Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Ariaflame (ariaflame@masto.ai)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 17:12:06 JST Ariaflame

   • mcc
   • Jorge Stolfi

   @arichtman @JorgeStolfi @mcc @modulux Preferential or ranked choice voting yes. We also have mandatory voting (with early voting and sometimes other forms for people that can't get in on the day). Queues to vote are usually less than half an hour, and there's often someone nearby selling democracy sausages inna bun or cake. It's not perfect. Humans are still prone to right wing fearmongering, but it tends to less extremism.

   • Embed this notice
     Jorge Stolfi (jorgestolfi@mas.to)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 17:12:05 JST Jorge Stolfi

     in reply to

     • mcc

     @ariaflame @arichtman @mcc @modulux

     I meant a system where each candidate for Congress declares beforehand "vote for me, but if I am not elected, your vote will go to Mr. XYZ". Wasn't that used in Australia at some point?

   • Embed this notice
     Ariaflame (ariaflame@masto.ai)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 17:21:32 JST Ariaflame

     in reply to

     • mcc
     • Jorge Stolfi

     @JorgeStolfi @arichtman @mcc @modulux Oh they don't get to choose. Australia you put your preferences in your choice of order. The person who comes last has their second choices redistributed, and then the next last gets theirs redistributed, and so forth and so on. Until someone gets over 50%. We have the House and the Senate that we vote on. So two different papers. One is fairly short because it's just your area. The other is for your State. The candidate can suggest order, but not control.

   • Embed this notice
     Jorge Stolfi (jorgestolfi@mas.to)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jan-2025 17:21:32 JST Jorge Stolfi

     in reply to

     • mcc

     @ariaflame @arichtman @mcc @modulux

     A similar vote redistribution is (was?) used here in Brazil too, but the "recycled" votes (including votes to winners that exceeded the winning threshold) went to better-voted candidates *of the same party*.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 01:54:52 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to

     • Jorge Stolfi
     unless that's about a time I haven't lived, that comes across as a very twisted description of proportional voting, in which voters (are supposed to) vote first and foremost for a party/coalition, and votes for specific candidates are only used to pick, among the party/coalition candidates, which ones are going to become that party/coalition's representatives
   • Embed this notice
     Jorge Stolfi (jorgestolfi@mas.to)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 08:36:07 JST Jorge Stolfi

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     @lxo

     That is the same thing, no? It is how Enéas got a dozen members of his party into Congress, even though they got practically no votes. And Tiririca pulled controversial PF delegado Protógenes.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jan-2025 11:05:07 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to

     • Jorge Stolfi
     yeah, but presenting it as if votes were for individuals, and then 'recycled" into other individuals of the same party, goes entirely against the notion of proportional representativity, that a lot of people don't seem to understand. the vote goes to the party, which sets the proportions, and then the most voted ones in the party get a mandate according to the proportion the party got. there's no recycling whatsoever. that's a way to misrepresent the logic of proportional voting to promote other kinds of elections in which representation is not proportional