"Optimal" voting systems?

[Duda Jarek]

A nonexistence of the optimal voting system can be proven in many situations, I wanted to propose a general discussion about choosing the best voting systems for various purposes and countries.
Especially regarding the most interesting - parliamentary election: there is a territory divided into districts in which people vote for local candidates (usually representing one of parties), and we want to find seat apportionment to fulfill two priorities:
1) The total number of seats of different parties is proportional to their total number of votes,
2) Locally there are chosen those having majority of votes.
Unfortunately these two priorities exclude each other – there are usually used systems based on the first one (proportional representation, e.g. Holland, Portugal, Switzerland, Spain, Poland, Brazil) or the second (e.g. single-member district - USA, Canada). As we would like to fulfill both priorities, there are also mixed systems (e.g. Germany), like: half of the seats are chosen by local majorities, half by proportional representation – what has some technical difficulties to fulfill. There is also being developed more modern biproportional apportionment to fulfill both priorities at once, but it based on approximations.

I think that in the age of computers we don’t have to be satisfied by some approximation, as we can find the optimal apportionment – if only we would quantitatively define what do we mean by the best apportionment – define “optimality” function, such that we are searching for an apportionment having its highest value.
Then a computer can start with some approximation and search nearby apportionments to find the best one. As it is a difficult computational problem, after voting statistics are announced, they could wait e.g. a day when everybody could search for a better apportionment (with higher “optimality” value) and finally the best found would be set.
So the question is how to define this “optimality” function – it should be some average (e.g. weighted arithmetic) of terms corresponding to penalties of both priorities:
1) minus distance of proportion of seats and proportion of votes, e.g. the simples Gallagher index. We could also take a more complex distance to emphasize the fact that accuracy is more essential for small parties (e.g. Kullback-Leibler).
2) e.g. sum over districts of minus “the number of voters choosing a candidate with larger number of votes than the winner for this district” – for single-member districts (can be easily generalized). So it is kind of a number of people having a reason to complain as their candidate got more votes than the winer - it is zero if the one having majority has won.

There has remained many questions, like what weights, distance, function in 2), averages should we choose. E.g. arithmetic average is more tolerable for compensating than geometric average (e.g. if 3,0 is better than 1,1 ?).
Then, what kind of question should be asked – to motivate voters to come and to properly represent their choices. Maybe a choice of a single candidate, maybe a few, or maybe some preferential system?

What would be the best voting systems and why – especially for your countries?
What do we mean by the best apportionment – how to define the “optimality” function?

Edited May 26, 2014 by Duda Jarek

[John Cuthber]

I think democracy has been proved to be mathematically doomed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

 

In short, the theorem states that no rank-order voting system can be designed that satisfies these three "fairness" criteria:

• If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.
• If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).
• There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference.

[Duda Jarek]

Indeed John, as I have mentioned, in some situations it is impossible to find a voting system satisfying looking basic requirements, like in the entioned Arrow's or Holmstrom's theorem - mainly because of Condorcet's cycles: when preferences are of type A<B, B<C, C<A.

It is partially solved in Borda systems - that voters give point values to options and finally there is chosen option with the highest number of points.

Quantitatively defining "optimality" function of apportionment is somehow similar - we are choosing apportionment having the best "optimality".

 

As “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”, for example probably the biggest problem with dictatorship is finding the proper person and especially his succeeder, we still have have to find the best voting methods for various situations - not only in politics.

So how should we choose them?

[Dekan]

I don't think we should try to "choose" a leader. The natural leader should come to the front, and impose his will on us, because he is strong.

And mostly that's what we want. We want to be told what to do. Isn't it such a relief, just to obey orders?

 

That's why the people of Egypt vote for a new Nasser, and the Russians love Putin. Such men satisfy a basic need.

"Democracy" only causes confusion and discontent. It goes against nature.

 

In nature, the strong prevail. That's how it should be. Otherwise, how could there be any evolutionary progress - wouldn't we all be amoebae?

