On 3/15/2013 2:22 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On 03/14/2013 11:26 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
...
One way is to eliminate the need for coalitions. This is the purpose of
VoteFair negotiation ranking, which allows the elected representatives
to rank various proposals on various (hopefully-at-least-somewhat)
related issues. Based on these rankings the software calculates which
proposals would produce a proposed law that is "best" supported by the
elected representatives -- including support by small (but not tiny)
opposition parties. (Details about VoteFair negotiation ranking are at
www.NegotiationTool.com.)
On 3/11/2013 1:33 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I suppose that making every government a minority government would also
work here. The cost would be greater instability, though. How would the
negotiation ranking handle the instability (or general delay and
gridlock) that might appear?
I do not understand what you mean by making a government a minority
government. What is a minority government?
VoteFair negotiation ranking gives the majority the most control. Yet
it also gives influence to minorities -- if:
* They are joined together with a common interest -- which amounts to an
"opposition coalition" that is internally identified by the algorithm
based on votes, without being based on any additional information (such
as party membership).
* Or, they have some overlap with some representatives in the majority.
* Or, when they support something that does not conflict with what the
majority wants.
Expressed another way, the method is a calculation algorithm that
implements "log rolling" (combining separate proposals into a single
package to be voted on) and "vote trading" (where representatives agree
to vote for something they don't care for in exchange for another vote
that supports what they do care about).
The algorithm produces a suggested list of compatible proposals that
would be likely to get majority support if they are packaged into a
single yes-or-no vote among all the representatives (which in this case
are the MPs).
If the package does not pass with majority support, then the (elected)
representatives can change their rankings and their identification of
which proposals are incompatible with one another. This is a diplomatic
way of saying that they either were not paying full attention when they
were voting on the proposals, or they were not honest in their voting.
The other approach is to replace traditional PR with an election method
that gives no advantage to strategic voting. This is what the full
VoteFair ranking system is designed to do. Specifically, each district
would use VoteFair representation ranking to elect one "majority" MP
(member of Parliament) and one "opposition" MP, and the remaining
parliamentary seats are filled using VoteFair party ranking (to identify
party popularity) and VoteFair partial-proportional ranking (to choose
which district-losing candidate wins each party-based seat). The result
does not allow even a group of well-coordinated voters to meaningfully
and predictably alter the results.
How would that method solve the left/right scenario I mentioned? Would
it give the right-of-center parties (or people) position if they had a
majority, and otherwise let the left-of-center voter's vote go to a
left-of-center candidate?
Your scenario (as I recall) involved using a voting method in which
there are strategies that enable the voters to produce a different
outcome -- without any risk that a dramatically worse outcome can occur.
VoteFair ranking includes characteristics that defeat attempts to vote
strategically.
Specifically, insincere voting (in VoteFair ranking) can easily produce
an outcome that is the opposite of what the voter wanted.
(I suppose an analogy is that a person would hesitate to fire a gun at
another person if there was some risk that the bullet might come out
heading in the exact opposite direction. That's a lot riskier than a
gun that simply might miss the intended target by a small amount.)
And if insincere voting is attempted (even if it is well-coordinated by
the group doing it), that attempt (when VoteFair ranking is used) cannot
significantly increase the odds that the insincere voters could get what
they want.
If the voters have no reason to vote strategically and the algorithm
produces fair results, then we can finally get beyond one-dimensional
politics and arrive at multi-dimensional politics where issues and
positions can each be handled appropriately.
Remember that the concept of "left" versus "right" (or "conservative"
versus "liberal", etc.) is an oversimplification. This dimension does
not really exist. Instead, each voter has separate opinions about
taxation, religion (and each of its many separate issues), and
environmental protection, and the best way to invigorate an economy (and
create jobs), and the best way to reduce (or not reduce) the influence
of money in politics, and so on. The consolidation of all those
separate issues into a single dimension is an underlying unfairness in
existing voting systems.
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
