so really only 1 person for that party gets elected, and the rest are just elected by the party if they get extra?

Yes, but all candidates most be announced before the elction.

like your preferred party has 1 guy you like. so you vote for him. And everyone else mostly voted for him. You voting for him can end up getting like 3 more people that no one voted for into office?

Hence it matter what order your name is on the ballot.

Yes in theory.

Wouldn't everyone voting for all 7 seats be better? Assuming only 1 person per seat.

A classic example would be the party PVV in the Netherlands, most people vote for that party for Gert Wilders, but the party have other representatives elected also.

Correct me if i am wrong. @Dr.Wol

i was summoned

Then you get a two party system again. @Grenade123

yeah i believe thats how its done in the PVV

but his party has a 1-policy maker though,

the other representatives just have Wilder's policies

Hi Dr I was being a smart ass in regards to dutch politics, I choose that cause Gert Wilders international known

they're basically just mouthpieces for him

@4AM_critter 🐉 do you? you could fix that by saying you can only put up say 4 or 5 candidates. That would force people vote across party lines, meaning they will most likely vote for A) moderates or B) a 3rd or 4th party if they really hate their main rivels.

I am trying to explain the electoral system by D'Hondts, a belgian, that is used in most european countries

better than me getting Hiliary or Pence elected into an office because my preferred candidate happened to win really well.

to me, your system sounds like a bait and switch. A way the Dems could put Bernie at the face and get Hillary into an position of power kind of deal.

rather than 7 elected representatives from two parties, you get potentially only 1 elected representative, and 3 or 4 cronies.

you think THATS bad?

the previous dutch cabinet was a coalition between
"Business democrats"
and
"The labor party"

cuz people voted both of those in the most, but neither could make a majority

so people voted for Right-wingers and ended up with socialists

Imagine going to vote for President and you and everyone could chose between Hillary, Bernie, Trump, Bush and others. Would Hillary or Bernie or a third candidate win?

thats how it currently works? well, minus the primaries bs

"35% votes right-wing, 25% votes socialist"

congrats, you now have socialist policies

but that is just for parties. there is no limit to people who can run. Bernie could have run independent i believe. and there is write in.

tbh, i'd rather abolish parties

but i don't see that happening

Prop rep really only makes sense if A: you don't care about regional representation and B: you care about parties

abolishing parties is like abolishinggovernment: a nice idea until two or more people team up and break the new system

pretty much

The presidential election was a poor example from my side. It is always a “winner take it all” situation. The better use would be house of reps.
Take the New York election. Would AOC be elected if she was not the dems first candidate?

Very few election systems actually mentions parties/election lists. Humans by nature are social and will form groups.

with your system? most likely still have gotten in anyway.

although i'm not sure how things work given that term limits don't end all at once with our system

so you are voting for only a few seats at a time usually

so you'd have to reset the cycle

Sorry I got to go, it was a nice chat.

@Beemann maybe we should go completely back to the original way president and vp were selected

Tbh though the actual issue is consolidation of federal power

You ever see a leftist youtuber named Jack Saint?

One of his videos has gone viral recently, a video about how that old disney movie "Sky High" is fascist propaganda. It's clearly somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but he actually makes a pretty solid case for how it's fascist in nature