1. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    05 Aug '08 08:25
    I didnt want this to turn into a philosophical or political debate. I was wondering if there was any sold Math behind such conundrums. It seems to me that PR is NOT FAIR if it leaves a substantial party powerless and that some other (mathematically based) distribution of seats would be better.

    For instance consider the vote being discussed 27%, 26%, 25%, 22% where party D with almost a quarter of the vote has no power.

    And the situation of 49%, 25%, 24%, 4%
    Now party D with just 4% is king-maker!

    Why should other parties votes affect the power a party has?
  2. Joined
    14 Dec '05
    Moves
    5694
    05 Aug '08 16:03
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I didnt want this to turn into a philosophical or political debate. I was wondering if there was any sold Math behind such conundrums. It seems to me that PR is NOT FAIR if it leaves a substantial party powerless and that some other (mathematically based) distribution of seats would be better.

    For instance consider the vote being discussed 27%, 26%, 2 ...[text shortened]... ty D with just 4% is king-maker!

    Why should other parties votes affect the power a party has?
    Voting paradox
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradox
    http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N8/8voting.8n.html
  3. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    05 Aug '08 16:35
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I didnt want this to turn into a philosophical or political debate. I was wondering if there was any sold Math behind such conundrums. It seems to me that PR is NOT FAIR if it leaves a substantial party powerless and that some other (mathematically based) distribution of seats would be better.

    For instance consider the vote being discussed 27%, 26%, 2 ...[text shortened]... ty D with just 4% is king-maker!

    Why should other parties votes affect the power a party has?
    Because government is about shared power. Everyone can't have all the power!
  4. Joined
    15 Feb '07
    Moves
    667
    05 Aug '08 16:50
    It is verily the nature of this problem that any solution will have definite and practical ramifications on this thing we call politics.

    It is thus nearly impossible to discuss the mathematics of the thing without examining, at least in part, what ideals and concepts the math relates to.

    For one thing, one must define explicitly what one means by "fairness", and what the primary principle of a democratic-based body operates, so that one can therefore model that principle using a mathematical basis.

    I have stated that, according to my best knowledge, the basic overriding principle of a democratic election is that each person has an equal share of say, and the mathematics corresponding to this would indicate that for every 1% a particular unified group represents, they would get 1% of the vote.

    The imperfect side of this is that a group with significant numbers but still a minority might end up without practical power to implement their agenda in decision-making.

    However, their voice is still heard, and they have the chance to sway others with their arguments.

    There is also the fact that disgreements within an idealogical group aren't uncommon, and there may be things to be decided for which the group does not particularly care.
  5. Standard memberPBE6
    Bananarama
    False berry
    Joined
    14 Feb '04
    Moves
    28719
    05 Aug '08 17:06
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    And the situation of 49%, 25%, 24%, 4%
    Now party D with just 4% is king-maker!

    Why should other parties votes affect the power a party has?
    4% does not a king make, unless you assume that 25% and 24% always vote against 49%. There are actually 15 possibilities (the 16th can't happen in most systems):

    YES / NO

    49%, 25%, 24%, 4% / 0% = YES
    49%, 25%, 24% / 4% = YES
    49%, 25%, 4% / 24% = YES
    49%, 24%, 4% / 25% = YES
    25%, 24%, 4% / 49% = YES
    49%, 25% / 24%, 4% = YES
    49%, 24% / 25%, 4% = YES
    49%, 4% / 25%, 24% = YES
    25%, 24% / 49%, 4% = NO
    25%, 4% / 49%, 24% = NO
    24%, 4% / 49%, 25% = NO
    49% / 25%, 24%, 4% = NO
    25% / 49%, 24%, 4% = NO
    24% / 49%, 25%, 4% = NO
    4% / 49%, 25%, 24% = NO
    0% / 49%, 25%, 24%, 4% = NO (this one isn't usually possible)

    If all the parties are ideologically "orthogonal", then why should one assume the small parties will always try to stymie the big one? Wheeling and dealing will be the name of the game.
  6. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    16687
    06 Aug '08 21:13
    Originally posted by PBE6
    4% does not a king make, unless you assume that 25% and 24% always vote against 49%. There are actually 15 possibilities (the 16th can't happen in most systems):

    YES / NO

    49%, 25%, 24%, 4% / 0% = YES
    49%, 25%, 24% / 4% = YES
    49%, 25%, 4% / 24% = YES
    49%, 24%, 4% / 25% = YES
    25%, 24%, 4% / 49% = YES
    49%, 25% / 24%, 4% = YES
    49%, 24% / 25%, 4% = YES ...[text shortened]... s will always try to stymie the big one? Wheeling and dealing will be the name of the game.
    Nevermind the fact that there is 102% in this voting scheme....