[physica]

Dekan you should realise that the argument that something is natural has very little scope. If we take this reasoning we can say it's more natural to die of an infection than take antibiotics or that's it's more natural to sleep on the floor than in a bed. Yes in nature usually the strongest is the leader but civilisation and societies strive to go against nature as nature is fairly cruel and uncaring. If a civilisation strives to be close to nature you may as well not bother with the society and let them throw the dice in the air and see how they land. People who live in places where they don't get to choose their leader usually put their lives on the line to correct this. You may think that it would be good not to choose our leader but seriously tell us what are the benefits to this? Sure we get corruption in democracy but it isn't as bad as a leader who knows he/she doesn't have to answer to his/her people because he/she is strong.

[Acme]

...And mostly that's what we want. We want to be told what to do. Isn't it such a relief, just to obey orders?

...

You'll appreciate this then. Go away and don't come back.

[Roamer]

 

 

2) Locally there are chosen those having majority of votes.

 

Umm, i don't realy get why you would want this, (Unless you are talking about a local (sub-)government, which i doubt.)

Else there are generally two reasons this is implemented:
1:Simplicity, as most/all of the election-systems were implemented before the digital age.

2:To stop competition from smaller parties.

(which is something the established parties would like, but i don't see why not just go for a dictatorship/kingdom or autocracy then)

[Duda Jarek]

Roamer, I think in most of parliamentary open list elections, you choose among candidates from your district (?) - so that they not only represent their parties, but also their regions and so the people who voted for them.

Up to single-member districts where people only choose someone directly representing their region.

E.g. in Germany (mixed system) they get a card with two lists: of candidates and of parties.

[DimaMazin]

Sure we get corruption in democracy but it isn't as bad as a leader who knows he/she doesn't have to answer to his/her people because he/she is strong.

Corruption in Russia is stronger than Putin. Dekan simply doesn't know about corruption in Russia. Corruption doesn't admit honest competitors, therefore Putin loves corruption. Always corruption tries to destroy democracy.

[Dekan]

You may think that it would be good not to choose our leader but seriously tell us what are the benefits to this?

 

If we try to democratically choose a leader, we're bound to get a weak person. Because this person must try to make himself agreeable to everybody,

Unfortunately everybody's opinions differ. Some think this, others think that. Which makes a democratically-elected leader scrabble for some kind of compromise.

And compromise is a another word for fudge

 

As we all know from daily experience, you can't fudge decisions. You have to be strong, and decide one way or the other.

Which is why we need strong leaders, such as Putin.

 

DimaMazin asserts, in #9, that I don't know about corruption in Russia. Of course I do, but isn't there also corruption in America.

 

Do true Americans admire their current media-elected President?

[Endy0816]

What are people's thoughts on coalition governments?

 

I know what I've read about and have absorbed from the news but have no direct experience upon which to base an opinion. Trying to see if there might be a "better" voting system rather than "best" voting system.

 

Voting system -> Government type -> How the country does overall

 

so a different voting system might have a positive or negative impact depending. Not the only factor in a country's fate but relatively speaking easier one to change.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Endy0816

[Dekan]

The USA has never had a "Coalition Government", as the last time they tried it ended in a Civil War, so it's best left to Europeans to deal with these issues, we have more experience.

[physica]

Consulting more people in decision making is more beneficial than one strong leader calling the shots. So you've come up with a weak point that people don't like the current president. Are the people in the USA starving on mass like in North Korea? In North Korea only national armed forces have motor vehicles. When south Africa had a strong leader that made strong decisions it went from a country that was one of the biggest exporters in the world to a starving nation because of the strong decision to take the farms of the experienced farmers and give them to people who had no experience in running farms.

 

Now let's look at the strong leader Putin. Moscow is now one of the most expensive places to live in the world and according to Putin if your income is as much as 10 dollars a day you are not in poverty. Because he has has lowered the standards of what constitutes poverty he now boasts that he's halved the amount of poor people. Russian doctors are on 2 dollars an hour (factory workers earn $3.75 an hour). Life expectancy for Russian men is 59. Combining that with the increase in alcoholism, starvation and increase in death whilst giving birth the United Nations predicts that the population could fall by 30% by the middle of the century. The Russian central bank closed down in december 2013.

 

The thing is Dekan it takes strength to admit when you're wrong. Continuing to make irrational decisions and refusing to back down when you control the military is not a sign of strength. Your philosophy is seriously messed up, over simplistic and majorly inconsistent. Your point is that you bet people don't like their president in the USA and then you make an example of a leader who is driving a country into starvation and decline..... hhhmmm starvation and death, including torture if I say the wrong thing or not liking the person who's currently elected.

