermodolia]

I would agree, but make it a semi-presidential system, like Russia or Turkey, except the PM has a bit more power.
Multi-member districts with the threshold to get a seat being 2.5%
FPTP for the president.

So France?

[Purpelia]

My perfect voting system would be one man, one vote. And I would be the man.

Here is a better one.

One man, one vote. And that man would be extremely intelligent and slavishly loyal to me and my interests.
That way I get the perks of being the dictator without the actual work.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't support democracy or voting on the basis that voting makes a person, even if only in a small amount, partly responsible for the evils of governance.

[Thermodolia]

That’s a horribly convoluted system.

Anyway, in my dream world the US would be a federal semi-presidential republic.

The house would have 500 seats and be elected by single district PR. Meaning that the entire US would be one district and the percentage that each party gets would correspond to how many seats they get in the house. So if the democrats got 48% of the vote they would get 240 seats. All parties would have to make at least 2% to sit in the house. The representative would serve for 3 year terms.

The senate would remain pretty much the same with each state sending two senators, except that they would be voted in by IRV. Senators would serve for 6 years in 2 alternating classes

The president would be voted in by a two round FPTP system. If a candidate got 51% of the vote in the first round then they are automatically president. If no candidate got 51% then the top two candidates would advance to the second round and most votes wins. The president would serve for one 6 year term.

The prime minister would be appointed by the president and approved by the house but only the house could remove the prime minister. If the prime minister and the president are of different parties then the president would be in charge of foreign affairs and defense and security of the nation while the prime minister is in charge of domestic and economic issues. In addition the prime minister must be a member of the House

[Purpelia]

Well if we have to do democracies I think I'd go for a system with the bare minimum complications. In other words:

Assembly composition:
- The assembly has a maximum of 100 seats in it. And I say 100 seats and NOT 100 people. This will be important later.

- Each party has their percentage of votes rounded down and that's how many seats they get. So say 43.52% of the vote means 43 seats.
- No official "forming of government" process. Each party just gets the number of seats they won. End of story.
- No coalitions allowed. You get the seats you get.
- If the total number of seats after rounding do not end up at 100 (as will inevitably happen) that's fine. The extra seats stay empty.

- When it comes to actually sitting in the assembly each party only gets to have 1 representative. Just 1. And that representative has 1 vote that counts as heavily as the number of seats that party holds. So our 43.52% party has 1 representative whose vote counts as 43 votes.

This ensures that people vote for parties and not individuals and that the party line is always upheld. Policy discussions should happen in the parties internally before the party chooses their view. Than debated between party representatives.

- If the 1 party representative is seen voting against the party line repeatedly the president can order him replaced because he is failing his duty to obey his party.

- No special case representation, mandatory access to minorities, minimum requirement for entry or anything like that. If you can get 1% of people to vote for your Cthulhu nazi child rape party than the Cthulhu nazi child rape party gets one seat. No questions asked. And if you can't than you can't. Again, screw you no questions asked.

Head of state/Government:
- The prime minister and president are the same person and get elected directly by the people in separate elections. His job is primarily to be the moderator of the assembly and figurehead. No special unique leader powers like veto or anything. The only real unique thing is that he should be able to order a political party that they replace their representative if the current one is disruptive or votes against their party line repeatedly or something.

Parties and Voting:
- Voting is compulsory and punishable by forever losing your right to vote. If you don't use it you lose it.

- Political figures are forbidden to accept any funding for their campaign or party by any source other than the state which assigns an equal budget to every party.
- Parties are accountable for the money they are given and if they misuse them than the leadership goes to jail.
- If a person is a registered member of a party than his vote is automatically cast toward that party, no questions asked. If you don't support them quit.

[Forniphiliac Limbo of Inabilis]

Candidates.

A pit. Walls, spikes, clubs, bones, chains, loincloths.

A single throne. Shouts, bets, ale.

And only one person standing.

Only one crown and one head still standing underneath it.

[San Lumen]

Abolish the electoral college.

Whomever gets the most votes is elected no matter the office would be my perfect system while keeping the current government structure in the US. Perhaps expand the size of the house a bit though

And gerrymandering is illegal and done by a non partisan commission in every state to ensure you dont have situations where one party wins the popular vote but not a majority in the legislature. This has happened three times in a row in Michigan, and in Wisconsin.

[Lalaki]

I like what we have now, but with a handful of changes. The electoral college should be abolished, legislative redistricting should be controlled by a bipartisan commission and/or random algorithm, and we should have an alternative vote system instead of first past the post (meaning that if no candidate gets above 50%, a runoff election would be held between the two top finishers). While we're at that, campaign finance reform is absolutely essential. We've seen it before with the McCain-Feingold Act, and need only a majority on the Supreme Court who would uphold this legislation.

