Proportional representation is bad!

[srghma]

Here

plurality/contents/english/5-6-⿻-voting.md

Line 37 in fe451b9

- Federal, proportional and consociational representation: While voting systems are, as we have discussed above, usually formally "monistic", there are important examples of trying to address the tyranny of the majority this can create. In federal, consociational and functional systems, sub-units, such as geographies, religions, ethnic or professional groups, have a status beyond simply their population and usually receive some kind of special or population-disproportionate weight intended to avoid oppression by larger groups. While these systems thus in various ways incorporate ⿻ elements, their design is typically haphazard and rigid, based on historical lines of potential oppression that may no longer track the relevant social issues or can entrench existing divides by formally recognizing them; they thus have become increasingly unpopular.[^Pluralist] More flexible are systems of "proportional representation", where representatives in some body are chosen in proportion to the votes they receive, helping achieve greater balance, though often at least partly "kicking the can" of majoritarian tensions down the road to the decisions of the representative body's coalition formation.

You argue that "proportional representation" == "plurality", therefore good

No, humans cannot live without leader! (even after we will merge our brains into one)

You propose to worsen the leader election!

Worsen, because it will make the identification and filtering of bad actors - harder. (group of people will never admit mistakes)

The real improvement is to make culling cycles - FASTER and experiments - EASIER TO INTERPRET

---

CRUX

From book "Beginning of infinity" by David Deutsch:

Karl Popper once said: the main question in politics should be NOT "who is bad or who is good? who should be leader?"

but "what changes will allow better error correction?"

therefore, I, srghma, think that:

1. experiments should be short - elect president for 1 year (like in Switzerland) is better than for 4 years (like in Ukraine). But even better is "to elect president every day, every hour, every Plank second" (yes, because system will stabilize, structures will appear, structures like "hexagons appear in mercury if You heat mercury") (NOTE: I believe this step is not possible without digitalization, because paper counting by humans will be too expensive)

https://srghma.github.io/universe

https://srghma.github.io/how-life-was-created

2. experiments should be hard to misinterpret (experiments should not be useless / should not be possible "we have done experiment, but didn't learn anything") - THUS , I believe that presidential system is better than parliamentary system. This is because presidential system allows better error-correction. (because "one person can admit mistakes, but the group of people will never admit mistakes. They will just point at each other.")

---

My ideal country looks like this

https://x.com/AntipenkoL3792/status/1809934053275254875

---

https://x.com/AntipenkoL3792/status/1809940410992919038

Here, in this video David Deutsch argues that FPTP voting is better than Condorcet voting.

Yes, it is better, but in Federal representation (100 chairs for each best one in district) or proportional representation (100 chairs for each party) BECAUSE they are already fucked up, hard to cull out. Condorcet voting will make even worse.

But I think when You have presidential system + short experiments - You get best from both worlds - strong leader and impossibility of ************ (just don't vote to make experiments longer). And now, now - yes, now the Condorcet voting becomes better than FPTP.

And of course, the number of chairs in parliament should be equal to number of people in country, everyone should vote

All-country-parliament + 1 quick leader, NOT the infinite "rule of 100 chairs"

[pluralitybook-dao]

Gov4Git notices

On Tuesday, 30-Jul-24 17:49:27 UTC by Gov4Git dev

Notice stdumj

Started managing this issue, using the Plural Management Protocol v1, as Gov4Git concern 963 with initial priority score of 0.000000.

This project is managed by Gov4Git, a decentralized governance system for collaborative git projects.
To participate in governance, install the Gov4Git desktop app.

Notice enih6w

This issue's priority score is now 0.000000.
The cost of priority is 0.000000.
The projected bounty is now 0.000000.

Notice and2ok

The set of eligible proposals claiming this issue is empty.

[pluralitybook-dao]

Gov4Git notices

On Thursday, 01-Aug-24 18:50:17 UTC by Gov4Git dev

Notice cwhwgb

This issue's priority score is now 400.000000.
The cost of priority is 400.000000.
The projected bounty is now 400.000000.

Notice 254vvs

The set of eligible proposals claiming this issue is empty.