Geographic Open List/Delegated (GOLD) voting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Homunq No edit summary |
imported>Homunq No edit summary |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
#* See above for the transfer methods a voter can choose. |
#* See above for the transfer methods a voter can choose. |
||
# If there are still seats to fill, repeat from step 3. |
# If there are still seats to fill, repeat from step 3. |
||
== Proportional or semiproportional? == |
|||
GOLD voting is proportional in a two-party context. If there are more than two parties, though, it is only semiproportional; smaller parties without a clear regional character may get less than their proportional share. But if that happens, their votes will not be ignored; they will have a say on which of the larger parties gets more seats, and even on which candidates from that allied larger party win. Thus, a smaller party will be able to promote their issues by favoring those candidates who prioritize those issues. |
|||
Note that other proportional voting methods sometimes are used with extra rules designed to stop smaller parties from winning seats. For instance, in the German mixed-member "proportional" method, a party that gets less than 5% or 2 direct seats does not get a proportional allotment of seats. Thus, technically speaking, even the German system is really only semiproportional, not truly proportional. |
|||
== Advantages == |
|||
The advantages of this method are as follows. First, the advantages common to all proportional representation methods: |
|||
* Equality: partisan gerrymandering is impossible, and each party gets its fair share of seats. |
|||
* Representation: Almost all voters are truly represented; even if you are a minority in your district, your vote helps elect a candidate of a party you sympathize with, and you have a representative from that party whose job is to listen to you. |
|||
This method also keeps all the strong points of the current voting system. (The current system is horrible in general, but it still has its strong points.) |
|||
* Simplicity: you just choose one candidate, and the ballot is short. |
|||
* Accountability: voters, not parties, choose who is elected. |
|||
* Unity: discourages splinter parties, because candidates without a strong local base of support are eliminated up-front. |