    The 4% wins in 10/16 cases
    24% wins in 10/16 cases
    25% wins in 8/16 cases
    49% wins in 14/16 cases

    Why does 25% have the disadvantage?
  7. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    07 Aug '08 20:33
    this is all BS because you are assuming that all members of each party will vote along party lines and never vote the way their constiuents want to vote.

    In other words, you are debating a system that isn't truly DEMOCRATIC in the first place.

    Sheesh!!

    😛
  8. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    08 Aug '08 07:46
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    Nevermind the fact that there is 102% in this voting scheme....

    The 4% wins in 10/16 cases
    24% wins in 10/16 cases
    25% wins in 8/16 cases
    49% wins in 14/16 cases

    Why does 25% have the disadvantage?
    Obviously the Voting Officials are corrupt!

    For 4% read 2%.
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    08 Aug '08 07:49
    Originally posted by uzless
    this is all BS because you are assuming that all members of each party will vote along party lines and never vote the way their constiuents want to vote.

    In other words, you are debating a system that isn't truly DEMOCRATIC in the first place.

    Sheesh!!

    😛
    Since when did MPs vote the way their constituents wanted? Even in UK MPs follow the party line - else what would be the point of the Whips?

    The situation I am considering is (as a PBE6 put it)ideologically "orthogonal" parties where the members of each party would vote as a block.
  10. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    08 Aug '08 07:59
    Originally posted by PBE6
    4% does not a king make, unless you assume that 25% and 24% always vote against 49%. There are actually 15 possibilities (the 16th can't happen in most systems):

    YES / NO

    49%, 25%, 24%, 4% / 0% = YES
    49%, 25%, 24% / 4% = YES
    49%, 25%, 4% / 24% = YES
    49%, 24%, 4% / 25% = YES
    25%, 24%, 4% / 49% = YES
    49%, 25% / 24%, 4% = YES
    49%, 24% / 25%, 4% = YES ...[text shortened]... s will always try to stymie the big one? Wheeling and dealing will be the name of the game.
    In practice party A (49 seats) puts forward a proposal. It needs party B (25 seats), C (24 seats) or D (2 seats) to back it. So in that situation party D has as much power as B & C.

    Looking at possibilities there are only 4 practical majorities:

    AB (total 74)
    AC (total 73)
    AD (total 51)
    BCD (total 51)

    A is on 3 of these. lets call this a power ranking of THREE.
    B, C & D are each on 2, so their powers are equal ;lets call it TWO.

    So B, C and D are equally powerful. Forget debate and back-room deals .. I am assuming here that the parties ALL vote as blocks.

    Now can we arrange parliamentary seats so that the power is a reflection of the original support the parties got?
  11. Standard memberTheMaster37
    Kupikupopo!
    Out of my mind
    Joined
    25 Oct '02
    Moves
    20443
    09 Aug '08 11:57
    In my opinion it's fair enough.

    All parties agreed beforehand, so the loser really shouldn't complain.
  12. Shanghai
    Joined
    16 Feb '06
    Moves
    130898
    09 Aug '08 23:54
    If there are more than two parties there cannot be a fair voting system, so instead why not abandon elections entirely. Instead every 4 years or so have a big lottery and people get selected for government duty a bit like they do with jurys.
  13. Standard memberuzless
    The So Fist
    Voice of Reason
    Joined
    28 Mar '06
    Moves
    9908
    11 Aug '08 17:54
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Since when did MPs vote the way their constituents wanted? Even in UK MPs follow the party line - else what would be the point of the Whips?

    The situation I am considering is (as a PBE6 put it)ideologically "orthogonal" parties where the members of each party would vote as a block.
    Ah, well then with the Thread entitled, "Democratic?" a simple NO should put an end to the debate.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree