Weighted democracy (cumulative voting)

Inspired by a comment I saw in a comment field, here's the idea:

Why not give each voter, for example, either

1. multiple votes (say, 10)
2. the ability to portion out their one vote in percentages (55% for this party, 43% for that party and 2% for this one)

Wouldn't this give a more balanced vote, since you now (typically) don't have to chose between one party (or candidate) or the other?

As someone who can't really agree with any one existing political party, this seems really appealing (as opposed to founding my own party from scratch, or whatever).

(this seems to be the relevant Wikipedia article on the subject)

I dunno, I really like the concept of instant-runoff voting. Your concept wont necessarily lead to the formation of a feasible third party as you still would have to vote tactically to prevent the other side from winning. With instant-runoff, I could still put my first vote to my preferred candidate but then should he be knocked out, my vote would go to the remaining candidates who I hate the least. In the US, Im pretty sure that the threshold to have more participation in mainstream politics is something like 5%. Going off of the first round of voting, it would definitely bring out more of the smaller parties, and possibly even bring some of the lesser known ones into the mainstream.

To me, either system seems preferable to the current one-vote system.

They can be combined, though. If party A is ineligible due to too few votes, and your votes are the following:

party A: 55%
party B: 30%
party C: 15%

then your votes could be automatically redistributed* to 67% for party B and 33% for party C. If party B is also ineligible, then 100% of your vote goes to party C.


* 30/(30+15) ≈ 67%, 15/(30+15) ≈ 33%

I have not seen anyone advocate voting reform while theire primary political affiliation is in power, nor have I seen someone who once argued for it while out of power continue advocating it once in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I have not seen anyone advocate voting reform while theire primary political affiliation is in power, nor have I seen someone who once argued for it while out of power continue advocating it once in.

---

So you have never seen Europeans talk about US elections? ~;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So you have never seen Europeans talk about US elections? ~;)

---

I've not seen them do it when the democrats are slated to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I've not seen them do it when the democrats are slated to win.

---

That doesn't change that the system is bad. Happy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That doesn't change that the system is bad. Happy?

---

Not particularly.
The candidates are bad and the people uninformed; changjng the method of vote counting will do nothing to improve that.

The way I see it th is a sideshow; a meaningless alteration that is only given the time of day because "my man would have won if we did it this way"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The way I see it th is a sideshow; a meaningless alteration that is only given the time of day because "my man would have won if we did it this way"

---

This topic is about splitting the vote, which is something you do when you do not have a favourite. It's about being able to vote according to my own preferences without having to implicitly endorse the entire package that any political party comes up with (but it would still perfectly possible to not split one's vote).

It's a small step closer to direct democracy, where we in theory could vote for every single policy decision separately.

Quote:

---

It's a small step closer to direct democracy, where we in theory could vote for every single policy decision separately.

---

Which seems like a really stupid idea to be working towards. The man on the street does not have the time and patience to to study each and every issue to figure out the best course of action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Which seems like a really stupid idea to be working towards. The man on the street does not have the time and patience to to study each and every issue to figure out the best course of action.

---

Maybe we should change the time the man on the street has then instead of just accepting that proper politics are only a thing of the political and monetary nobility who have the time to entertain such complicated thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Maybe we should change the time the man on the street has then instead of just accepting that proper politics are only a thing of the political and monetary nobility who have the time to entertain such complicated thoughts.

---

Perhaps, though when given the choice between spending time understanding politics or using that time to enjoy themselves or even working to earn more money, most would not utilize that time on politics.

What we (I speak mostly of the UK) have isnt perfect but it is fairly functional; we have a political class that anyone can immigrate to that is able to dedicate their time and effort dealing with the things necessary for society to function that most people dont want to think about and when they screw up or does something the rest of society does not want done they can be removed without bloodshed.

I missed this first time around.

Quote:

---

This topic is about splitting the vote, which is something you do when you do not have a favourite. It's about being able to vote according to my own preferences without having to implicitly endorse the entire package that any political party comes up with (but it would still perfectly possible to not split one's vote).

---

No. It is something that you want to do when you want to vote for someone but also want to have your vote shifted to someone else in case the first guy doesnt win, which will inevitably be used to direct votes to "anyone but that guy".

It's useful I suppose as it increases third party chances, though not by much and each election will boil down to everyone rallying to which of the 2 biggest parties annoys them the least, which is basically what happens anyway, but they dont have to feel guilty about not voting for the little parties.

