Came up with a proportional election system today

If all the people who came in this thread and said it was too complicated found themselves unable to vote because they couldn't comprehend the new procedure, I think it would be a massive improvement honestly. It would be worth it just for that.
 
I'd love to see you guys at the constitutional convention. Jefferson would propose that we apportion seats among the states like this:

jefferson.jpg


And you guys would be like "Oh no, there's an equation! My elementary school level of education can't understand that! Let's just randomly guess how many seats each state should have like they do in England! Much better." God normies are lame. There's math involved in the background but that will taken care of for you so that you can just check off the ballot and go back to nodding off on your fentanyl. Or don't vote if you hate it, we'd be better off if people too stupid to understand math didn't vote.
 
Uhhhggg I can't wait until you boomers die so we can have a decent method of selecting representatives for once. Young people are so much more open to this stuff. Old people are just retarded, if they had eaten their own shit every day of their life and you prepared filet mignon for them they would whine and demand your return their plate of shit.
 
The Wokest said:
You can't give a candidate a rating from 0-9? How do you dress yourself in the morning tard?
Click to expand...

1. Is that for each candidate?
2. Does it just apply to the general election or is it for the direct primaries also?

I don't have 9 ways to put on my shirt and pants.
 
Flash said:
1. Is that for each candidate?
Click to expand...

Candidates you don't like or don't know, in range voting, you would generally leave blank. The ballot would be counted as voting zero for that candidate. In a range election for a single office, probably a great deal of people would just bullet vote for one candidate, and that's fine. The extra votes would mostly come in to play in multi-candidate elections, where people who support minor parties could express their support by rating their favorite candidate but also support a majority party candidate for victory. People wouldn't be required to pick one or the other.

Probably also this would lead to more centrist candidates winning.

In my experimental system, you'd probably want to rate at least as many candidates as there are seats, just like a bloc election. As to how many seats, that's not for me to say. More seats would be more proportional, but more confusing because there would be more candidates. In general I wouldn't recommend it be used to select any more than five seats. In Ireland, for instance, they always use 3-5 seat districts for their elections.

2. Does it just apply to the general election or is it for the direct primaries also?
Click to expand...

You could just use it in the primaries, use it to select two candidates for a runoff in the general. Sort of like the jungle primary method, but mitigating some of the spoiler effects that causes (like the situation in California, where people were fearing that two Republicans might be selected for the runoff due to splitting among Democrats). Although I'd recommend the ballots be reweighted to choose the opponent, so that ballots that voted for the winner counted less. Otherwise the majority party would likely always be able to always pick both candidates for the runoff.

For my experimental method, or another proportional method, you would likely want to use it in both primaries and the general. At least the general, otherwise of course the system wouldn't be proportional and there'd be no purpose.
 
It's hilarious that the boomers all piled into this thread and varied between passive aggression and open hostility, lol, it was like I killed their cat. Or had promised boobies, and instead described an experimental system of proportional representation. I did not mislabel the thread, you must have known what you were getting into when you clicked on it.

Priya-Prakash-Varrier-Oru-Adaar-Love-WINK.gif
 
The Wokest said:
Great we can have 1522 Republicans and Democrats instead of 435. Whoopdie-fucking-doo.
Click to expand...

It is a big problem. A district of 25k people has a lot more chance of representing you then one of 750k. The Chinese have better proportional representation than we do.

Have you looked into ranked choice voting? It might be simpler than your solution while achieving a similar outcome.
 
Quetzalcoatl said:
It is a big problem. A district of 25k people has a lot more chance of representing you then one of 750k. The Chinese have better proportional representation than we do.

Have you looked into ranked choice voting? It might be simpler than your solution while achieving a similar outcome.
Click to expand...

IRV is a good system, but I tend to prefer range voting. Also STV for proportional representation is *much* more complicated than my system...

I don't think the people around me are really going to represent me that well regardless of scale. Also too large of a legislature is difficult to govern, the house already is totally dominated by party leaders. Make it too large and it becomes more like a town with a referendum process than an actual deliberative body.
 
The Wokest said:
IRV is a good system, but I tend to prefer range voting. Also STV for proportional representation is *much* more complicated than my system...

I don't think the people around me are really going to represent me that well regardless of scale. Also too large of a legislature is difficult to govern, the house already is totally dominated by party leaders. Make it too large and it becomes more like a town with a referendum process than an actual deliberative body.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is a good point about the size of the legislature.

I still think my lottery idea would work best for the house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top