 

The first option is a foolish one

Edited May 28, 2014 by physica

[Phi for All]

You'd have to be a complete moron to pick the first option

 

!

Moderator Note

Please, you're smart and well-spoken enough to phrase this so it isn't a personal attack.

[Endy0816]

@Dekan: If that was a response to my question, sorry, but I have you muted.

 

Anyhow, anyone have any thoughts in regards? Been an off-again,on-again project of mine, figure out how delegates are elected relates to the subsequent government and as a result how effective that government is.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Endy0816

[DimaMazin]

 

 

Which is why we need strong leaders, such as Putin.

 

 

What is force of Putin? What is unit of measurement of force of dictator?

[Roamer]

Roamer, I think in most of parliamentary open list elections, you choose among candidates from your district (?) - so that they not only represent their parties, but also their regions and so the people who voted for them.

Up to single-member districts where people only choose someone directly representing their region.

 

 

Soo, the benefit is that people are forced to vote for someone who would represent their interests, which has somehow been established to be their region ?

....

 

 

 

E.g. in Germany (mixed system) they get a card with two lists: of candidates and of parties.

 

 

 

Here we get a list of candidates of all parties, they put their "strong man" on top who will get most votes,

any votes he/she (or any other person on the list) has "spare" after getting one seat are given to the highest on the list who still needs votes for a seat.

[Dekan]

What is force of Putin? What is unit of measurement of force of dictator?

Perhaps the unit of measurement could be called a "stalin". Or even better - a "koba" (for historical reasons, familiar to students of J V Stalin's personal correspondence)

 

This would provide the following ratings for post-1917 Russian leaders:

 

1. Lenin: + 0.7 kobas (died too soon to improve rating)

2. Stalin: + 1.0 kobas (the benchmark rating)

3. Khrushchev: + 0.5 kobas (banged shoe in UN and told West "We will bury you", but was bit of a clown)

4. Brezhnev: + 0.2 kobas (stagnated)

5. Chernyenko: + 0.1 kobas (too old)

6. Andropov: + 0.0 kobas (too brief)

7. Gorbachev: - 10 kobas (betrayed the Revolution and gave away the USSR!)

8. Yeltsin : - 0.1 kobas (fired at Duma, showing promise, but was habitually drunk)

9. Putin: : rating yet to be determined. Annexation of Crimea was a definite +. But lack of action to invade East Ukraine is negative.

 

I think Putin has the potential to achieve a respectable dictator-rating. Possibly as much as Khrushchev's +0.5.

But surely he won't be another Stalin. Will the Russians permit a re-run of the "Great Terror" of the 1930's?

[DimaMazin]

Perhaps the unit of measurement could be called a "stalin". Or even better - a "koba" (for historical reasons, familiar to students of J V Stalin's personal correspondence)

 

This would provide the following ratings for post-1917 Russian leaders:

 

1. Lenin: + 0.7 kobas (died too soon to improve rating)

2. Stalin: + 1.0 kobas (the benchmark rating)

3. Khrushchev: + 0.5 kobas (banged shoe in UN and told West "We will bury you", but was bit of a clown)

4. Brezhnev: + 0.2 kobas (stagnated)

5. Chernyenko: + 0.1 kobas (too old)

6. Andropov: + 0.0 kobas (too brief)

7. Gorbachev: - 10 kobas (betrayed the Revolution and gave away the USSR!)

8. Yeltsin : - 0.1 kobas (fired at Duma, showing promise, but was habitually drunk)

9. Putin: : rating yet to be determined. Annexation of Crimea was a definite +. But lack of action to invade East Ukraine is negative.

 

I think Putin has the potential to achieve a respectable dictator-rating. Possibly as much as Khrushchev's +0.5.

But surely he won't be another Stalin. Will the Russians permit a re-run of the "Great Terror" of the 1930's?

No science agen. How it works for North Korea? Why you want dictatorship, but do not wish to live in dictatorial country?

[Ten oz]

IMHO our (United States) basic system is pretty good. Our problem is gerrymandering. Allowing politicians to pick their voters rather than the voters pick their representatives is a huge problem. It is why we have such terrible partisanship. If districts were set by algorithms designed to calculate population and area size to divide districts up equally I believe govt would improve overnight.