NationStates Jolt Archive

In your opinion, which is the best/least bad electoral system, and which is the worst?

In my opinion:

Best: Sainte-Laguë method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method)

Worst (by a long shot): "first-past-the-post" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system)

Best Winner takes all (first past the post)

Worst voting with bullets (North Ireland method)

Best: Some sort of preferential system.

Worst: First past the post, unless there is only two candidates then first past the post works but with three or more it is not very democratic as it is possible for someone to win with only 25% of the vote which means that 75% of voters didn't want this person to be elected.

Yes I know that is a poor explanation of my reason but I'm tired and I want to go to bed.

I'd say its completely dependent on the individual country. I believe that some countries which currently use proportional systems - Italy and Israel spring to mind - would benefit from having less proportional systems.

Best: The rulers are chosen by me

Worst: One in which the actual people vote about what's best for them. Yuck!

First past the post, because it takes out a lot of the kind of bullshit that Proportional Representation causes.

First past the post, because it takes out a lot of the kind of bullshit that Proportional Representation causes.

My thoughts--I'd rather vote for the person, not the party.

My thoughts--I'd rather vote for the person, not the party.

Same, but with FPTP, it's virtually impossible for third parties to win elections; if they're lucky, they may be able to win a small number of seats, at best. At worst, you get a situation akin to the one in the U.S., where you are limited to choosing between one of two candidates that are carbon copies of each other.

For an assembly, proportional vote. Vote something on which a single decision has to be taken (election of one person, choice of a text among several, ...), Condorcet method. But quite hard to implement in non-digital voting, and digital voting has its own problems...

Forgot to speak about the worst. Worst is obviously "first past the post", since it encourages tactical voting (not voting for the candidate you agree with, but with the one who has a chance to win that you disagree the less), that it makes almost impossible to have more than two real parties, locking down the choice and destroying democracy, and that it can also tend to elect the most disliked person (you can perfectly have a situation with 4 candidates, A, B, C and D, A would lose against any other candidate in a duel vote, but will win in FPTP with 30%).

Best Winner takes all (first past the post)

Worst voting with bullets (North Ireland method)

Bullets and pipe bombs.

Forgot to speak about the worst. Worst is obviously "first past the post", since it encourages tactical voting (not voting for the candidate you agree with, but with the one who has a chance to win that you disagree the less), that it makes almost impossible to have more than two real parties, locking down the choice and destroying democracy, and that it can also tend to elect the most disliked person (you can perfectly have a situation with 4 candidates, A, B, C and D, A would lose against any other candidate in a duel vote, but will win in FPTP with 30%).

From the Madisonian viewpoint, though, it results in the parties gravitating towards the political center, and being capable of providing the Public Weal.

Same, but with FPTP, it's virtually impossible for third parties to win elections
Only if they suck like most of the third parties in the US.

Only if they suck like most of the third parties in the US.

...can I get an amen?
*awaits church v. state argument* : P

My ideal systems:

To elect a legislative:
Proportional, with largest remainder method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_remainder_method) and preferences (one or more) within the list. And no bonus seats for the plurality.
Eventually with the implicit threshold (if you have n seats to allocate, lists who got less than 1/n of the total valid votes get no seats).
AND with the "none of the above" option.


To elect an executive:
Two-round system (eventually with a provision to form new coalitions after first round).
AND with the "none of the above" option.


By the way, down with electronic ballot. Paper all the way.

Best: all the parties are shite and made up of rich businessmen
Worst: the party is shite and made up of rich businessmen

aren't I an individual, nobody has ever said that before

Bullets and pipe bombs.

balanced out by the healthy checks and balances of drink :)

In your opinion, which is the best/least bad electoral system, and which is the worst?

In my opinion:

Best: Sainte-Laguë method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method)

Worst (by a long shot): "first-past-the-post" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system)
So what's the advantage of giving a successful party less influence as the vote count proceeds? That's what happens as s increases

Making me a God-king is the best election system.


All bow before your Emperor.

Making me a God-king is the best election system.


All bow before your Emperor.

*bows before his Emperor* You only said you were a God-King, you never mentioned that you were an Emperor.


Wait, who the hell am I bowing to?

...

Emperor Norton? Is that you? :tongue:

First past the post is total rubbish. I hate a system where a government can rule with less than 40% of the total vote.

I'd prefer to see a Mixed Representation system; it uses both FPTP and Proportional Representation. Anything that would make the Tories unpopular.

Wait, who the hell am I bowing to?


