And we have 5 parties to elect.
For each x% of votes a party gains a seat in a parlament, and whoever is the head of what party of coalition that wins the election gets to gain a fancy title(like prime minister).
But lets say 1 of the parties used to be the conservative workers party, meaning they gain 40-50% of votes regardless of their political stance. You know, the usual "Conservative Party" or "Ye old Labor Party", the ones who have a history. The one that get all the "I do not really care, but I ought to make worth of the vote"-votes that do not really care.
And the said party is more or less corrupt since they know they are the default, and they will actually hurt the country in the long run.
Ignoring motivation campaigns and banning all forms of political commercials, how do we stop this sin from happening?
Lets say we still must have a indirect democracy, just to avoid anybody pointing out that a beneficial dictatorship is still the best system.
But lets say instead of voting on a group, you vote for issues. The party that matches the most of it, gains 66% of the seats, and the party that is the complete opposite gets the last 33%, perhaps with some middleground over the rest.
edited 25th May '11 3:37:59 AM by annebeeche
I shall watch down from the goon heavens.
edited 25th May '11 6:45:42 AM by nzm1536
Well, another idea:
In order for you vote to count, you also need to fill out 5-6 random questions takes directly from the parties list of promises. If you get all correct, your vote counts. If you do not get it correct, you would not know that, but the vote is invalid.
This system could potentially block out all uninformed people.
Paper or electronic is not much of a difference here. \\
edited 25th May '11 7:40:37 AM by Fighteer
Besides, everyone has the chance, so it is still a indirect democracy with full representation.
Figthar: I am not sure if your historical quoting is correct, did there ever exist a state where everybody had a right to vote, and had a test to get their votes valid, and yet at the same time had a right to acquire that knowledge?
Did those states collapse due stagnation, ignorance or something else?
Besides, todays system is also a Meritocracy, it is just a bit less discriminating.
Also: The hypotetical system does not block anything else than people who have no idea on what they are voting on.
edited 25th May '11 8:37:32 AM by Fighteer
Besides, what do you propose to deal with the people who do not vote for whatever reason and the people that mindlessy support their default because it is their default?
edited 25th May '11 10:19:42 AM by MajorTom
That does not mean it is sane to leave them alone, nor that it is a good option.
Besides, the entire bloody idea behind a indirect democracy is that it represents the people in some way. If the people in power DO NOT represent the people, then frankly it is all moot.
Default voting means that the people are not voting for who they want, or who they want to represent them, but rather at the default choice. It means that they are also blocking the rest of the population from a fair vote.
Or do you have a bloody good reason for why it should be allowed to exist like today?
edited 25th May '11 11:32:12 AM by CaissasDeathAngel
Everybody can vote, and everybody can acquire that information.
The only difference is that the "default" party loses a lot of votes since it is after all the "default".
But the people would in most cases not know what they voted for anyhow, so the system is more fair to the rest of us who cares.
edited 25th May '11 12:13:50 PM by Fighteer
edited 25th May '11 12:17:11 PM by Jinren
edited 25th May '11 12:23:13 PM by Fighteer