To follow up on this conversation in the thread on the fall of the Dutch government:
To start off, I would distinguish between three main voting systems: first past the post/winner takes all (FPTP), Ranked Voting (RV), and proportional representation (PR). (I see run-off systems as a mix of FPTP and RV.) There are variants to each, but I think those are the basics.
The obvious advantage of PR is that each vote counts. In the other systems, people who like a party that will never win their riding are often left without any way to get represented as they would like to. Worse, if your candidate isn't elected, your vote is essentially lost: it will have had no influence on what happens in parliament. And worst, voting for their preferred candidate might help their least preferred candidate take the riding. This rarely happens in PR, where every vote contributes towards the party's overall vote percentage. Of course, you can still vote for a tiny party that does not get enough votes to win even a single seat in parliament (here, a parliament entry threshold system like in Germany could be discussed); but that's no better in other systems.
A common argument against PR is that its governments are unstable. To my knowledge, that's not based in fact. I can't speak for every country, but certainly in the Netherlands, Germany, and Finland, fallen governments are rare, and I think it's the same in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. (In response to @Stanley Road's first comment: the Dutch government has actually only fallen four times since the 80s, including the 2002 (with LPF) and 2010 (minority with 'support' from PVV) governments that should never have been formed in the first place. I.e., I would attritube that to political incompetence rather than the voting system.) It's different in Belgium, but that's rather due to its variant of federalism, in which each federal district has its own political party, leading to excessive splintering of the political landscape.
I would also argue that the stability of FPTP government is not just a good thing. First, it's overrated: the UK anyway has seen multiple interim elections in recent years (I don't think special circumstances excuse that), and in Canada with its multiple parties, minority governments are not uncommon, and always expected to end early. (See right now: everyone has been expecting elections 'soon' ever since the current government took power.)
Second, questions can be raised about the representativeness of single-party governments. They often won't have the majority of the popular vote behind them (usually 35-45% in Canada), yet may get to reign with little ability to check them.
That's less likely to happen in a (relatively) strict two-party landscape like in the US, but there you see another downside of this approach: big policy swings from one government to another. I see only negatives to that, and they're much less likely in coalition-based governments, in which often at least one party was also in power previously. That may suggest that change is slow to come in coalition countries, but that's clearly not true, given that the coalition countries I listed above (and I can add New Zealand and Switzerland here) are some of the most progressive in the world.
To change focus a little, Trudeau here in Canada argued that RP is undesirable, as it can give dangerous fringe groups a voice in parliament. While that's true, it's only part of the story. First, PR also allows non-dangerous minority groups to have a voice. They are often underrepresented in politics, especially if they don't carry enough electoral weight to be worth considering for existing parties. Second, if these dangerous people can't create their own voice, they will try to get heard through existing parties. I think a simple reference to the US Republican party suffices to point out where that can lead to. Arguably, that's worse then these people founding a party that gets a couple of seats in parliament.
I suppose RV might represent an attractive middle ground between FPTP and PR, but while I agree that it's better than FPTP, it's got nothing on PR. Being able to rank candidates means you get to have more influence on the election of candidates than in FPTP, but your vote might still not go to your preferred candidate. And if your top or otherwise ranked candidates aren't elected, your vote is still essentially lost. Also, RV favours centrist parties, who are more likely to be people's next-ranked choice.
I want to add here that I don't think all RP systems are equally good. For example, the Dutch system uses single party lists nationwide, and as a consequence, the Randstad (the Utrecht - Amsterdam - Rotterdam - The Hague circle) is overrepresented in parliament. For that reason, I would prefer something like mixed-member proportional representation, where there is also a regional dimension, guaranteeing that the entire geography of a country is represented in its parliament. (Not necessarily it's entire diversity, certainly not among parliamentarians; but I think that's a separate discussion.)
OK, that's me. I'm probably forgetting some stuff and made some errors, but I've been rambling long enough now. Can't risk making Trump jealous. So: bring it on!
The topic had no relevance there, but I'd be interested to have a discussion on this. So let's have a 'little' wall of text.
