Quote:
|
Originally Posted by calculoso
That's kind of a cool idea, but would need tweaking. Those in a tough race (against tougher opponents) wouldn't get seats but those basically acclaimed due to weak opponents are guaranteed seats.
How about something where all the "winners" of ridings get seats along with the top percentage of losers (based on the proportional representation you describe above)? It'd be a combination of what we have now and a more true representational system.
|
That's what I'm talking about... You have the 'winners' of the seats get their seat, and then you 'top-up' or even it out using the top losers for each party.
Let's say that the Conservatives get 45% of the vote, but 65% of the seats... well, now you need to 'top up' the other parties so their respective share of the vote matches their share of the seats. However, you do it using the best of the losers to encourage people to vote for the candidate as well... So all those in Rob Anders riding get together and elect Rob Anders, but the Green candidate gets 20% of the vote, he's also likely to be a 'top up' seat getter. That's what I meant by MMP... mixed-member proportional. You have the regularly elected members and then the others. Similar to how the Germans do it, however, I think using the best of the losers is better than having a list system, it makes the ballot easier to read and it's easier to count instead of having to list off your top 100 picks. Who really wants to do that?