I didnt want this to turn into a philosophical or political debate. I was wondering if there was any sold Math behind such conundrums. It seems to me that PR is NOT FAIR if it leaves a substantial party powerless and that some other (mathematically based) distribution of seats would be better.
For instance consider the vote being discussed 27%, 26%, 25%, 22% where party D with almost a quarter of the vote has no power.
And the situation of 49%, 25%, 24%, 4%
Now party D with just 4% is king-maker!
Why should other parties votes affect the power a party has?
Originally posted by wolfgang59Voting paradox
I didnt want this to turn into a philosophical or political debate. I was wondering if there was any sold Math behind such conundrums. It seems to me that PR is NOT FAIR if it leaves a substantial party powerless and that some other (mathematically based) distribution of seats would be better.
For instance consider the vote being discussed 27%, 26%, 2 ...[text shortened]... ty D with just 4% is king-maker!
Why should other parties votes affect the power a party has?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradox
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N8/8voting.8n.html
Originally posted by wolfgang59Because government is about shared power. Everyone can't have all the power!
I didnt want this to turn into a philosophical or political debate. I was wondering if there was any sold Math behind such conundrums. It seems to me that PR is NOT FAIR if it leaves a substantial party powerless and that some other (mathematically based) distribution of seats would be better.
For instance consider the vote being discussed 27%, 26%, 2 ...[text shortened]... ty D with just 4% is king-maker!
Why should other parties votes affect the power a party has?
It is verily the nature of this problem that any solution will have definite and practical ramifications on this thing we call politics.
It is thus nearly impossible to discuss the mathematics of the thing without examining, at least in part, what ideals and concepts the math relates to.
For one thing, one must define explicitly what one means by "fairness", and what the primary principle of a democratic-based body operates, so that one can therefore model that principle using a mathematical basis.
I have stated that, according to my best knowledge, the basic overriding principle of a democratic election is that each person has an equal share of say, and the mathematics corresponding to this would indicate that for every 1% a particular unified group represents, they would get 1% of the vote.
The imperfect side of this is that a group with significant numbers but still a minority might end up without practical power to implement their agenda in decision-making.
However, their voice is still heard, and they have the chance to sway others with their arguments.
There is also the fact that disgreements within an idealogical group aren't uncommon, and there may be things to be decided for which the group does not particularly care.
Originally posted by wolfgang594% does not a king make, unless you assume that 25% and 24% always vote against 49%. There are actually 15 possibilities (the 16th can't happen in most systems):
And the situation of 49%, 25%, 24%, 4%
Now party D with just 4% is king-maker!
Why should other parties votes affect the power a party has?
YES / NO
49%, 25%, 24%, 4% / 0% = YES
49%, 25%, 24% / 4% = YES
49%, 25%, 4% / 24% = YES
49%, 24%, 4% / 25% = YES
25%, 24%, 4% / 49% = YES
49%, 25% / 24%, 4% = YES
49%, 24% / 25%, 4% = YES
49%, 4% / 25%, 24% = YES
25%, 24% / 49%, 4% = NO
25%, 4% / 49%, 24% = NO
24%, 4% / 49%, 25% = NO
49% / 25%, 24%, 4% = NO
25% / 49%, 24%, 4% = NO
24% / 49%, 25%, 4% = NO
4% / 49%, 25%, 24% = NO
0% / 49%, 25%, 24%, 4% = NO (this one isn't usually possible)
If all the parties are ideologically "orthogonal", then why should one assume the small parties will always try to stymie the big one? Wheeling and dealing will be the name of the game.
Originally posted by PBE6Nevermind the fact that there is 102% in this voting scheme....
4% does not a king make, unless you assume that 25% and 24% always vote against 49%. There are actually 15 possibilities (the 16th can't happen in most systems):
YES / NO
49%, 25%, 24%, 4% / 0% = YES
49%, 25%, 24% / 4% = YES
49%, 25%, 4% / 24% = YES
49%, 24%, 4% / 25% = YES
25%, 24%, 4% / 49% = YES
49%, 25% / 24%, 4% = YES
49%, 24% / 25%, 4% = YES ...[text shortened]... s will always try to stymie the big one? Wheeling and dealing will be the name of the game.
The 4% wins in 10/16 cases
24% wins in 10/16 cases
25% wins in 8/16 cases
49% wins in 14/16 cases
Why does 25% have the disadvantage?
Originally posted by uzlessSince when did MPs vote the way their constituents wanted? Even in UK MPs follow the party line - else what would be the point of the Whips?
this is all BS because you are assuming that all members of each party will vote along party lines and never vote the way their constiuents want to vote.
In other words, you are debating a system that isn't truly DEMOCRATIC in the first place.
Sheesh!!
😛
The situation I am considering is (as a PBE6 put it)ideologically "orthogonal" parties where the members of each party would vote as a block.
Originally posted by PBE6In practice party A (49 seats) puts forward a proposal. It needs party B (25 seats), C (24 seats) or D (2 seats) to back it. So in that situation party D has as much power as B & C.
4% does not a king make, unless you assume that 25% and 24% always vote against 49%. There are actually 15 possibilities (the 16th can't happen in most systems):
YES / NO
49%, 25%, 24%, 4% / 0% = YES
49%, 25%, 24% / 4% = YES
49%, 25%, 4% / 24% = YES
49%, 24%, 4% / 25% = YES
25%, 24%, 4% / 49% = YES
49%, 25% / 24%, 4% = YES
49%, 24% / 25%, 4% = YES ...[text shortened]... s will always try to stymie the big one? Wheeling and dealing will be the name of the game.
Looking at possibilities there are only 4 practical majorities:
AB (total 74)
AC (total 73)
AD (total 51)
BCD (total 51)
A is on 3 of these. lets call this a power ranking of THREE.
B, C & D are each on 2, so their powers are equal ;lets call it TWO.
So B, C and D are equally powerful. Forget debate and back-room deals .. I am assuming here that the parties ALL vote as blocks.
Now can we arrange parliamentary seats so that the power is a reflection of the original support the parties got?
Originally posted by wolfgang59Ah, well then with the Thread entitled, "Democratic?" a simple NO should put an end to the debate.
Since when did MPs vote the way their constituents wanted? Even in UK MPs follow the party line - else what would be the point of the Whips?
The situation I am considering is (as a PBE6 put it)ideologically "orthogonal" parties where the members of each party would vote as a block.