|
The superior voting system is This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| First-past-the-post voting |
|
1 | 1.47% |
| Preferential voting (IRV) |
|
67 | 98.53% |
| Total: | 68 votes | ||
|
fantastic in plastic posted:In preferential systems, does anyone ever try something like "We're marking the opposition candidate as #2, vote for our guy as #1 or else!" Well, let's think about this. In order for this to work, you need to know that Billy Bourgeoishater is going to get enough loyal "Billy #1, David Duke #2" ballots for this to be a meaningful threat, but at the same time he also needs to finish low enough on first preferences that his votes are actually going to get redistributed (or it needs to be a big enough threat that he wins 50% in the first round, which is unlikely). Let's say that their natural levels of support are roughly like this: Harry Harmless and Julie Jellyspine 35%, Billy Bourgeoishater 10%, David Duke 15%. Let's now say that Harry and Julie both lose 10% to Billy, because their voters get spooked by this. First round result: David 15%, Harry & Julie 25%, Billy 30%. It's David's 15% that gets re-allocated first. If it splits equally three ways, Harry and Julie go to 30% and Billy to 35%. Now Harry's 30% gets redistributed and splits 20/10 in favour of Julie. Julie wins 50-45. On the other hand, if the vote goes according to natural levels of support, Billy gets knocked out first and his votes are redistributed, but he only got 10% in the first place and that's not enough to push David Duke over the line; one of the very many moving parts Billy needs is a very popular fascist to leverage.
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:This is a weird criticism - the ruling party in Ireland you are referring to tried multiple times to abolish preferential voting and return to FPTP as even though they routinely captured between 45-50% of the vote to maintain power on several occasions they had to make deals with floating independents. Where are you looking at for an MMP chamber with multi-member districts? All the implementations I'm familiar with use single-member districts. (Not that it couldn't be done easily enough...)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Well any implementation that use regionally restricted areas to control the allocation of the top up seats - Wales for example or Germany to a degree since they locked the number of seats assignrf to each Lander pre-vote. The German/Welsh regions absolutely aren't multi-member districts in the same way that Irish STV has multi-member constituencies, because in STV you vote for individuals, but the regional votes are for closed party lists and you can't vote for an individual like you can with STV or an open list.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Multiple of the proposals I've seen have included multimember districts. Seems that FairVote, one of the biggest groups pushing ranked choice, wants it None of those things are MMP, chief. All Maine wants to do is add instant-runoff to its races to force the winners to get 50% of the vote; if you just bolt an instant runoff onto a FPTP system, you still end up with disproportionate results. Vox is advocating specifically for an Irish-style Single Transferable Vote system, which often brings more proportional results than first-past-the-post, but there are also other options out there which produce more proportional results. "Proportional representation" can be achieved either with or without ranked-choice voting and either with or without multi-member electoral districts. By definition you can't have proportional representation when you're electing someone to a single office, it only applies when you're electing representative bodies. A Multi-Member Proportional (or Additional Member) system is one in which you elect a number of members to represent geographic districts, and then balance out the inherent disproportionality of that result by adding extra representatives so that the final makeup of the chamber is proportional to the actual share of the vote. A MMP system doesn't require ranked-choice voting; in Germany you vote first-past-the-post for your constituency representative, and then you vote separately for a party. At the same time, you could also add ranked-choice elements by tweaking the German system so constituency representatives were elected by IRV; or you could swap out the single-member constituencies for multi-member ones. You could also, entirely separately from all of that, add the option to vote for an individual member of a voter's preferred party list. All of those things would be MMP because the end result would be a proportional chamber with both constituency and regional MPs in it. If you want to advocate for PR, great, but you should probably figure out what it is you're arguing for first. kustomkarkommando posted:Oh no they are absolutely different - but this was an attack on the idea of multimember districts in the abstract (Japan using SNTV which I dont think anyone is particularly keen on) without any conditions for the particulars of the process. What I'd like to know is, is it possible to do STV without it inevitably going the same way as Ireland? Ireland's a small country, so even with relatively big multi-member constituencies, the electorates are relatively very small. Even though you're making the constituencies bigger, their elections are ridiculously hyper-local. Everyone campaigns individually on "I got a new leisure centre built" and "I made sure all the potholes on the Drumcondra Road got filled in", and then goes to the Dail with that mindset, so it can be hard to achieve any kind of structural reform because everyone's spending all their time on repairing drainpipes and defending bus routes. It's hard to say whether this is inherent to STV or inherent to Ireland (or both, or neither), because they're the only place using STV at that kind of level. It's an interesting idea, but between that and the way you can still in Ireland get results that are still noticeably disproportional, there's no reason to assume that just bellowing "MULTI-MEMBER DISTRICTS" is going to end in anything other than a different set of oddities and quirks to FPTP.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2018 21:27
|
|