Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Direct proportional representation, like we have in the Netherlands, preferably with minimal seat threshold for a party to get into parliament.
It doesn't have regional representation or voting districts, but I don't think that that really matters much on the national level. Instead you get an as close to accurate as possible representation of which parties the people voted for.
The low seat threshold also allows people to vote for small parties that may be closer to their political views. And it allows people to feel confident punishing a big party by voting for a close alternative, if they fail to listen to their voters.
The voting for small parties problem could also be address with multiple ranked choice voting.
That way, candidates who don't win, can have their voters submit second and third choices, that are count when or if their primary choices don't win.
That way, people can vote for their actual favorite, while without taking their vote away from a second favorite with better chances at winning a seat.
This is especially important for positions like president, where only one candidate CAN win (some countries achieve the same with multiple rounds of voting, but you can theoretically achieve the same representation in one round).
Ranked choice voting is more relevant for elections where one winner must take all (for instance presidential elections or voting districts with only one representative) which will always suffer from not being able to represent everyone
Direct proportional representation gets around that problem by avoiding situations where one person has to "win" an election
As for the president problem, you can get around that by simply not having a president with any meaningful power. The prime minister can be appointed by the cabinet, and the head of state (be it king or president) can be a purely ceremonial role.
One concern I have with direct proportional representation is that it will create secure seats, which no longer respond to their constituents. Competitive seats have to worry a lot more about how to satisfy their constituents, and can't easily get away with corruption.