The proponants of cumulative voting are typically those that believe that the third party votes, that first past the post essentially wastes, would have let their party win instead of the opposition in the last election, they are usually silent 4-5 years later if they win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

This topic is about splitting the vote, which is something you do when you do not have a favourite. It's about being able to vote according to my own preferences without having to implicitly endorse the entire package that any political party comes up with (but it would still perfectly possible to not split one's vote).

---

It will make the counting of votes too complicated. And it would be difficult to explain the system (and its expediency) to an average citizen and even more difficult to assure him there were no voting frauds if this system gets implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

It's a small step closer to direct democracy, where we in theory could vote for every single policy decision separately.

---

Considering the number of such decisions we might as well live at the polling station or have one at each residence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Which seems like a really stupid idea to be working towards. The man on the street does not have the time and patience to to study each and every issue to figure out the best course of action.

---

That's not the goal, the goal is being able to split the vote. Politicians will still make the individual decisions, except where they arrange referendums (like usual).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I missed this first time around.
No. It is something that you want to do when you want to vote for someone but also want to have your vote shifted to someone else in case the first guy doesnt win, which will inevitably be used to direct votes to "anyone but that guy".

It's useful I suppose as it increases third party chances, though not by much and each election will boil down to everyone rallying to which of the 2 biggest parties annoys them the least, which is basically what happens anyway, but they dont have to feel guilty about not voting for the little parties.

The proponants of cumulative voting are typically those that believe that the third party votes, that first past the post essentially wastes, would have let their party win instead of the opposition in the last election, they are usually silent 4-5 years later if they win.

---

This sounds like a heavily US/UK-centric analysis. In the Norwegian parliament, there are usually between 7-8 political parties represented, seven of them are pretty much regulars; even if some of them are close to the thresholds for representation.

Neither of the two political parties I could consider splitting my vote between are likely to drop out of the next parliament (quite the opposite, in fact; one is part of the current government, one was part of the previous government), I just don't want to exclusively vote for either of the two.

But someone's motivation is irrelevant for the inferiority or superiority of voting systems, anyway. That's just a distraction.

Quote:

---

This sounds like a heavily US/UK-centric analysis. In the Norwegian parliament, there are usually between 7-8 political parties represented, seven of them are pretty much regulars; even if some of them are close to the thresholds for representation.

Neither of the two political parties I could consider splitting my vote between are likely to drop out of the next parliament (quite the opposite, in fact; one is part of the current government, one was part of the previous government), I just don't want to exclusively vote for either of the two.

---

I admit it is a UK/US centric view, but my understanding is that cumulative voting is intended to break a two part system; if your nation's parties are fractured what's the point?

Quote:

---

But someone's motivation is irrelevant for the inferiority or superiority of voting systems, anyway. That's just a distraction.

---

A distraction from a distraction, Disception!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...84/176/d2f.jpg

...Distraption! Distracption? Man the inception joke really doesnt work with the word distraction.

In Australia both compulsory voting & Preferential voting are used at all three levels of government.

Preferential voting has proven such a thorn in the side to the current incumbent Coalition that they are attempting to change the senate voting system so it benefits the large parties. Once that new law gets past they will call a snap election / dissolve parliament in a double dissolution and avoid any mention of publishing a budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

It will make the counting of votes too complicated. And it would be difficult to explain the system (and its expediency) to an average citizen and even more difficult to assure him there were no voting frauds if this system gets implemented.

---

Assigning 100 points just as you like among the different parties seems easy enough to me. Might want to have a calculator ready in the polling booth, though. An increase in invalid votes may be possible (although votes could be normalised if the sum of votes exceeds 100%).

As for the counting, using digital polling would obviously be beneficial; but I doubt it would be necessary. Certainly not so if you only have 5-10 points to assign.

Don't see how it relates to voting fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I admit it is a UK/US centric view, but my understanding is that cumulative voting is intended to break a two part system

---

Single transferable vote/Instant-runoff voting should be more effective for this purpose. Yet, it should be possible to combine such systems with cumulative voting; e.g. like I did in post #3.

Quote:

---

if your nation's parties are fractured what's the point?

---

Even if I got 100 different political parties to chose from, I might still want to split my vote. Maybe 98 of them have small variations of far-right and far-left ideology as their platforms, and the two remaining ones both have ideas I absolutely do not agree with, even if they are infinitely much better than the other 98 parties.