To start off, I would distinguish between three main voting systems: first past the post/winner takes all (FPTP), Ranked Voting (RV), and proportional representation (PR). (I see run-off systems as a mix of FPTP and RV.) There are variants to each, but I think those are the basics.
The obvious advantage of PR is that each vote counts. In the other systems, people who like a party that will never win their riding are often left without any way to get represented as they would like to. Worse, if your candidate isn't elected, your vote is essentially lost: it will have had no influence on what happens in parliament. And worst, voting for their preferred candidate might help their least preferred candidate take the riding. This rarely happens in PR, where every vote contributes towards the party's overall vote percentage. Of course, you can still vote for a tiny party that does not get enough votes to win even a single seat in parliament (here, a parliament entry threshold system like in Germany could be discussed); but that's no better in other systems.
A common argument against PR is that its governments are unstable. To my knowledge, that's not based in fact. I can't speak for every country, but certainly in the Netherlands, Germany, and Finland, fallen governments are rare, and I think it's the same in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. (In response to @Stanley Road's first comment: the Dutch government has actually only fallen four times since the 80s, including the 2002 (with LPF) and 2010 (minority with 'support' from PVV) governments that should never have been formed in the first place. I.e., I would attritube that to political incompetence rather than the voting system.) It's different in Belgium, but that's rather due to its variant of federalism, in which each federal district has its own political party, leading to excessive splintering of the political landscape.
I would also argue that the stability of FPTP government is not just a good thing. First, it's overrated: the UK anyway has seen multiple interim elections in recent years (I don't think special circumstances excuse that), and in Canada with its multiple parties, minority governments are not uncommon, and always expected to end early. (See right now: everyone has been expecting elections 'soon' ever since the current government took power.)
Second, questions can be raised about the representativeness of single-party governments. They often won't have the majority of the popular vote behind them (usually 35-45% in Canada), yet may get to reign with little ability to check them.
That's less likely to happen in a (relatively) strict two-party landscape like in the US, but there you see another downside of this approach: big policy swings from one government to another. I see only negatives to that, and they're much less likely in coalition-based governments, in which often at least one party was also in power previously. That may suggest that change is slow to come in coalition countries, but that's clearly not true, given that the coalition countries I listed above (and I can add New Zealand and Switzerland here) are some of the most progressive in the world.
To change focus a little, Trudeau here in Canada argued that RP is undesirable, as it can give dangerous fringe groups a voice in parliament. While that's true, it's only part of the story. First, PR also allows non-dangerous minority groups to have a voice. They are often underrepresented in politics, especially if they don't carry enough electoral weight to be worth considering for existing parties. Second, if these dangerous people can't create their own voice, they will try to get heard through existing parties. I think a simple reference to the US Republican party suffices to point out where that can lead to. Arguably, that's worse then these people founding a party that gets a couple of seats in parliament.
I suppose RV might represent an attractive middle ground between FPTP and PR, but while I agree that it's better than FPTP, it's got nothing on PR. Being able to rank candidates means you get to have more influence on the election of candidates than in FPTP, but your vote might still not go to your preferred candidate. And if your top or otherwise ranked candidates aren't elected, your vote is still essentially lost. Also, RV favours centrist parties, who are more likely to be people's next-ranked choice.
I want to add here that I don't think all RP systems are equally good. For example, the Dutch system uses single party lists nationwide, and as a consequence, the Randstad (the Utrecht - Amsterdam - Rotterdam - The Hague circle) is overrepresented in parliament. For that reason, I would prefer something like mixed-member proportional representation, where there is also a regional dimension, guaranteeing that the entire geography of a country is represented in its parliament. (Not necessarily it's entire diversity, certainly not among parliamentarians; but I think that's a separate discussion.)
OK, that's me. I'm probably forgetting some stuff and made some errors, but I've been rambling long enough now. Can't risk making Trump jealous. So: bring it on!
Fixed that for you.
I like the accountability that's woven into this. As you say, no nationally set party lists that determine everything. That's also the advantage of MMPR that I've been advocating above. I wonder what you have against Party-List PR and STV-PR though?