Let’s say you have multi-member constituencies. You hold an election with an outcome that looks roughly like this:

  • Candidate #1 received 12,000 votes

  • Candidate #2 received 8,000 votes

  • Candidate #3 recieved 4,000 votes

All three get elected to the legislature, but Candidate #1’s vote on legislation is worth three times Candidate #3’s vote, and #3’s vote is worth half Candidate #2’s vote.

I know that the British Labour Party used to have bloc voting at conference, where trade union reps’ votes were counted as every member of their union voting. So, e.g., if the train drivers’ union has 100,000 members, their one rep wielded 100,000 votes, but that’s not quite what I’m describing above.

Bonus question: what do you think would be the pros and cons of such a system?

  • Skua@kbin.social
    0·
    6 months ago

    I think you may have missed part of OP’s idea here. They specify multiple-member constituencies in which all candidates get elected and their power is proportional to the number of votes they get. The total power of the constituency is conserved, it’s just divided between multiple electors.

    It would probably influence people to vote for the perceived winner instead of their choice.

    This is an issue with FPTP regardless, unfortunately