This guy: http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w288/chase254/godemperor.jpg

All electoral systems have the same damn problem, they only provide the ignorant with illusion of freedom and control on their governments and the officials they elect to represent them. Pretty much nobody who runs for public office does so because they genuinely give a damn about their constituents and all their stupid problems. They do it for the easy money, attention, and most of all, a share of the monopoly of force that governments the world over seem to have.

First past the post is total rubbish. I hate a system where a government can rule with less than 40% of the total vote.

I'd prefer to see a Mixed Representation system; it uses both FPTP and Proportional Representation. Anything that would make the Tories unpopular.
Right, and in a few years when the Tories are out of government because of FPTP, are you going to say the same thing?

My ideal systems:

To elect a legislative:
Proportional, with largest remainder method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_remainder_method) and preferences (one or more) within the list. And no bonus seats for the plurality.
Eventually with the implicit threshold (if you have n seats to allocate, lists who got less than 1/n of the total valid votes get no seats).
AND with the "none of the above" option.


To elect an executive:
Two-round system (eventually with a provision to form new coalitions after first round).
AND with the "none of the above" option.


By the way, down with electronic ballot. Paper all the way.

Do you think the President of the Italian Republic should be popularly elected, even though his duties are mainly ceremonial?

Right, and in a few years when the Tories are out of government because of FPTP, are you going to say the same thing?

Yes because it'll be the Grits. Who I also don't vote for. I opt for a third party. And don't say when they win because in order for that to happen, they need to get more votes than the Bloc. Yes, the separatists have more seats than the socialists.

I'd like to see the NDP win a general election. Their economic views are horrible, but their antiwar stance is great, and they're generally good on social issues. Plus, they want to abolish the absolutely pointless Canadian Senate.

Yes because it'll be the Grits. Who I also don't vote for. I opt for a third party. And don't say when they win because in order for that to happen, they need to get more votes than the Bloc. Yes, the separatists have more seats than the socialists.
Yeah that's socialists for you.
I'd like to see the NDP win a general election. Their economic views are horrible, but their antiwar stance is great, and they're generally good on social issues.
Yeah yer economic views are about the most important thing for a country. Being antiwar is a bit of a waste of time, seeing as Canada isn't involved in Iraq in the same fashion as a Coalition of the Willing member. Social stances, feh.
Plus, they want to abolish the absolutely pointless Canadian Senate.
They're not pointless, they do the same as the House of Lords - they check the power of the House of Commons, which is an important thing to do. Elected representatives do things to stay in power. Unelected representatives do things with the knowledge that they're not going to have to run for elections every now and then, which is a Good Thing.

Yeah yer economic views are about the most important thing for a country. Being antiwar is a bit of a waste of time, seeing as Canada isn't involved in Iraq in the same fashion as a Coalition of the Willing member. Social stances, feh.

Canada's involved in the equally pointless and immoral War in Afghanistan, though.

They're not pointless, they do the same as the House of Lords - they check the power of the House of Commons, which is an important thing to do. Elected representatives do things to stay in power. Unelected representatives do things with the knowledge that they're not going to have to run for elections every now and then, which is a Good Thing.

Only in theory. In practice the Canadian Senate is about as useful as wet cardboard. It should either be massively reformed or abolished.

Canada's involved in the equally pointless and immoral War in Afghanistan, though.
I'd disagree, seeing as the Taliban were massive wankers and the country needed sorting out, something which is beginning to be solved at the moment. Neo-colonial, yes, but I don't disagree with that on principal.
Only in theory. In practice the Canadian Senate is about as useful as wet cardboard. It should either be massively reformed or abolished.
Meh, you'll miss it if it goes.

Meh, you'll miss it if it goes.

I'd say make it more like the Australian Senate, but have the provincial legislatures appoint its members (with each province being represented by an equal number of senators), like in the U.S. prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment.

I'd say make it more like the Australian Senate, but have the provincial legislatures appoint its members (with each province being represented by an equal number of senators), like in the U.S. prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment.
Eugh no, overrepresentation is a Bad Thing.

Eugh no, overrepresentation is a Bad Thing.

In a federal country, though, it ensures that each of the provinces is equally represented.

In a federal country, though, it ensures that each of the provinces is equally represented.
They're not equally important though.

In what sense?

Unfortunately, IIRC *every* possible voting method has flaws in it. I suppose the one I feel bets would be a variation of Borda Count -- yes, "Pick someone many people like!" is good, but "Pick someone few people hate!" is also good!

Still, the current US system needs a definite overhaul.

In what sense?
Economically and in terms of population. Tada.

