electoral reform proposal www.2009-de.com 1) majority voting and proportional representation
there in the world in principle two electoral systems: majoritarian and proportional representation. In majoritarian wins a person with the most relative or absolute majority of votes in a constituency. In proportional representation lists several win by many people in a multi-person constituency, in extreme cases, the whole country a constituency and all Members of Parliament are distributed in it. The seats are distributed by proportional representation relative to the percentage of the vote, using different mathematical formulas, for example by d'Hondt, Niemeyer, etc, each acting form a majority in several ways. While the majority system of voting for one is going out all the respective losers empty, promotes a multi-party proportional representation system, and each feels somehow as a winner. It tries again and again produce a combination of both systems, especially because both systems have their flaws.
available for the majority choice as shining examples of the USA, England, India, Australia, etc. are available for the proportional representation, many more countries, with some threshold or personalized elements, with many variations, understand the only experts. In Indonesia, the pure proportional representation became ignorant of the Dutch, 1955, 28 parties were surprised to parliament, including extreme ideological and religious parties, protest parties, interests or single-issue parties and regional parties. In the Netherlands, still blocked a multi-party system by the people every specific Change of power. Formation of a government still takes months, now stands the right-wing Geert Wilders his head. In this environment, the Dutch always look desperately to the queen. In Belgium, it does not create even the king! There
2) Three persons constituency
So far, for majority election in Einpersonenwahlkreis only two possibilities: either the relative who most votes and intended use or who united the absolutely most votes wins the election district. In the second case is usually still a second round necessary. Theoretically, this direct election held without parties, there so a parliament of personalities. So it was in ancient Greece. In practice, however, calling party A, B, C, D, E, and so to one person, and this usually results in more or less a two-party system. Then win either Party A or B, country, see United States, England, but not in a heterogeneous society like India. Sometimes, however, there becoming a party majority of seats.
The disadvantage of this system in a homogenous society means that Party A and Party B in this region in that region to win over large majorities, thus forming strongholds. In Singapore, the majority voting means that a party wins nearly 99% of the seats. If the projection (bias) is relatively large, needs virtually no longer at the next election will put a lot of attention, energy and effort in that constituency to. The campaign focuses on only a few uncertain constituencies, such as last year's presidential election in the United States.
It is a new idea, the relative majority system in the three-person constituency to perform. Then would have to party lists of two people compete with each other. It would get a list of two persons with the relatively highest number of votes, and send the second strongest relative list of two persons, only one person to enter parliament. It would be a minority protection mandate. Nationally, this can vary between different parties. It should first be to determine who occupies the first rank on the two lists.
This 2:1 / 1:2 system (2 wins x Party A to Party B in the 1 x or 1 x 2 x Party A Party B to win in that constituency) is therefore better than the old 1:0 / 0 1 system (party A wins in this or party B wins in that constituency), because it breaks down over large regional majorities. In that both Party A and also B represented the constituency party, to solidify the party structure, but rather is degraded in the opposite, and it can in the next election, or vice versa looks totally different.
would In effect, this three-person constituency in all constituencies, ie around the country, restore the competition. The inherent opportunity for transfer of power would be greater and democratic. The identification of regions, ethnicities, religions, interests, etc. with this or that parties would fade. And the election would again take place in all electoral districts.
The advantages of the direct election (two individuals) were retained as a relative majority system, and the trend towards a two-party system and thus the possibility that the entire country votes on a change of power and not after small parties in coalitions ("tip the scales" ).
Another advantage would be that the opposition party is always a third of the seats would be guaranteed, and the majority party never more than two thirds of the seats would get. + Two-thirds of voice should therefore be applicable to constitutional amendments.
3) men and women
This could actually leave it, but in the three-person constituency pushing for a thought: Would not it be ideal to always prepare a list of two men and a woman? It is not about racial or ethnic groups or religions or whatever, but the fact that even in the 21 Century., Ie, in 2008, women hold only 18.3% still of parliamentary seats worldwide. This women took 2400 years to vote at all and can be selected to be. They were not permitted to vote in Greece since democracy was invented 2,500 years ago in Greece. So you could say that the rules need to be considered only a further 2400 years. Perhaps it is the discrimination against women to end! It would mean that one third of seats for women would be mathematically certain, even if they never put in all the constituencies in the first place. The trend over the medium term this would lead to 50% of seats for women.
4) American primaries
Immediately upon the idea of drawing up of a man and woman on the list-one imposes virtually forced to recognize as well the system of primary elections of America. In primary elections then the primacy of man or woman would be democratically determined. Who are the major parties, and imposed in the first place has, the greater chance of being elected. Second place on the two lists thus leads only to a "landslide", ie, landslide, a mandate.
primaries were also generally better than party membership for nomination of candidates: only less than 2% of the population want to be a member of any party, and then take only slightly less in some Party members from the candidate list. Or it is entirely controlled from "above", from the party bureaucracy. In primary elections to take 10% of the population, ie the part to register the party as a sympathizer can, on the part of candidates.
5) Australian `preference vote`
The Australian preferential voice lends itself then, especially if it is not about a transition from a one-constituency for three-person Wahkreis with relative majority system, but if it is a transition from a multi-party system with proportional character mainly to a three-person electoral district shall act relative majority system. Then, each voter would have in addition a preferential vote. With his first vote he would choose him emotionally or ideologically or religiously willed interested party and with his second vote, which of the likely winning People's parties, he could support the most.
In this way he could, both in the constituency as well as nationwide, decide which party is now the two-person ticket and thus receives the majority. He would also influence a change of power nationwide.
His first vote would be worthless if he had chosen so that only a splinter party. His second vote would be worthless if he had been elected to his first vote a party that would have either won the two tickets, or the minority protection mandate. His first and second vote would be worthless if he had twice been elected parties that neither the steepest nor the second strongest relative would become party. This is normal for a relative majority system, that only one of wins. The three-person constituency to win two. With proportional representation so that everyone wins and no: or a bureaucratic elite creates by various barriers (2%, 3%, 4%, 5% clause) a free space or make it ditches (grave system) or success fees (Italy). Therefore, in proportional representation systems is always so much altered that no one can look through everything. Just think of Germany in the 5% clause or the overhang seats!
proportional representation is a referendum, with certain issues, ideological or religious slogans or radical Stammtisch, predominate. That Democracy and majority power on time is to be decided by the people and not by coalitions and horse-trading after the election is forgotten.
The last presidential election in the United States has clearly shown that after the primaries and general election are most likely reflect the majority opinion. Obama was a basic course in democracy. One would have to extend the three-person constituency only to Congress and the Senate to overcome the division into "red and blue states". Then Hillary Clinton would have won, and helped the U.S. women to break through. In the U.S., 2008, only 17% of women MPs. Then would a female president in upcoming elections realistic move around.
