Hacker News Reader

Comment by StavrosK | Hacker News Reader

For some reason, I like this. However, I think that a voting system that 95% of the population can't even understand won't be very popular overall...

View on HN

I don't think it's that hard to understand. Certainly as a voter it's very easy to understand what it is you should do - easier than under FPTP where you are forced to think tactically. The consequences are slightly hard to think through if you're not good at probability, but it's easy to boil those down into a set of pithy statements that will tell you most of what you need to know.

It's not hard to understand how it works. It is harder to understand how it's fair.

Of all the voting systems that will never see the light of day, I think I like this one most of all. However I would say despite its similarity to the status quo it would completely change the nature of government when parties couldn't count on who would get elected despite the safeness of their constituency.

I'm sorry, yes, this is what I meant. People will never understand how it's fair. I can see the arguments now, "What? You want us to pick representatives at random?!"...

Yes. Agreed. I suspect it would be ridiculously hard to get this through (witness how much trouble we're having with IMO the far less controversial AV), 'though with the right framing and a sufficiently disgruntled populace I could see it happening. Maybe. Not going to hold my breath though.

The cynic in me can't help but see the parties moving power out of the parliament as much as possible. The public sector would likewise also become more powerful. I can't help but think this is the chaos monkey of voting systems.

It's definitely crazy, I have a feeling it might work though, eventually as a voter I'd simply vote for whoever in my area promised some kind of sane approach to making decisions.

It is rather simple, if you compare it to e.g. the D'Hondt method used in Germany.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com