Anonymous user
SODA voting (Simple Optionally-Delegated Approval): Difference between revisions
SODA voting (Simple Optionally-Delegated Approval) (view source)
Revision as of 16:37, 28 June 2011
, 13 years agono edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
Line 30:
# Leaders of minority factions would have an appropriate voice for their concerns, although power would ultimately reside with any majority coalition which exists.
# This should be generally acceptable to current politicians, who are winners in a Plurality two-party system. Plurality-style voting still works just fine, and if most votes are for major parties, this system will cleanly allow a major party to win, in many cases without going to the delegation round (especially if the major-party candidates do not pre-announce delegation preferences, thus preventing an extorting minor party from demanding their delegated votes).
== Criticism and responses ==
=== "There are other systems which are better in some ways." ===
Line 48 ⟶ 46:
Also, since candidate's delegations must accord with their pre-declared preferences, there no opportunity for strategy as long as those preferences were honestly-declared. And the preferences do not represent back-room wheeling and dealing; they are public positions. The various risks of dishonestly declaring one's preference clearly outweigh the unlikely benefits they'd give.
Simple response to a ''candidate'' who makes this argument: "He just wants the only smoke-filled room to be the one inside his skull." That is, minority factions '''should''' have a seat at the table, as long as everything is done transparently. In SODA, all vote totals, preference orders, and final delegation decisions are known; in the end, that's not a smoke-filled room, it's a transparent seat at the table, with a just degree of power which is derived from the people.
=== "Why go to the trouble of pre-announced rankings and a second round? Why not just have candidates pre-announce their delegated approvals?" ===
| |||