What if a legislature had empty seats based on voter turnout?

[Miranda Brawner]

Suppose we have a Parliament that grants seats to each party proportional to the votes they receive. The number of seats given to each party is based on the total number of eligible voters, not the number of people who actually voted. That means that if 1/4 of eligible voters did not vote, the Parliament will have 3/4 its maximum possible membership, with the rest of the seats being empty. Every time the Parliament votes on something, the empty seats get to vote, but they must always vote against any action or legislation that is being proposed. If empty seats make up the majority of Parliament, then no laws can be changed, introduced, or repealed, and no other actions can be taken until the next election. If the country has a presidency or other powerful offices that are outside the legislature, the same rules apply.

Would adopting this system have any noteworthy consequences, or would it have little to no effect?

 

[mjwebb76]

Suppose we have a Parliament that grants seats to each party proportional to the votes they receive. The number of seats given to each party is based on the total number of eligible voters, not the number of people who actually voted. That means that if 1/4 of eligible voters did not vote, the Parliament will have 3/4 its maximum possible membership, with the rest of the seats being empty. Every time the Parliament votes on something, the empty seats get to vote, but they must always vote against any action or legislation that is being proposed. If empty seats make up the majority of Parliament, then no laws can be changed, introduced, or repealed, and no other actions can be taken until the next election. If the country has a presidency or other powerful offices that are outside the legislature, the same rules apply.

Would adopting this system have any noteworthy consequences, or would it have little to no effect?

It would be totally unworkable because it would create two rather perverse incentives. First it would create a status quo bias. A faction that liked current laws would have a huge advantage. This would be exacerbated because this faction would then have an incentive to suppress voter turnout so that they always had empty seats voting their way. On balance this would favor conservative interests, but not always. If there were a wave election were say the socialists came to power with a large majority (think 1945) they could put socialist policies in place and then make it nearly impossible to alter these policies (even if it was clear they were not working). Interesting, but really bad, idea.

 

[funnyhat]

That would seem to encourage boycotting.

 

[Mightyboosh5]

Yeah agree with all that’s been said so far, also it would encourage sitting mps to not push for greater turnout, as their proportional voting power in parliament would reduce by increasing turnout and thereby increasi by the number of mps.

it would definitely push the wrong incentive to the party in power to reduce voter turnout.

 

[Teutonic_Thrash]

I've often had this thought experiment.

It would be totally unworkable

I think that would be the point. In my opinion anyway, the purpose of the experiment would be demonstrate the problems of low turnout, and therefore try and encourage people to turn out more and actually engage with politics.

 

[Miranda Brawner]

I've often had this thought experiment.

I think that would be the point. In my opinion anyway, the purpose of the experiment would be demonstrate the problems of low turnout, and therefore try and encourage people to turn out more and actually engage with politics.

Yes, I think that would be part of the motivation. Maybe this procedure could be put into place by a coalition of people who for the most part have very different beliefs. On this one point, they manage to agree, but for different reasons. Party A thinks that the Empty Seat Rule will help their party, because they are convinced that most of the apathetic non-voters are more sympathetic toward Party A, even if only slightly. They think that the Empty Seat rule will scare these people into voting, out of fear of the disastrous consequences that could result from an empty-seat-dominated government. Meanwhile, their rivals in Party B also support the plan, but unlike Party A, they are not just using it as a scare tactic. Party B is relatively content with the status quo, and ends up voting against most proposed changes to the law, so they would see the empty seats as natural allies. It would still be pretty unlikely that they would both agree to the plan, since they can't both win, and surely there will be someone in each party who realizes the risk that the plan might end up helping their opponents.

 

[Skallagrim]

Every time the Parliament votes on something, the empty seats get to vote, but they must always vote against any action or legislation that is being proposed. If empty seats make up the majority of Parliament, then no laws can be changed, introduced, or repealed

First it would create a status quo bias. A faction that liked current laws would have a huge advantage.

This would be solved by eliminating the bolded part of the OP.

Make it so that changing or introducing laws requires a majority of all seats (including the empty ones, meaning that enough empy seats = no new legislation), but that repealing any law can be done with just a majority of occupied seats.

All in all, I consider it a highly sympathetic idea. It is a powerful instrument by which dissastisfaction among the people automatically translates to a censure of the governing bodies. The people are dissatisfied, and this causes them to disengage, which in turn makes it increasingly difficult for those in power to pass their decrees. The only way to win back any power is to propose new plans, of which the people are more approving, and to which they will lend their votes.

 

[Miranda Brawner]

@Skallagrim Interesting idea.

 

[Miranda Brawner]

An interesting scenario would be if someone declared war on the empty-seat country while the empty seats were in charge. The government would not be able to pass any measures to help in the war effort, like raising taxes, rationing food and materials, and shifting production toward military industries. They would also be barred from signing any kind of treaty with the attacking country, since that would constitute a governmental action. So regardless of who has the military advantage, the war would go on until either 1) The attacking country called it off. 2) The empty seats got voted out of power. 3) The attacking country or the defending country ceased to exist. Or 4) The empty-seat system was thrown out or amended so that the defending country can respond to the attack.

 

[Cheer]

An interesting scenario would be if someone declared war on the empty-seat country while the empty seats were in charge. The government would not be able to pass any measures to help in the war effort, like raising taxes, rationing food and materials, and shifting production toward military industries. They would also be barred from signing any kind of treaty with the attacking country, since that would constitute a governmental action. So regardless of who has the military advantage, the war would go on until either 1) The attacking country called it off. 2) The empty seats got voted out of power. 3) The attacking country or the defending country ceased to exist. Or 4) The empty-seat system was thrown out or amended so that the defending country can respond to the attack.

Maybe a clause for a snap election when war is declared with an empty seat majority?

 

[Miranda Brawner]

Maybe a clause for a snap election when war is declared with an empty seat majority?

Yeah, when proposing the new system, its supporters might throw in something like that, in order to win over some undecided lawmakers.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Maybe a clause for a snap election when war is declared with an empty seat majority?

Or else a clause allowing the government to raise war taxes without taking the empty seats into account.

 

[Drunkrobot]

Anybody who wanted a system that favoured the status quo would just plumb for a voting method that favoured moderate centrists, like IRV - it would fill those seats with the sort of people who support no or only small modifications to the system under normal conditions, but are at least capable of decisive action in the context of emergency, like a war.

 

[Miranda Brawner]

Anybody who wanted a system that favoured the status quo would just plumb for a voting method that favoured moderate centrists, like IRV - it would fill those seats with the sort of people who support no or only small modifications to the system under normal conditions, but are at least capable of decisive action in the context of emergency, like a war.

That's a good point.