Voting

[RNK]

An interesting subject I like to talk about involves voting systems and their efficiencies and defficiencies.

Since we're in the business of providing for the people I feel that we should have some sort of discussion on this. Personally I haven't seen it talked about much, despite its importance. This stems from my belief that the plurality system may not be the most efficient system of democratic decision-making so I'll bring up other potential systems, most of which appear on this Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting) on voting systems.

Plurality Voting

Also known as "first-past-the-post" and "single-winner" voting. It is the most commonly used form of democracy in the West and the prevailing political voting system in the United States. Essentially, each voter is allowed a single vote and given a slate of options. Whichever option receives the most votes, wins. Simple as that. Criticisms of this system include the disproportionate representation that this system can lead to; for instance, if 55% of a population vote in favour of something while %45 vote against it, the majority automatically win; this can lead to imbalanced and unequal representation for minorities (for instance, if you have 9 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner...).

Approval Voting

This system allows voters to vote for as many of the options as they want. For instance, if deciding a new deckhand, workers on a fishing boat are given a list of several available men. They can vote for any number of them; in the end, the person with the most, or perhaps the 3 people with the most, win. Criticisms of this system, however, allude to the fact that this can lead to disproportionate results, and instances where the will of the majority is not carried through.

For instance, let's say you have a province or something containing 100 people in 4 towns; Town 1 has 42 people, Town 2: 26, Town 3: 17, Town 4: 15. The people of this province are deciding in which of these towns some large factory should be built. The people are allowed to vote for as many or as few options as they like, and the voting results are:

Town 1: 42
Town 2: 68
Town 3: 32
Town 4: 58

Despite having 42% of the population of the province, Town 1 comes out in 3rd place; while Town 2, with 26% of the population, comes out with a clear majority. This is because nobody except the folk from Town 1 chose that town; most people, however, chose Town 2 as one of their votes.

Cumulative Voting

Cumulative voting essentially allows voters to accumulate or spread their votes out among choices. Its regarded as being more equally representative, particularly for minorities. There are two different types of cumulative voting. Both give the voters a "tally" number of votes they can use; 3, for instance. They may use these "vote points" as they see fit; they may stack all of them on a single choice, or spread them out over three different choices, etc. Another type limits voters to one vote per choice, but bases the value of that vote based on the total number of votes. For instance, in a list of 5 options, if a person were to use only two of those options, each vote would be worth "1/2" of a vote. If they were to vote for three options, each vote would be worth "1/3rd" of a full vote. If they were to vote for one option, that vote would be worth a full vote. Both methods allow minority groups (ethnic, racial, and class minorities) to gain greater representation by focusing their votes on specific options.

Discuss!

[Demogorgon]

None of them. Proportional Representation is obviously the fairest form of voting. Under capitalism of course it is of limited use (though most capitalist countries do use it) but that notwithstanding it is still the fairest possible voting system.

[TC]

it really depends on the structure of the organization thats voting.

i think single transferable voting makes the most sense when there are multi-seat constituencies in politically divided organizations for non-executive posts, but it complicates recall procedure and can reduce accountability in certain other situations.

[Tower of Bebel]

I think I love the last one.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

We want PR.

[cyu]

(for instance, if you have 9 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner...).

I think this problem can be solved if everyone agrees on the principle that those who are most affected by a decision should have the most say in the decision. In this case, the victim is most affected, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else.

If a decision doesn't affect or barely affects a group of people, those people shouldn't have a vote at all. If a decision primarily affects one person (like deciding whether to eat a hot dog or salad for lunch), then only that person should get to vote.

Of course, determining who is most affected by a decision could be a point of heated contention. But if everyone agrees to the basic principle, then it would go a long way to protecting minority rights.

[phoenixoftime]

Proportional voting rocks! My fair nation (and Germany) uses MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) and it works very well, with minority groups getting a fair say. STV (Single Transferrable Vote) is another good system - ranking of a number of candidates.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

culmative seems like the best option you provided