In what sense?
I guess in the sense of shutting up and pretending the Senate and Provinces don't exist is the best way to avoid regional sectionalism.

First past the post, because it takes out a lot of the kind of bullshit that Proportional Representation causes.
Oddly, I think that kind of bullshit can actually be a good thing, although one can have too much of it. Scotland has struck a good balance, if you ask me.

Oddly, I think that kind of bullshit can actually be a good thing, although one can have too much of it.
See Italy.
Scotland has struck a good balance, if you ask me.
Feeeeeh.

I suspect the worst might be Zimbabwe's - best, pretty much any modern democracy

First past the post, because it takes out a lot of the kind of bullshit that Proportional Representation causes.

I think you're confusing prefential voting with proportional voting. In the former, you can (and do) have single member electorates. The person elected is the one who is preferred by 50%+1 of the valid votes. It's a good system and much liked by Australian voters. The only problem is that, in multiple member electorates (ie the Australian Senate and most state upper houses) the voters have to fill in a very large ballot paper.

I'd say make it more like the Australian Senate, but have the provincial legislatures appoint its members (with each province being represented by an equal number of senators), like in the U.S. prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment.

Interesting idea. Until the 70s, if an Australian senator left office between elections they were replaced by someone selected by the state government from which the senator came. Notoriously, in 1974/5 two Government (Labor) senators (from NSW and Qld) died in office. Those states were governed by opposing parties and, against prevailing convention, they appointed anti-Labor senators. This gave the opposition control of the Senate which then blocked budget legislation leading to the 1975 constitutional crises.

Best: They're all equally flawed...

Worst: except for whichever mechanism is used in the country in which I currently reside.

Familarity really does breed contempt on issues such as this.

What crisis is that, and how was it resolved?

See Italy.
If we want to go down that road, see Ireland, Germany, Spain, New Zealand and Sweden.

What crisis is that, and how was it resolved?

If you were addressing that at Errinunderia, then that would be the controversial blocking of the budget by the opposition in the Australian Senate, which led to the government being deemed unfit or unable to govern. The Governor General then stepped in and dismissed the government, called a double-dissolution eolection, and appointed the opposition as interim government.

(My knowledge isn't perfect, others will explain it better I'm sure)

Anyway, back on topic, I like combining multiple electoral systems for different parts of the government, to ensure that you get balances on the inevitable flaws in each system. Plus, it keeps the populace on it's toes.

But if I had to choose, I'd have a proportional representation system, as it helps ensure minority voters have a voice.

Ad. We are not amused.

What crisis is that, and how was it resolved?

If you were addressing that at Errinunderia, then that would be the controversial blocking of the budget by the opposition in the Australian Senate, which led to the government being deemed unfit or unable to govern. The Governor General then stepped in and dismissed the government, called a double-dissolution eolection, and appointed the opposition as interim government.

(My knowledge isn't perfect, others will explain it better I'm sure)...

Thanks, Svalvardania. I didn't realize Korintar's question was directed at me.

Your summary is Ok except the "deemed unfit" bit. "Unable to govern" is closer to the mark.

The Australian Senate is arguably the most powerful upper house in the world. It can defeat any government bill, including budget bills. It is also elected via proportional representation with the result that the numbers are very tight with minor parties often holding the balance of power.

After the 1974 double dissolution, the Conservative opposition (Liberal Party and Country Party) were one seat short of control of the Senate.

The popularity of the Whitlam Labor Government (with a small but clear majority in the House of Representatives) continued to decline, due to the perceived economic mismanagement of the inflation pressures brought upon by the Middle East oil shocks (inflation reached 17%), a scandal involving Middle East loans, and a lack of Ministerial discipline causing a string of embarrasments for Whitlam.

It was clear to the opposition that they would win if another election were held but then next one wasn't due until 1977. They set about forcing an early election.

As mentioned in my earlier post, two Labor senators died and were replaced by anti-Labor senators. This gave the opposition control of the senate. They then refused to consider the government's budget bills (they didn't vote against them - the simply refused to vote) unless Whitlam called an early election.

This led to a show-down between the two houses. Fraser, the leader of the opposition, counted on either Whitlam backing down or the Queen's representative in Australia, the Governor General Kerr, intervening.

Against the instructions of the Prime Minister, Kerr took the advice of the Chief Justice of the High Court, Barwick - a former Liberal Party MP, and, after getting Fraser's agreement to pass the budget bills and call an election, dismissed the Whitlam Government and appointed Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister.

Whitlam was annihilated at the subsequent election. He was also defeated comprehensively at the election after that.