If a large fraction of the votes for political party A is split between it and political party B, this could send a signal to party A that it might want to change some of its policies, or that some of its politicians could splinter off and form a new political party that would cater to this specific part of the electorate that evidently already exists.

Another example is that if a large fraction of the voters of party A temporarily feel like voting for party B (because something big suddenly changed), but really disagree with party B on one part of their platform, they might be able to also vote for a third party that also strongly disagrees with party B at this point, but do not have much of an opinion on the matter that made voters consider party B over party A in the first place.

That way, you might be able to get the important policy change through without completely sacrificing another issue that is important to you.

You can't improve democracy through math.

Preferential voting increases the influence of extremists on both sides as their candidates shore up the construction of coalitions or provide the additional # of votes needed for large parties to achieve a decisive victory.

Coalition governments only bring about increased resentment towards governments as separate interests grow more disillusioned with their policy achievements (either too moderate or too extreme). Two parties allow for a clear mandate "this is the direction we go in, if you don't like it, vote for the other team".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You can't improve democracy through math.

Preferential voting increases the influence of extremists on both sides as their candidates shore up the construction of coalitions or provide the additional # of votes needed for large parties to achieve a decisive victory.

Coalition governments only bring about increased resentment towards governments as separate interests grow more disillusioned with their policy achievements (either too moderate or too extreme). Two parties allow for a clear mandate "this is the direction we go in, if you don't like it, vote for the other team".

---

Now you managed to make all of it sound bad. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Now you managed to make all of it sound bad. :(

---

It's not the system, it's the culture that erode democracies and government.

The world isn't red and blue, and the shocking divisions within American parties is very undemocratic. It truly is a terrible system geared towards elitism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The world isn't red and blue, and the shocking divisions within American parties is very undemocratic. It truly is a terrible system geared towards elitism.

---

Divisions within American parties is not a symptom of the system, but of the culture. As your right wing parties continue to grow, your government will start to face the same issues.

Preferential voting allows a bell like curve to the party spectrum. Yes there is one or two extremists at each end, there is also right and left wings in the four main parties in Australia.

Preferential voting does influence the main stream parties in both good and bad ways. But it does act as a pressure valve in allowing a broader view and discourse in parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Preferential voting allows a bell like curve to the party spectrum. Yes there is one or two extremists at each end, there is also right and left wings in the four main parties in Australia.

Preferential voting does influence the main stream parties in both good and bad ways. But it does act as a pressure valve in allowing a broader view and discourse in parliament.

---

Your situation in Australia is not due to preferential voting. Up until the last 20 years, there were left and right wings in both American Parties.

Why would you want a broader view? There is no good in having the fascists and communists having a notable say in government. In fact, I would think that giving them a bigger voice only promotes further radicalization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Don't see how it relates to voting fraud.

---

I speak of how a Ukrainian would see the changes you suggest. Ukrainians have an experience of witnessing voting frauds and generally are distrustful of the calculation process. Thus the more complexities are there, the more they are likely to smell a rat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Divisions within American parties is not a symptom of the system, but of the culture. As your right wing parties continue to grow, your government will start to face the same issues.

---

The populist parties (which do not only come from the right) grow as a response to a dissatisfied electorate. The current presidential nomination process in the US shows that a two-party systems is no more safe from such dissatisfaction and the subsequent rise of populists than a multiple-party system is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Why would you want a broader view? There is no good in having the fascists and communists having a notable say in government. In fact, I would think that giving them a bigger voice only promotes further radicalization.

---

It should be obvious that there's more to a 'broader view' than anti-democratic political parties.

For starters, there are the two axes of the political compass: social (permissive <--> prohibitive) and economic (little state interference <--> much state interference). In order to fill out this compass, we would need 4-5 different political parties (4 wing-combinations + 1 centre).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Your situation in Australia is not due to preferential voting. Up until the last 20 years, there were left and right wings in both American Parties.

Why would you want a broader view? There is no good in having the fascists and communists having a notable say in government. In fact, I would think that giving them a bigger voice only promotes further radicalization.

---

A broader view reflects more more of the community interests. It's not like a single party has all the answers or all the cabinet positions are filled in the same criteria. The current governing Federal Coalition is made up of the Liberals (Right of centre-city-corporate aligned) and Nationals (Right of centre-country-local business aligned) in the House. At the Senate level they make deals with the Opposition (Labour=Left-Socialists-Unions-workers) and Greens (far left environmentalists) and a spattering of micro parties ie Family First, Motor Enthusiasts etc.

