ec2-18-191-228-88.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic Looking at FirstPastThePost, it occurs to me (OP: DR) that perhaps what we need to do first, before deciding an electoral system, is decide what properties we want it to have.
Is fairness really the most important criteria? Many have argued that it doesn't really matter which scoundrels are in power. Just make sure each lot don't stay there too long, because with practice they'll learn how to be effective at abusing their power.
So perhaps what we want is an electoral system that punishes competence? Ideally, the more important the politician, the more time it will make them waste in 'do nothing' activities such as making speeches, touring, opening things, defending themselves against allegations. In fact anything except actually interfering with what actually gets done in the area of government they are responsible for.
That would undermine accountability of the government. I sometimes wonder if we should just abandon the party system and recognise all elected MPs as part of the government. Each cabinet position would be put to a vote (probably of the transferrable kind), and the power would lie in parliament and the cross-party committees. General elections should use transferrable votes so the electorate can convey more information about what they want. --B
Given that accountability of the government is what we want to *increase*, I reckon it should be feasible for the public to trigger a vote of no confidence. - MoonShadow
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
ProportionalRepresentation