Example:
The company has 100 people. Of these, 90 do not smoke. And ten smoke. If you make up a parliament from them, what will happen? It turns out that the “non-smoking” party has 90 seats and the “smoking” party has 10 seats. According to the already outdated rules of American democracy, the majority must decide, and it turns out that the party of non-smokers will always vote with its majority so that no one ever smokes in the company. This gives birth to a monopolist. And the minority will be forced to obey them 100% of the time - this will be an infringement of their rights to choose. This happens all the time in modern society - the majority infringes on the rights of minorities.
The following scheme is more fair: every hour ten (for example) people in a company for one hour establish the law that applies to everyone in the company. And then it turns out that smoking in a group will not be allowed 9 hours a day, but 10 smokers will manage one hour a day and they will allow smoking at that hour. This will be fair and just. Smoking is bad, but it is also partly a personal choice. This is just a prime example. The lives of such minorities in society are dark. And the modern parliament (the old American system) does not provide guaranteed tools to somehow defend one’s rights. If the majority is a monopolist, it will always completely strangle the minority. Moreover, even entire regions in the country are strangled by the majority of other regions (they alone cannot oppose anything). Does one region have oil, but not others? That's it, the law is for the majority to take away your oil - you don't have it anymore. Does anyone have anything else? Here's the law for taking this away. In general, it is a wrong, unfair system.
In the classic old parliament, in order for a minority to pass a law they desperately need, there must be a large party that would publicly declare support for this category of citizens. If there is no such person, or if she has few seats in parliament, this law will never be adopted. Those. it is an unfair parliament in which there is a monopolist who imposes his goods (laws) on others, and loses the goods (laws) of others, like a majoritarian electoral system that throws out a significant part of the population's votes. While the proportional electoral system takes into account 100% of the votes (nothing is thrown out).
In a modern competitive parliament, voting should be based on a different principle. So that the “coalition of the majority” (monopolist) does not constantly make decisions for everyone else, but decisions are made in proportion to the weight of each party, and the most important for this party. Those. figuratively, if a party has 90% of the seats in parliament, then it makes decisions 90% of the time, but 10% of the time the other parties make decisions.
How to do this? More about this below.
Bidding for laws.
The voting formula maintaining clear proportions according to party votes is as follows:
General postulates:
Voting is carried out as in a classic parliament (all deputies enter their votes at the same time, without seeing the votes of others. The final results are then displayed).
If you win a vote for a law, all current "yes" votes are subtracted from all your votes. You come to the next vote without them.
Voting example:
The Non-Smokers Party has 90 people, which is 90% of the seats in parliament, the Smokers Party has 10 people, which is 10% of the seats in parliament. Those. The “Smokers” party should have the opportunity to be a monopolist 10% of the time, i.e. pass every tenth law.
Starting vote: “Smokers” - 10 people vote “for” the law allowing smoking for 1 hour. "Non-smokers" - 11 people vote against and win. The right to choose the law for voting passes to “Non-Smokers”. In this voting, votes were not burned (they are burned only when voting “yes”).
First vote (first law): “Non-smokers” - 11 people vote “for” the law prohibiting smoking for 1 hour. “Non-smokers” - 10 people are “against”, but they cannot interrupt 11 votes and this law is adopted. At the same time, the “Non-Smokers” party loses 11 votes. They have 79 votes left in their wallet.
Second vote (second law): “Non-smokers” - 11 people vote “for” the law prohibiting smoking for 1 hour. “Non-smokers” - 10 people are “against”, but they cannot interrupt 11 votes and this law is adopted. At the same time, the “Non-Smokers” party loses 11 votes. They have 68 votes left in their wallet.
Third vote (third law): “Non-smokers” - 11 people vote “for” the law prohibiting smoking for 1 hour. “Non-smokers” - 10 people are “against”, but they cannot interrupt 11 votes and this law is adopted. At the same time, the “Non-Smokers” party loses 11 votes. They have 57 votes left in their wallet.
