Individualized Proportional Representation.

[blahface]

I'm not too big of a fan of Proportional Representation for legislatures, but I had an idea for a method that is a non party based that I'd like some feedback on.

Instead of voting for a party or an individual that counts towards a vote for a party, you just vote for an individual that you like and trust in your district. Each candidate then acts as a delegate to vote in another election and his/her vote is proportional to the number of votes he obtained in the first election, but re-weighed based on the population of the district. Each candidate then ranks every other candidate**. Maybe somewhere between 10% and 20% of winners selected to be apart of the legislature would be determined through a Condorcet method. The remaining seats would selected by single transferable vote.

I think this gives more control to the voters and allows a cushion of moderation. If there are really unpopular incumbents that you don't like, even corrupt ones that are supposedly aligned with your interests, you can vote for the candidate that identifies most with your values and promises to rank those incumbents near the bottom.

** Each candidate would rank all candidates and not just candidates in his district. This would be a pretty large number, but he could use IT tools to find the best ranking for candidates or use different party rankings as a guide and make personal adjustments as necessary.

[Starglider]

Excessively complicated and opaque plus adding an electoral college is never a good idea.

[bilateralrope]

I'm not sure I understand your proposal well enough to predict its outcomes. And it seems to have the outcome decided by the politicians, not the voters.

I'm not too big of a fan of Proportional Representation for legislatures,

Why not ?

What problem do you see that you are trying to solve with this complicated solution ?

[blahface]

I'm not sure I understand your proposal well enough to predict its outcomes. And it seems to have the outcome decided by the politicians, not the voters.

I'm not too big of a fan of Proportional Representation for legislatures,

Why not ?

What problem do you see that you are trying to solve with this complicated solution ?

I'm not quite sure what the outcome would be either. I'm just brainstorming. If it were up to me, I wouldn't use PR at all. I'd want to use the shortest split-line algorithm to redistrict and a sane single winner voting system that minimizes the problems of spoilers – preferably an open primary with approval voting.

One of the problems I have with traditional PR is that it gives too much power to the parties. My system would take that away and give it to an individual. I remember reading that in Australia’s senate elections the overwhelming majority vote above the line for a party list (I think it is around 90%) and that is just for six seats. Asking a voter to rank each candidate is asking too much for the voter – especially when you have a large body that needs to be filled. You might generally like a party, but hate certain candidates in the party list that you think are corrupt. This method allows more flexibility to voters who trust individuals more than the party as a whole.

If we used proportional representation in the US, I certainly wouldn't want to give my vote to the Democratic party who may assign seats to the the blue dogs. I also wouldn't want to give my vote to the Green party who might help put some pro pseudo science candidate in the legislature. I would like to find a strong progressive who is pro science that I can trust. Maybe I'm wrong about how it will unfold in practice, but I think this system will provide for more individual accountability.

I also don't want to give too much power to fringe minority parties who may be the kingmakers. Using a Condorcet method to get a small number of representatives would provide some insulation from the fringe.

[bilateralrope]

One problem in your thinking is that you can't take power away from the political parties because the individuals making up the party can always vote in lockstep, leaving you with no practical difference between them. Including in the ranking lists.

It's better to treat the party as a single entity. If one member is corrupt, and the party doesn't remove him from their ranks, then treat the entire party as corrupt. Force them to police themselves.

I also don't want to give too much power to fringe minority parties who may be the kingmakers.

How often does that lead to problems compared to the number of countries running proportional representation ?

[Irbis]

I'm not quite sure what the outcome would be either. I'm just brainstorming. If it were up to me, I wouldn't use PR at all. I'd want to use the shortest split-line algorithm to redistrict and a sane single winner voting system that minimizes the problems of spoilers – preferably an open primary with approval voting.

Spoiler alert: every single winner system has spoilers. It's as inevitable as fractions while dividing odd numbers by even ones.

I also don't want to give too much power to fringe minority parties who may be the kingmakers. Using a Condorcet method to get a small number of representatives would provide some insulation from the fringe.

Except, instead you're giving power to fringe minority parties the majority needs to win contrived single winner systems. Tea party, anyone?

Meanwhile, proportional representation easily sifts away most fringes by % bar of entry to parliament and exposing everyone's proposed policies, not letting say your 'blue dogs' hide behind the banner of progressive party

[Welf]

If we used proportional representation in the US, I certainly wouldn't want to give my vote to the Democratic party who may assign seats to the the blue dogs. I also wouldn't want to give my vote to the Green party who might help put some pro pseudo science candidate in the legislature. I would like to find a strong progressive who is pro science that I can trust. Maybe I'm wrong about how it will unfold in practice, but I think this system will provide for more individual accountability.

