If several seats have to be divided over a number of parties, then some proportional system such as in the Netherlands, Germany, New Zealand and Scandinavia are just fine.Doesn’t make me so much out of whichever. What is important is that if 55% for pro-tulips-parties choose and 45% for anti-tulips-parties, that the seat distribution is therefore about 55/45. With a non-proportional system like in UK and US, it can easily become 30/70 or so because large parties and regional parties have an advantage. That is simply not democratic and is also demotifying because you actually only have a choice between two parties.
If a person has to be elected directly (for example, a president of an association or a mayor), then I find the “absolute MAJORITY rule (AMR)” the best.
It works so: Each voter gives a ranking of the candidates.On this basis, it can be determined, for each pair of candidates, which of two would win in a 1-to-1 election: You simply count on how many percent of the voters give a higher ranking to candidate A than candidate B. Usually, there is a candidate who All the other wins, and that is then chosen.
Often a different system is used, whereby the least popular candidate (based on first preference) is first switched off.For example, the Fraanse presidential election works. To see why the AMR works better, suppose that the Netherlands would choose the Prime Minister directly, and the choice was between a left extremist, a right extremist and a modestraat:
34% Select Left (1) and Moderaat (2)
36% Select Right (1) and Moderaat (2)
20% Select Moderaat (1) and left (2)
10% Select Moderaat (1) and Right (2)
In the English/American system wins right because those are simply the most preferred voices-tenare, of course, many moderaat-voters strategically vote on the left (or vice versa).
In the Fraser system the left wins because the Moderaat is first eliminated-tenare many right-wing voters strategically on a fashionable tune.
The AMR system wins Moderaat, which is the best in this case, even though the moderate candidate has the least 1st preference votes.
Why do I find AMR better than the others?First because there is (usually) no reason to vote strategically. You just give your honest preference. Secondly, because a candidate is elected who is tolerated by the majority. So no extremist is chosen that has a small group of fanatical followers but is seen by most as unacceptable.
I think the German electoral system in which you vote for the national list and for a candidate from your constituency.The parliaments are filled with the winners of the districts and the number of seats per party is corrected in proportion.
I want to abolish the first chamber, and extend the second chamber slightly and give a new electoral system.Next, I want to set up a separate (Prime minister) presidential election.
Firstly, the second chamber
I am known for the system as “parallel voting”.Part of the members of Parliament are elected through (single) districts, and part through proportional representation. This is applied in Italy, Japan, South Korea and also my homeland Nepal.
I have made a layout of the Netherlands with 150 districts (if you are interested, I can email the format privately, but it is a too large file to post here).In my proposal, these would each elect one member via instant-runoff voting or Alternative Vote, a system used for the House of Representatives of Australia.Each party delivers one candidate, and one can rank each candidate on first preference, second, etc. First preference voices are counted. If one candidate has a majority, it has won and is thus elected. Otherwise the candidate with the least votes is over. But the votes on this candidate are not lost; They move on to the second preference of the stemmer. The latter candidate continues to lose weight and his votes continue to go to the next preference of his electorate until one candidate has a majority. So one can rank endlessly; If your voice has already moved to the second choice and falls off, the voice goes to the third etc.
Example: District is a typical student city.Real leftist stuff Enzo. In his city (for simplification) only 3 parties participate: GroenLinks, PvdA and VVD.
This is the result of the first preference:
Green Left 38%
The VVD seems to be the biggest party, and that while the city is right. This is because the PvdA and green Links compete violently on the left.But thanks to this system the candidate wins with a majority in support of the whole electorate.
PvdA falls off. The 20% vote for the PvdA will go on for 18% to the similar green Links.But 2% have PvdA chosen as the first and VVD as the second. This will be the result:
Green left 56%
As you can see, a majority now has a preference for GreenLeft.This is why Green Left is elected.
As I said, I am voting for parallel.In My proposal there is beside 150 via instant-runoff voting elected district seats also still place for proportionally elected seats. This so that the smaller parties are also still slightly represented (although less seen there are now also district seats). This also ensures that the party leader is always elected, because if it is to participate in a district it may be that it loses and the chamber fraction is then without a party leader. A party that wins district seats almost certainly also wins representative seats. By putting the party leader at the top of the proportionally elected list, just as it happens now, it is almost certain that it will be elected if the party is large enough to win districts. The proportional election works just like the current second chamber elections, through the system of national and open party lists.
As I said, I would like to create a separate ministerial presidential election.I would also prefer this through Alternative Vote/instant-runoff voting; So everyone in the Netherlands can vote for a first choice, second choice etc. And the first to have a majority if the lowest placed candidate is elected. However, the Prime minister for his Cabinet appointments must have the approval of the second chamber, so to establish ministers will be formed coalitions