User:Araucaria: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
VisualWikitext
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]] method could be used to resolve the preference between many options at the same time.
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 [[Condorcet_method|Condorcet]], also known as Instant Round Robin or Pairwise Voting. It uses a ranked ballot, just like IRV, but is counted differently.
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.
Retrieved from "https://electowiki.org/wiki/User:Araucaria"