User:Araucaria: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Araucaria No edit summary |
imported>Araucaria No edit summary |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
We need a method of legislation that would works quickly and transparently, whatever the size of the legislative body, be it 50, 500 or 50000. The rules need to be open and non-partisan. And the system of making those rules needs to be protected by checks and balances. |
We need a method of legislation that would works quickly and transparently, whatever the size of the legislative body, be it 50, 500 or 50000. The rules need to be open and non-partisan. And the system of making those rules needs to be protected by checks and balances. |
||
One way to streamline legislation would be to compress the highly inefficient technique of Robert's Rules of Order, which reduces every decision to a series of Yea/Nay votes. A strong [[Condorcet |
One way to streamline legislation would be to compress the highly inefficient technique of Robert's Rules of Order, which reduces every decision to a series of Yea/Nay votes. A strong [[Condorcet method]] could be used to resolve the preference between many options at the same time. |
||
=== Better Representation === |
=== Better Representation === |
||
==== The House of Representatives is not representative ==== |
==== The House of Representatives is not representative ==== |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
Proportional Representation (PR) proponents tend to think that if STV is good for multi-winner elections, it will be good for single-winner elections also, in the form known as [[Instant-runoff_voting|Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)]]. But [[Instant-runoff_voting#Flaws_of_IRV|it isn't]]. That's because STV is very good at ensuring representation of a wide variety of different viewpoints but isn't so good at aggregating many different viewpoints into a single compromise. |
Proportional Representation (PR) proponents tend to think that if STV is good for multi-winner elections, it will be good for single-winner elections also, in the form known as [[Instant-runoff_voting|Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)]]. But [[Instant-runoff_voting#Flaws_of_IRV|it isn't]]. That's because STV is very good at ensuring representation of a wide variety of different viewpoints but isn't so good at aggregating many different viewpoints into a single compromise. |
||
The best [[voting system]] for single-winner elections (e.g. senator, governor, president) is [[ |
The best [[voting system]] for single-winner elections (e.g. senator, governor, president) is [[Condorcet method|Condorcet]], also known as Instant Round Robin or Pairwise Voting. It uses a ranked ballot, just like IRV, but is counted differently. |
||
* Unlike IRV, it doesn't require recounting ballots after each elimination. |
* Unlike IRV, it doesn't require recounting ballots after each elimination. |
||
* Unlike IRV, all ranked preferences are accounted for, not just those for the eliminated candidates. |
* Unlike IRV, all ranked preferences are accounted for, not just those for the eliminated candidates. |