One particular far-reaching step I'd be willing to look at is multi-member districts for the U.S. House of Representatives. I think 435 members isn't enough to embody the interests of 300 million citizens. Some states, and several foreign countries, have it so each district sends multiple delegates to their legislatures. That might be something that we want to consider.

I'm against parliamentary systems on the premise that even if they are more efficient in terms of passing legislation, the people should have the right to elect their chief executive. I am also a fan of checks and balances -- and just about everything else in the Constitution.

[Thermodolia]

Whomever gets the most votes is elected no matter the office would be my perfect system while keeping the current government structure in the US. Perhaps expand the size of the house a bit though

And gerrymandering is illegal and done by a non partisan commission to ensure you dont have situations where one party wins the popular vote but not a majority in the legislature. This has happened three times in a row in Michigan, and in Wisconsin.

Um ya know what would get rid of gerrymandering all together? A proportional representation system like single district PR, STV, or MMP. Why have FPTP and make gerrymandering illegal when you can a voting system where gerrymandering isn’t a feature

[San Lumen]

Whomever gets the most votes is elected no matter the office would be my perfect system while keeping the current government structure in the US. Perhaps expand the size of the house a bit though

And gerrymandering is illegal and done by a non partisan commission to ensure you dont have situations where one party wins the popular vote but not a majority in the legislature. This has happened three times in a row in Michigan, and in Wisconsin.

Um ya know what would get rid of gerrymandering all together? A proportional representation system like single district PR, STV, or MMP. Why have FPTP and make gerrymandering illegal when you can a voting system where gerrymandering isn’t a feature

then you would have situations were no one has a majority. Israel for example has never had a majority government in its history. The entire country is one election district and threshold to enter parliament is so low its nearly impossible for one party to get a majority.

[San Lumen]

I like what we have now, but with a handful of changes. The electoral college should be abolished, legislative redistricting should be controlled by a bipartisan commission and/or random algorithm, and we should have an alternative vote system instead of first past the post (meaning that if no candidate gets above 50%, a runoff election would be held between the two top finishers). While we're at that, campaign finance reform is absolutely essential. We've seen it before with the McCain-Feingold Act, and need only a majority on the Supreme Court who would uphold this legislation.

One particular far-reaching step I'd be willing to look at is multi-member districts for the U.S. House of Representatives. I think 435 members isn't enough to embody the interests of 300 million citizens. Some states, and several foreign countries, have it so each district sends multiple delegates to their legislatures. That might be something that we want to consider.

I'm against parliamentary systems on the premise that even if they are more efficient in terms of passing legislation, the people should have the right to elect their chief executive. I am also a fan of checks and balances -- and just about everything else in the Constitution.

Or perhaps just make the House larger.

[Thermodolia]

I like what we have now, but with a handful of changes. The electoral college should be abolished, legislative redistricting should be controlled by a bipartisan commission and/or random algorithm, and we should have an alternative vote system instead of first past the post (meaning that if no candidate gets above 50%, a runoff election would be held between the two top finishers). While we're at that, campaign finance reform is absolutely essential. We've seen it before with the McCain-Feingold Act, and need only a majority on the Supreme Court who would uphold this legislation.

One particular far-reaching step I'd be willing to look at is multi-member districts for the U.S. House of Representatives. I think 435 members isn't enough to embody the interests of 300 million citizens. Some states, and several foreign countries, have it so each district sends multiple delegates to their legislatures. That might be something that we want to consider.

I'm against parliamentary systems on the premise that even if they are more efficient in terms of passing legislation, the people should have the right to elect their chief executive. I am also a fan of checks and balances -- and just about everything else in the Constitution.

Um parliamentary systems doesn’t mean that. It’s literally just another word for congress. Congress, parliament, and assembly are all talking about the same damn thing.

What you are think over is a Westminster system. Which is not the only system. Look at the French legislature. It has checks and balances while having both a president and a prime minister

[Lalaki]

Whomever gets the most votes is elected no matter the office would be my perfect system while keeping the current government structure in the US. Perhaps expand the size of the house a bit though

And gerrymandering is illegal and done by a non partisan commission to ensure you dont have situations where one party wins the popular vote but not a majority in the legislature. This has happened three times in a row in Michigan, and in Wisconsin.

Um ya know what would get rid of gerrymandering all together? A proportional representation system like single district PR, STV, or MMP. Why have FPTP and make gerrymandering illegal when you can a voting system where gerrymandering isn’t a feature

To my understanding, MMP and STV would still be susceptible to gerrymandering because you still have to draw districts (even if proportion is better taken into account). And I don't think a single district PR system would work for America because there is an advantage to having a representative in government that understands the issues of your area, and whom you could contact on a personal basis. Making politics solely about party isn't the best strategy IMO.

