5e3bf3 No.12503
Electoral System Discussion
It seems the senate is going to be revived (again), with new elections. This is a good opportunity to discuss the electoral system for those elections.
Should it be proportional to the parties, giving them each seats according to how many votes they get? Or should it be based on individual users? And how many seats should there be?
What electoral system should be used? If it's PR, how should seats be assigned? D'Hondt? Sainte-Lague?
How many votes should people get? One man, one vote? A number depending on the number of parties/candidates or seats there are?
Should there be a threshold on votes needed to get any seats? A cap on the number of seats a single party can get? A cap on independent seats?
Post your ideas.
5e3bf3 No.12504
I suggest a system that is proportional but also makes individual senators, not parties collectively, win seats. Here's how it works:
Each party can stand any number of candidates. Independent candidates can also stand.
Each voter gets a single vote they can cast for any candidate.
Each candidate who got enough of the vote to be owed a seat gets a seat (e.g. if there's 50 seats, everyone who got 2% of the vote is elected).
Then, sort all candidates by party and by number of votes. Add up all the extra votes any elected candidates got beyond the number they needed to be elected, and move those votes to the unelected candidate from the same party with the highest number of votes. If there's still leftover, move it to the next highest.
If there's still anyone unelected with votes, move their votes to the unelected candidate with the most votes in the same party too, until all the votes a party got have been spread among its candidates to elect as many of them as possible.
This way the result is totally proportional and also entirely based on individual candidates. Each voter simply has to choose one candidate. Once elected, candidates could participate in the senate themselves or delegate their voting power to a party leader to use on their behalf, so the /sen/ process doesn't have to change.
Parties can make "preference lists" of their candidates to specify the order spare votes get moved between them, instead of just going from most votes to fewest votes. Independent candidates can too, so their unused votes can move to another candidate/party. Party candidates could use preference lists if their parties allow them to. Preference lists could even move votes to another party in the case of all of a party's candidates getting elected with leftover. The lists could also be used to determine where to move votes when two candidates have a tie (if no list specifies, draw straws).
1c3b49 No.12506
>>12504I'll take this into consideration. This is definitely a big change compared to how /sen/ has traditionally handled distribution of seats and votes, but I don't see why the system you propose couldn't be made to work.
5e3bf3 No.12511
>>12506It can potentially work exactly the same way. The two changes to how it can work are no cap on independent seats and only one vote per voter. But both those could be changed.
It basically just adds more options: the ability to distribute votes exactly when electing, and then a default of individuals instead of parties having votes. That way it's easier to join a party and get involved. And the option of vote preference, so no votes get wasted.
It can still work the same way, with all elected candidates delegating their seats to a party leader who casts them in one go, ideally after listening to the members and voters.
But this was only intended as a starting point anyway. I was hoping more people would weigh in to make an even better and more open electoral system.