Sometimes those micro parties get disproportionate power. But then it allows them to get their changes through and next election they tend to dissipate. Some smaller parties platforms get absorbed into the mainstream parties as they see the voting tendencies of the public. Elections are the ultimate poll chasing event skewed by 3-4 years compared with media polls.

But you take it as granted that reflecting all interests =better democracy. There really shouldn't be any Australian legislation written by a party claiming that all abortion should be illegal and that carbon dioxide is "plant food" and thus has no impact on climate at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

But you take it as granted that reflecting all interests =better democracy. There really shouldn't be any Australian legislation written by a party claiming that all abortion should be illegal and that carbon dioxide is "plant food" and thus has no impact on climate at all.

---

But they are the majority in the American House and Senate. So having them in their little loony party prevents them from any main parties from instating that legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

But you take it as granted that reflecting all interests =better democracy. There really shouldn't be any Australian legislation written by a party claiming that all abortion should be illegal and that carbon dioxide is "plant food" and thus has no impact on climate at all.

---

You are desrcibing the current in power coalition in Federal Government for Australia. Their previous Prime Minister removed the minister of science as a portfolio, denied climate change, that some forms of coal was clean, subsidized the fossil fuel sector, mandated that the clean energy government loans couldn't go to wind or solar, and made himself the minister of woman because he couldn't find a woman in his party capable of doing it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You are desrcibing the current in power coalition in Federal Government for Australia. Their previous Prime Minister removed the minister of science as a portfolio, denied climate change, that some forms of coal was clean, subsidized the fossil fuel sector, mandated that the clean energy government loans couldn't go to wind or solar, and made himself the minister of woman because he couldn't find a woman in his party capable of doing it...

---

So the next question is whether a majority of Australians really desire those policies? If yes, then it is like I said originally, it's a matter of culture not system. If not, well, it sure isn't single preference voting to blame.

Until yesterday preference voting was fully enabled for house and senate.

The majority parties find then micro parties inconvient as they can't just make deals with a block. As of yesterday a vote was held so that preferential voting was limited to 6 preferences. There is already moves underway to challenge this as it is unconstitutional as their is a requirement that all votes are directly allowed by the voter and not to be filtered by parties.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-0...passed/7258212

Now that the senate reforms have gone through my best guess is that before the coalition has to table the yearly budget in may they are going to call a double dissolution and try and hammer through the advantage.

Double dissolution will mean that instead of half the senators being elected that all of them will be done. The ruling parties are hoping the margins they got last time will mean an even bigger majority.

They will also do all this in advance of the court cases being resolved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-0...passed/7258212

Now that the senate reforms have gone through my best guess is that before the coalition has to table the yearly budget in may they are going to call a double dissolution and try and hammer through the advantage.

Double dissolution will mean that instead of half the senators being elected that all of them will be done. The ruling parties are hoping the margins they got last time will mean an even bigger majority.

They will also do all this in advance of the court cases being resolved.

---

I would wait to see how things operate under the new system before casting judgement.

And today:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-0...ection/7262898

"Mr Turnbull will bring back both houses of Parliament for an extraordinary sitting in April to deal with industrial relations legislation, and says he will call a double dissolution election to be held on July 2 if the bills are not passed.

He called a snap media conference in his Canberra parliamentary courtyard this morning to make the announcement."

Basically what I asserted is happening. They have the perceived advantage and what to use it asap before challenges to the new system can be made.

The US isn't a democracy. It's a republic.

In the UK there was a vote on moving from the first past the post model. People didn't like it since it more often left the country with coalitions (which is apparently a Bad Thing).

To point out the rather obvious problem with FPTP is new parties struggle to make headway, candidates come from the small local parties and HQ divides the country into safe seats and swing seats. The former can be ignored and all policies should target people in the latter.

Protest voting is only possible by spoiling one's ballot paper or not bothering to go (neither really upsets the politicians). A system where votes are transferred does enable protests as well as votes not being "wasted" on an outsider.

I would like to see devolution to regional / local levels continue - but with the local candidates not allying themselves to a National party; and as a side note I would like to see the jobs from Whitehall move to the provinces rather than just adding more bloat to the system.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickey1331

The US isn't a democracy. It's a republic.

---

That is a funny definition. I presume constitutional monarchies are also not democracies then. Sheesh, we don't have any democracies on Earth then... Could some alien species please invade the planet and institute a democratic government so that dickey1331 is satisfied?