User talk:Kristomun: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (oops) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 14:
Does this mean they try to elect a bunch of utilitiarian winners instead of PR? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 04:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
: Suppose you're in a party list setting and there are four parties (R, D, Greens, and Libertarians). A consensus method would choose an equal number from each party to sit on the council even though vastly more voters vote for R and D than Greens and Libs. The way this ties in to consensus is that if the council uses supermajority or unanimity for its voting process, then it's more important to have a wide variety of representatives than that they are proportionally represented. In the extreme case of unanimity, it doesn't really matter if the Democrats have 50% of the council or 10%, because a single Democrat can block a decision. Instead it's more important that every shade of Democrat (or Republican, Green or Libertarian) who could block the proposal if he were part of the population in a direct democracy, can block the proposal on that council.
: They can also be used for settings where variety is more useful than proportionality, e.g. if you're going to give everybody in a group the same set of movies, it may be more important that nobody finds the whole selection completely useless than that the selection is proportional, even if that means that a majority might only have a few movies they're interested in.
: This should probably go on a page, but I haven't found enough sources... and I don't think I can source the name "consensus method" anywhere. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 09:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||