It may sound paradox, but proportional representation makes parties actually weaker. In the US you could vote an independent candidate, but because you would "waste your vote" you tend to vote one from the established parties. And even if you get an independent voted he won't make much difference because there are only a handful of independents.
In a proportional representation system you can actually vote a third option, or a fourth, fifth or sixth one. In this system it is much easier to get rid of established parties.
There is already an easy way to get best of both systems, by having both at the same time. In Germany you get two votes, one for the list of a party in your state and one for a directly voted candidate in your district.

[Grumman]

One of the problems I have with traditional PR is that it gives too much power to the parties. My system would take that away and give it to an individual. I remember reading that in Australia’s senate elections the overwhelming majority vote above the line for a party list (I think it is around 90%) and that is just for six seats. Asking a voter to rank each candidate is asking too much for the voter – especially when you have a large body that needs to be filled. You might generally like a party, but hate certain candidates in the party list that you think are corrupt. This method allows more flexibility to voters who trust individuals more than the party as a whole.

The solution to Australia's problem is much simpler: let us stop our vote trickling down past a certain point. Less people would vote above the line if the alternative wasn't filling out a hundred boxes below the line without making a mistake. If you only care about your top twenty picks, give your top twenty picks and stop there - if they're all eliminated, your vote is discarded at that point.

[bilateralrope]

When you think of a minority forcing their way through, which is worse:
- The examples you can find of this happening in a country with proportional representation.
- The Tea Party shutting down the US government because they didn't like Obamacare. Or a single person preventing a vote on a law they don't like via filibuster.

Since I don't have any examples of the former happening, the US looks like it's worse for a minority causing problems while trying to push their agenda. Not countries with proportional representation.

[Irbis]

Since I don't have any examples of the former happening, the US looks like it's worse for a minority causing problems while trying to push their agenda. Not countries with proportional representation.

Yeah, in proportional representation minority party isn't welded to leading one and it's usually easy to replace or scare into some sort of compromise. Kingmakers can really only occur when you have 2 big blocks with 45+ % share of vote (USA), in proportional systems it's normally 2 leading parties with 20-30% of vote and 3 to 5 lesser parties with 5-10%. In that setup, no one is weak enough to be kingmaker or strong enough to dominate political scene.

[blahface]

One problem in your thinking is that you can't take power away from the political parties because the individuals making up the party can always vote in lockstep, leaving you with no practical difference between them. Including in the ranking lists.

It's better to treat the party as a single entity. If one member is corrupt, and the party doesn't remove him from their ranks, then treat the entire party as corrupt. Force them to police themselves.

I also don't want to give too much power to fringe minority parties who may be the kingmakers.

How often does that lead to problems compared to the number of countries running proportional representation ?

I'm not sure, but isn't that a problem with Israel and those Ultra Orthodox Jews that spit on little girls for not being modest? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that they are tolerated so much and are given so many privileges is because they help decide who gets power.

Also, I think there is always going to be a percentage of people who just vote for a party because of identity politics and don't think too much about punishing the party. If we had a decent single winner voting system and a way to have fair debate and relatively equal opportunity to speech, I think those people would be relatively flushed out. Again though, maybe I'm wrong, this is just speculation.

[bilateralrope]

I'm not sure, but isn't that a problem with Israel and those Ultra Orthodox Jews that spit on little girls for not being modest? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that they are tolerated so much and are given so many privileges is because they help decide who gets power.

Please provide proof that it's a problem. Not theorizing. Not speculating on incidents you can't even be bothered to look up.

Now imagine a political party which would be the best fit for 25% of the population. But the people that support them are spread evenly across the nation (maybe it's correlated with age), meaning that only 25% of the population of any single district supports them. How are they supposed to get their views heard in a system where each district elects a single representative ?

Under proportional representation, they all just vote for the same party and they will get heard. Maybe their party is kingmaker, maybe it isn't. Either way it's still large enough that the other parties will listen.

[blahface]

I'm not sure, but isn't that a problem with Israel and those Ultra Orthodox Jews that spit on little girls for not being modest? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that they are tolerated so much and are given so many privileges is because they help decide who gets power.

Please provide proof that it's a problem. Not theorizing. Not speculating on incidents you can't even be bothered to look up.