Fourth vote (fourth law): “Non-smokers” - 11 people vote “for” the law prohibiting smoking for 1 hour. “Non-smokers” - 10 people are “against”, but they cannot interrupt 11 votes and this law is adopted. At the same time, the “Non-Smokers” party loses 11 votes. They have 46 votes left in their wallet.
Fifth vote (fifth law): “Non-smokers” - 11 people vote “for” the law prohibiting smoking for 1 hour. “Non-smokers” - 10 people are “against”, but they cannot interrupt 11 votes and this law is adopted. At the same time, the “Non-Smokers” party loses 11 votes. They have 35 votes left in their wallet.
Sixth vote (sixth law): “Non-smokers” - 11 people vote “for” the law prohibiting smoking for 1 hour. “Non-smokers” - 10 people are “against”, but they cannot interrupt 11 votes and this law is adopted. At the same time, the “Non-Smokers” party loses 11 votes. They have 24 votes left in their wallet.
Seventh vote (seventh law): “Non-smokers” - 11 people vote “for” the law prohibiting smoking for 1 hour. “Non-smokers” - 10 people are “against”, but they cannot interrupt 11 votes and this law is adopted. At the same time, the “Non-Smokers” party loses 11 votes. They have 13 votes left in their wallet. And here the trick begins. The number of remaining votes for the parties has become closer to each other, so the “Non-Smokers” party needs to act in a strictly defined way, otherwise it will lose. If she continues to vote 11-yes, she will win the ninth vote. But she will only have 2 votes left. and the party of smokers will win the next few votes (will vote: 3 votes in favor - and win 3 hours of “smoking”). The correct vote for the "non-smoking" party is shown below.
Eighth vote (eighth and ninth laws): “Non-smokers” do a trick - they vote “for” the law prohibiting smoking for 1 hour with 1 vote. “Smokers” vote 10 people “against”, they interrupt the votes of “non-smokers” and the law does not come into force. The votes are not burned (votes “against” are not burned). A re-vote is scheduled, but the initiative to choose the law passes to the smokers. “Smokers” vote 10 votes “for” the law allowing smoking for the next 1 hour. “Non-smokers” vote 11 “against”, canceling the adoption of this law. There were two votes in a row in which the two parties blocked the adoption of each other's laws. Therefore, the system automatically accepts both laws and the participating parties’ votes are lost. There are 0 votes left in the “Smokers” wallet. There are 2 votes in the “non-smokers” wallet.
Ninth vote (tenth law): since there is only one party left with votes in the wallet, the system gives this party the right to pass one law, after which all its remaining votes will be burned. “Non-smokers” - vote with 2 votes for the law prohibiting smoking for 1 hour. Then the voices burn out. There are 0 votes left in the “non-smoking” party’s wallet.
Since all parties have reset their wallets to zero, they are filled to the starting level (90 votes for “non-smokers” and 10 votes for smokers).
As a result, smoking was prohibited for 9 hours. And smoking was allowed for one hour. Then the cycle repeats. But in such a system of constant active competition between parties for the purchase of laws, the winnings (more public approval and potential votes) will be received by the party that passes the law more beneficial for everyone (taking into account all segments of society). Those. already in the second cycle, one of the parties will adopt a law not “everyone can smoke for 1 hour”, but “to allocate a special place - 10% of the territory for a smoking room”, such a law will suit both “smokers” and “non-smokers”.
An example of the above formula for a multi-party system (three parties instead of two):
There is a party of "Non-Smokers" - 80 votes, there is a party of "drinkers" - 10 votes, there is a party of "Smokers" - 10 votes.
First vote (first law): “non-smokers” win - 11 votes for, 10 votes against (from smokers). No one smokes for an hour. Non-smokers have 69 votes left.
Second vote (second law): “non-smokers” win - 11 votes “for”, 10 votes “against” (from smokers). No one smokes for an hour. Non-smokers have 58 votes left.
Third vote (third law): “non-smokers” win - 11 votes “for”, 10 votes “against” (from smokers). No one smokes for an hour. Non-smokers have 47 votes left.
