In Illinois where I once lived they had this odd system for the state state elections which is no longer used. But still it's interesting. Each district elections 3 people. Voters had votes that the could ither it for 3 candidate or split their votes between 2 candidates [1 1/2] votes each] ot 3 votes for one candidate. This usually resulted in 1 person from both parties elected in every district
I am writing from New Zealand (#7 on your voter turnout list). In my experience, our MMP system of government results in a dysfunctional shambles, with abrupt reversals of government policy following elections and resultant economic waste.
In my view, the biggest problem with all current democratic systems is their cyclic nature. To overcome this, I suggest that elections be "rolled" through the country on a monthly basis, with just a few geographically randomized electorates (say 2%) voting each month. While individual electorates would continue to hold their elections on a multi-year cycle (3 years in New Zealand), federal government would be subject to monthly refreshment. I think the possibility of changing a small proportion of elected government representatives every month would provide a feedback loop that would moderate polarizing party policies and reduce the likelihood of wasteful government policy reversals. Citizen engagement is likely to increase significantly once governments were seen to be less divisive and more effective.
Rolling monthly elections could be managed by a relatively small government department employed on a continuous basis. This would probably be less expensive to the country in the long term than a department that has to expand and contract on a multi-year cycle. Focused attention on a small number of electorates each month is also likely to lead to increased voter participation.
Proportional representation, on its own, does not fix dysfunctional democracies.
Competition also produces better candidates, and better candidates get more people out to vote.
In Illinois where I once lived they had this odd system for the state state elections which is no longer used. But still it's interesting. Each district elections 3 people. Voters had votes that the could ither it for 3 candidate or split their votes between 2 candidates [1 1/2] votes each] ot 3 votes for one candidate. This usually resulted in 1 person from both parties elected in every district
Eir 3 votes bet
I am writing from New Zealand (#7 on your voter turnout list). In my experience, our MMP system of government results in a dysfunctional shambles, with abrupt reversals of government policy following elections and resultant economic waste.
In my view, the biggest problem with all current democratic systems is their cyclic nature. To overcome this, I suggest that elections be "rolled" through the country on a monthly basis, with just a few geographically randomized electorates (say 2%) voting each month. While individual electorates would continue to hold their elections on a multi-year cycle (3 years in New Zealand), federal government would be subject to monthly refreshment. I think the possibility of changing a small proportion of elected government representatives every month would provide a feedback loop that would moderate polarizing party policies and reduce the likelihood of wasteful government policy reversals. Citizen engagement is likely to increase significantly once governments were seen to be less divisive and more effective.
Rolling monthly elections could be managed by a relatively small government department employed on a continuous basis. This would probably be less expensive to the country in the long term than a department that has to expand and contract on a multi-year cycle. Focused attention on a small number of electorates each month is also likely to lead to increased voter participation.
Proportional representation, on its own, does not fix dysfunctional democracies.