districts PR voting

[parker friedland]

This is a voting method meant for legislative bodies, and on average a legislative body that uses this method for each individual district should be PR.

How is it possible for a legislative body that uses single winner districts to be PR? The answer is time.

Lets just look at one of these districts. District 37 had 4 candidates in it and in the first election, these were the results:

Red : 100 votes (plurality style votes)
Blue1 : 55 votes
Blue2 : 54 votes
Yellow : 5 votes

In the first election, red got the most votes, so red won. But in the second election, red got the same amount of votes as last time, so the total amount of votes red got in both elections was 200. however because red already won last election, in order to win again, red still has to have the highest quotient (total votes all previous elections divided by the amount of times they won + 1) so they are at a disadvantage. This rule also applies to every other candidate, so here are all of their quotients.

Red : 200 votes / 2 = 100
Blue1 : 110 votes / 1 = 110
Blue2 : 108 votes / 1 = 108
Yellow : 10 votes / 1 = 10

Blue1 wins.

Red : 300 votes / 2 = 150
Blue1 : 165 votes / 2 = 82.5
Blue2 : 162 votes / 1 = 162
Yellow : 15 votes / 1 = 10

Blue2 wins.

Red : 400 votes / 2 = 200
Blue1 : 220 votes / 2 = 110
Blue2 : 216 votes / 2 = 108
Yellow : 20 votes / 1 = 20

Red wins.

So the amount of time each candidate spends as the winner in this district is proportional to their support. As a result, on average, the legislative body as a whole should be PR. Even fringe candidates like Yellow will occasionally be represented.

[Jameson Quinn]

Interesting idea, but the obvious workaround would be for Red to regularly rebrand their party. Note that there are actual countries where the same politicians regularly move to new party brands, so the idea of rebranding a party is not unrealistic.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscience+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[parker friedland]

How would that help Red? He might get the support of new voters, but he would also lose the support of old voters.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.

[Brian Langstraat]

Attached "Districts PR Voting.JPG".

Fun idea for reducing incumbents without term limits.

However, I see a few issues:

If these records are kept for each district, then there could be a whole new set of issues when redistricting.

If these records are kept for each legislative body or office, then parties would rotate politicians.

If these records are kept for each politician over all elections, then geographical populations would be very important and experienced politicians would be disadvantaged at the highest levels of government (= more Trumps).

It would reduce voter power or encourage favorite betrayal.

Persistent extremists could eventually overwhelm moderates continually.

Incumbents would have added incentives to restrict ballot access and voting rights.

Perhaps, it would work well for legislators introducing legislation.

1. "Point" votes would be cast  for bills proposed by individual legislators prior to introducing each bill.

2. The number of cumulative overall points and introduced bills would be recorded for each legislator during each legislative term.

3. The legislator with the highest quotient (overall points divided by the number of introduced bills + 1) would have their current proposed bill introduced for floor debates and a vote.

This should prioritize introducing popular bills, but allow less popular bills by persistent legislators to be introduced eventually.