Fourth vote (fourth law): “non-smokers” win - 11 votes “for”, 10 votes “against” (from smokers). No one smokes for an hour. Non-smokers have 36 votes left.
Fifth vote (fifth law): “non-smokers” win - 11 votes “for”, 10 votes “against” (from smokers). No one smokes for an hour. Non-smokers have 25 votes left.
Sixth vote (sixth law): “non-smokers” win - 11 votes “for”, 10 votes “against” (from smokers). No one smokes for an hour. Non-smokers have 14 votes left. Again the votes are closer to each other, so you need to vote in a special way.
Seventh vote (seventh law): “non-smokers” win - 11 votes “for”, 10 votes “against” (from smokers). No one smokes for an hour. Non-smokers have 3 votes left in their wallet.
Eighth vote (eighth and ninth laws): “non-smokers” - 3 votes “for”, 10 votes “against” from smokers. They win. Re-voting, the initiative to choose the law passes to the “smokers”. They vote 10 votes for the smoking hour. "Non-smokers" - 3 votes against. “Drinkers” vote - 10 votes “against”, canceling the adoption of this law (it turned out 10 “for” and “10” against). A re-vote is called, and the initiative to choose the law passes to the drinkers. “Drinkers” vote 10 votes “for” the law allowing drinking for the next 1 hour. "Non-smokers" - 3 votes against. “Smokers” vote 10 “against” to cancel the adoption of this law (10 “for” and “10” against). It turned out to be two votes in a row, in which two parties (“smokers” and “drinkers”) blocked the adoption of each other’s laws. Therefore, the system automatically accepts both laws and the participating parties’ votes are lost.
There are 0 votes left in the “Smokers” wallet. There are 0 votes in the “Drinkers” wallet. There are 3 votes in the “Non-Smokers” wallet.
Ninth vote (tenth law): since there is only one party left with votes in the wallet, the system gives this party the right to pass one law, after which all its remaining votes will be burned. “Non-smokers” - vote with 3 votes for the law prohibiting smoking for 1 hour. Then the voices burn out. There are 0 votes left in the “non-smoking” party’s wallet.
Since all parties have reset their wallets to zero, they are filled to the starting level (80 votes for “Non-Smokers” and 10 votes for “Smokers”, 10 votes for “Drinkers”).
As a result, smoking was prohibited for 8 hours. Smoking was allowed for one hour and drinking was allowed for one hour. That is, everything is exactly according to the proportions of votes in parliament. Then the cycle repeats
BRIEFLY BASE:
“for” votes from different parties are not summed up (otherwise the formula will not work). The “no” votes are also not summed up (otherwise the formula will not work again). Those who have the initiative to choose the law - those votes are “for” and are counted when deducted from the party’s purse. This formula is most beneficial for all parties. Other configurations will give a chaotic lottery effect, as a result of which small parties can gain extra laws, stealing the initiative from larger parties.
The result is a competition “who can pass a law that is more beneficial for society faster and more profitably.”
The party develops laws in advance (before voting). An adopted law cannot be repealed by the next vote. An adopted law must be in force for at least 1 year before it can be repealed by the next vote (so that the population can see the effect of this law).
SECOND SCHEME:
Instead of the complex formula presented above (“Biding for laws”), you can simply take the number of seats in parliament (for example, 200) and measure exactly the same number of laws for adoption. Exactly the same amount (or proportional to it, i.e. not 200, but for example 400, 600, etc.) will be adopted in the next parliamentary term. But at the same time, each law will be from one specific party, and their number from one party will be proportional to the seats of this party in parliament. Those. how many seats a party has in parliament, so many laws it can pass in relation to everyone else.
Laws (not the laws themselves, but the name of the party that passes the law) can be put in the basket in advance and then lots will be drawn - this will result in the order of adoption of laws. A certain deadline is given for the adoption of the law (if you fail to meet the deadline, you will lose the right to adopt the law).
An adopted law must remain in effect for at least 2 years (i.e. it cannot be repealed before activation).
more information here