[Lalaki]

I like what we have now, but with a handful of changes. The electoral college should be abolished, legislative redistricting should be controlled by a bipartisan commission and/or random algorithm, and we should have an alternative vote system instead of first past the post (meaning that if no candidate gets above 50%, a runoff election would be held between the two top finishers). While we're at that, campaign finance reform is absolutely essential. We've seen it before with the McCain-Feingold Act, and need only a majority on the Supreme Court who would uphold this legislation.

One particular far-reaching step I'd be willing to look at is multi-member districts for the U.S. House of Representatives. I think 435 members isn't enough to embody the interests of 300 million citizens. Some states, and several foreign countries, have it so each district sends multiple delegates to their legislatures. That might be something that we want to consider.

I'm against parliamentary systems on the premise that even if they are more efficient in terms of passing legislation, the people should have the right to elect their chief executive. I am also a fan of checks and balances -- and just about everything else in the Constitution.

Um parliamentary systems doesn’t mean that. It’s literally just another word for congress. Congress, parliament, and assembly are all talking about the same damn thing.

What you are think over is a Westminster system. Which is not the only system. Look at the French legislature. It has checks and balances while having both a president and a prime minister

I think we have a semantic difference. I've always thought that "Parliamentary democracy" (which is the Westminster system) is where a legislature selects the chief executive, but a semi-presidential democracy (as France is) can term its legislature a parliament without following the above definition.

[Thermodolia]

Um ya know what would get rid of gerrymandering all together? A proportional representation system like single district PR, STV, or MMP. Why have FPTP and make gerrymandering illegal when you can a voting system where gerrymandering isn’t a feature

then you would have situations were no one has a majority. Israel for example has never had a majority government in its history. The entire country is one election district and threshold to enter parliament is so low its nearly impossible for one party to get a majority.

That’s not a bad thing. Coalitions are not a bad thing.

Not having a single party majority is a good thing. That way people can vote for whatever party they want to knowing that their vote matters.

Under my plan you would could have Green, Democrats, Democratic Socialist, Socialist, Centrist, Republicans, Tea Party, Libertarian, Nationalists, and Far left and right parties in the house and all of them could put aside their differences and work together for the benefit of the nation.

Isn’t that a good thing?

[Thermodolia]

Um parliamentary systems doesn’t mean that. It’s literally just another word for congress. Congress, parliament, and assembly are all talking about the same damn thing.

What you are think over is a Westminster system. Which is not the only system. Look at the French legislature. It has checks and balances while having both a president and a prime minister

I think we have a semantic difference. I've always thought that "Parliamentary democracy" (which is the Westminster system) is where a legislature selects the chief executive, but a semi-presidential democracy (as France is) can term its legislature a parliament without following the above definition.

Well yes that is correct but word parliament doesn’t mean parliamentary democracy automatically. Words mean things

[Major-Tom]

In an ideal world, we would retain the Senate as is with some tweaks perhaps, while making the House of Representatives a MMP sorta system with a higher degree of proportionality. Redistricting nationally would be controlled by independent commissions at the state level, and the electoral college would be abolished.

[Thermodolia]

Um ya know what would get rid of gerrymandering all together? A proportional representation system like single district PR, STV, or MMP. Why have FPTP and make gerrymandering illegal when you can a voting system where gerrymandering isn’t a feature

To my understanding, MMP and STV would still be susceptible to gerrymandering because you still have to draw districts (even if proportion is better taken into account). And I don't think a single district PR system would work for America because there is an advantage to having a representative in government that understands the issues of your area, and whom you could contact on a personal basis. Making politics solely about party isn't the best strategy IMO.

Not really. It’s a heck of a lot harder to gerrymander an MMP and STV district than a FPTP. And on your second point that’s why you have a second chamber. Full legislators who are from your area

[Anywhere Else But Here]

My perfect voting system would be one man, one vote. And I would be the man.

Make Ankh-Morpork Great Again!

[Trumptonium]

To be absolutely honest, I'd support whatever is most likely to make my views elected, whether it's votes for children & corporations & AI or if only the land owning class voted.

That said, out of 'principle' (read: utopian, but if I was a dictator, it would probably not happen unless I was feeling nice) I would say a system where there is a unicameral legislature elected through proportional representation sharing power with an executive President who is elected by unequal FPTP with a skew towards smaller and medium sized towns, who, among small vetoing powers and monopoly on foreign policy-setting, would also have the power to call binding referendums on all issues as often as he wants with a 40% vote threshold and perhaps a double-majority requirement. (votes+regions)

All in all, a sort of Chinese system of government with fair elections and Swiss-like referendums.

Nobody has too much power and prevents the legislature from being an elitist powerhouse spearheaded by a select few cities.