Here is an article about it from the 2008 election.

An ultra-Orthodox Jewish party run by an octogenarian rabbi who has said Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment emerged Thursday as the kingmaker in forming the next Israeli government.
Having won a fight to be leader of the ruling Kadima Party, Tzipi Livni now will likely need Shas as a partner to become prime minister. But Shas opposes any compromise on Jerusalem, and including it in a coalition could tie her hands in peace talks with the Palestinians

Now imagine a political party which would be the best fit for 25% of the population. But the people that support them are spread evenly across the nation (maybe it's correlated with age), meaning that only 25% of the population of any single district supports them. How are they supposed to get their views heard in a system where each district elects a single representative ?

Under proportional representation, they all just vote for the same party and they will get heard. Maybe their party is kingmaker, maybe it isn't. Either way it's still large enough that the other parties will listen.

Twenty-five percent is a huge block. If a group has that much support uniformly distributed, it is very unlikely that they are going to be unrepresented even under first-past-the-post. Under a system with a single unified non-partisan primary that uses approval voting, this would be a very powerful group. Candidates would need to get as many endorsements from as many parties and advocacy groups as possible to eke out a victory.

[Irbis]

I'm not sure, but isn't that a problem with Israel and those Ultra Orthodox Jews that spit on little girls for not being modest? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that they are tolerated so much and are given so many privileges is because they help decide who gets power.

No. Left wing parties would not ally with them. The only ones who need them are right wingers, and that to get the majority. These are basically tea party of Israel, tolerated because of Israel's unique situation. Almost no other country on Earth has words nation and religion interchangeable to a large degree, making attacks on orthodox Jews an attack against the whole national identity. Recently, it began to change due to influx of large number of atheist Jews from old Soviet Union, still, it will completely change after current generation dies out.

Also, take a look at Israel's parliament. It's not a good representation of proportional systems because most of these have entry bar. Israel, on the other hand, has very fragmented political system requiring very wide coalitions to accomplish anything. The 'kingmakers' exist solely due to this, if you cut the parties off at 5%, you'd only need 2-3 parties to rule as fringes would be gone.

Twenty-five percent is a huge block. If a group has that much support uniformly distributed, it is very unlikely that they are going to be unrepresented even under first-past-the-post. Under a system with a single unified non-partisan primary that uses approval voting, this would be a very powerful group. Candidates would need to get as many endorsements from as many parties and advocacy groups as possible to eke out a victory.

Think again:



This is UK last election. Note gold-grey votes (LD and minor parties). 36% of votes, ended up with 9% of seats. How is it in any way not massively under-represented?

[Welf]

Here is an article about it from the 2008 election.

An ultra-Orthodox Jewish party run by an octogenarian rabbi who has said Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment emerged Thursday as the kingmaker in forming the next Israeli government.
Having won a fight to be leader of the ruling Kadima Party, Tzipi Livni now will likely need Shas as a partner to become prime minister. But Shas opposes any compromise on Jerusalem, and including it in a coalition could tie her hands in peace talks with the Palestinians

That is an interesting part, but you should read further:

With Yosef at the helm, Shas burst onto Israel's political scene in the 1990s, appealing to the resentment of Sephardim _ Israelis of Middle Eastern and North African descent _ who were long snubbed by Israel's European-born ruling elite.

Compare that with this:

[...]The most glaring statistic in that regard is that only three states have elected blacks to the U.S. Senate in American history (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Mississippi) and just two states since Reconstruction

Due in part to redistricting efforts in recent decades, African-Americans have, however, gradually increased their numbers in the U.S. House, and now hold 10 percent of seats in the chamber while making up 13 percent of the population

Under a proportional system a new group of immigrants is instantly part of the political system and can force elites to acknowledge the. Under the winner-takes-all system whole groups can be marginalized for decades and centuries.

[bilateralrope]

Another advantage of proportional representation is how it kills the incentive for gerrymandering. In New Zealand, the only parties that would gain anything from adjusting the borders of an electorate for their own advantage are the parties who are going to get less than 5% of the party vote* but have one candidate who would be popular enough to win an electorate if the borders were shifted a bit. For any more popular parties, it doesn't matter how many or how few electorate seats they win. The party vote determines how much power the party has.

Those MPs that lose the electorate vote are still likely to get in as a list MP. So they can still provide a voice for people who that electorate who aren't being listened to by whoever won the electorate vote.

*Less than 5% of the party vote and the party doesn't get into parliament unless it wins an electorate seat.