• squaresinger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Tbh, at that point you can just drop the ranked choice and go with a regular proportional system.

    It’s just trying to shoehorn proportionality into ranked choice.

    Another option is to send at least one representative from each party and weight their voting power based on the popular vote. But I haven’t seen that implemented anywhere so far.

    • sqgl@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      I don’t think you understand the Australian Senate voting system or Tasmanian lower house or the MMP of Scotland, UK, DE.

      They all have ranked choice but are tweaked to be proportional too.

      MMP makes it proportional by also giving you a party vote which determines what proportion of seats that party should hold so that you don’t get a situation like you described in Australia’s last election. Better to watch a 2 minute video on it.

      MMP is the most accurate/fair proportional system but more complex.

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I know MMP, I live in Austria, you know, right next to Germany, and my wife’s from there. MMP is something different than instant runoff, because it’s primarily a proportional voting system with a ranked choice component tacked onto it.

        What I meant is that having 5 candidates decided by ranked choice without the proportional part of MMP hardly helps, especially if these candidates just feed into an otherwise winner-takes-it-all system.