Weighted democracy (cumulative voting)

[Viking]

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)

[Hooahguy]

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.

[Viking]

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%

[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.

[Husar]

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?

[Beskar]

[Greyblades]

So you have never seen Europeans talk about US elections?

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

[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.

[Beskar]

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.

[Papewaio]

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...

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[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.

[dickey1331]

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

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Snowhobbit]

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?