The impression I got, was that collusion between likeminded people created an "indirect democracy" where causes supported by the most people could most efficiently advocate their position.
If that is the case, then this system does punish parties that are less willing (or able) to cooperate, which could feasibly be a bad thing, if it means that unpopular results occur because one side is less nuanced on it's position (e.g. a 40% group beats three 20% groups who cannot cooperate).
One way around this, maybe, is a Negative Vote (allowing a united method opposition), but that has foreseeable issues, especially if Negative Voting is as efficient or more efficient than Positive.
The impression I got, was that collusion between likeminded people created an "indirect democracy" where causes supported by the most people could most efficiently advocate their position.
If that is the case, then this system does punish parties that are less willing (or able) to cooperate, which could feasibly be a bad thing, if it means that unpopular results occur because one side is less nuanced on it's position (e.g. a 40% group beats three 20% groups who cannot cooperate).
One way around this, maybe, is a Negative Vote (allowing a united method opposition), but that has foreseeable issues, especially if Negative Voting is as efficient or more efficient than Positive.