Voting Passthrough Weightings¶
Original author: Max Kaye
So the current plan (not always, but current - since WA) is:
- All representatives in a house of government form a pool.
- All members of the electorates of those representatives are given proportional allocation to vote in that pool.
This is needed to conserve some economic/incentive type properties (e.g. that you can’t get “extra” representation by voting for someone other than Flux; though none of this is perfect).
In any case, the plan has always been for all things to do whatever we have the best explanation for at the time. There are multiple downsides that harm flux with this approach we should be aware of.
It slows adoption at a time when adoption is most important. (maximising adoption => maximising participation)
It means states might get to hold issues over other states’ heads, very similar to something I’ve explicitly argued to be the greatest evil in democracy today (static majoritarianism), but also a feedback mechanism ala personal responsibility (of which at least one is entirely necessary). Example: TAS and NSW have 3 senate seats between them. Flux holds balance of power. Some legislation to do with the Adani mine comes through, and Flux senators are the deciding force. QLD voters get no vote here, despite it affecting them. They did - though - sew the seeds of their own destruction by not voting for us, though.
Anyway, the below formula is the best I think we have atm.