Which is the best alternative

Here are the tables, memo, I created to think. In the end, I decided Proportional Representation (PR) is the choice.

[!info]- Comparison of Electoral Systems

Comparison of Electoral Systems

	Winner-Takes-All	Proportional Representation (Sweden)	STV (Ireland)	Sortition (Lottery)
What you vote for	A Person (Personality)	A Party (Policies)	Rank Individuals	Nothing (Lottery)
Cost per Voter (Highest)	~$100 (USA)	~$11 (Sweden)	~$3.5 (Ireland, strict limit)	$0
Cost per Voter (Median)	~$15 - $20 (UK, Canada)	~$8.5 - 11 (Sweden, Denmark)	~$3.5 (Ireland)	$0
Max Wasted Vote	49.9% (The "Waste")	4% (Hurdle to prevent micro parties)	Low (Surplus transfers)	0%
Cognitive Burden	High (Political Drama)	Low (Policy-based)	High (Researching 10+ names)	Zero (for the voter)
Research Style	Assessing Person + Party	Assessing Party	Assessing Person + Party	N/A
Information Decay	High (Person changes opinion)	Low (Durable Party identity)	High (Person changes opinion)	N/A
Entertaining?	10/10 (Reality TV Drama)	2/10 (Technical Utility)	5/10 (Local Hustle)	0/10 (Jury Duty)
Rigging Potential	High (Gerrymandering)	Low (National Math)	Low (Multi-seat math)	Very Low
Country in Use	USA, UK, India, Japan	Sweden, Denmark, Germany(from 2024)	Ireland, Malta	None

[!info]- Which System Wastes Your Time?

Which System Wastes Your Time?

Asset Category	Winner-Takes-All	PR (Sweden)	STV (Ireland)	Sortition (Lottery)
Wasted Your Time	Maximum. High-turnover "Idol" drama that expires every election.	Low. Researching a durable Party logic lasts a lifetime.	Medium. High time spent on personal candidate research.	Zero. No research or voting required.
Wasted Your Votes	~49.9%. In a two-party race, nearly half of all votes do zero work.	~4.0%. Only votes for tiny parties below the threshold are lost.	Very Low. Surplus and "loser" votes are recycled to next choices.	0.0%. The room is a perfect mathematical mirror of the voters.
Wasted Your Energy	Extreme. "Strategic Stress"—calculating polls just to vote "safely."	Low. Honest voting. Just pick the logic you actually agree with.	High. The mental tax of ranking 10+ people in precise order.	Zero. The burden of choice is removed from the masses.
Wasted Your Money	~$100.00 / Voter. Massive spend on toxic ads and "Gerrymander" maps.	~$11.00 / Voter. Efficient spend on national policy platforms.	~$3.50 / Voter. Low cash spend, but high "sweat equity" (door-knocking).	$0.00. No campaign marketing or "Idol Show" exists.
Wasted Your Opinion	Maximum. Forced "Lesser Evil" choice; your true nuance is erased.	Zero. Multi-party niche options allow for an "Honest Match."	Medium. You rank choices, but individuals often break promises.	Variable. Depends entirely on if "someone like you" gets picked.

[!info]- Liquid Democracy?

Liquid Democracy?

So-called Liquid Democracy is the purest form of democracy that is enabled by digital technology. But considering not everyone has access to a digital device, I assume, maybe not today. At least we have to experiment from smaller scale, not at the national level.

Feature	Winner-Take-All	PR	STV (Ranked Choice)	Liquid Democracy	Technocracy?
System Type	Person-focused, local-only contest.	Party-focused, national-policy contest.	Person-focused, but with ranked preferences.	Dynamic Delegation. Hybrid of direct & representative.	Rule by credentialed experts.
Accountability	Extremely Low. "He said/She said" promises are legally empty.	High. Parties live/die by a national platform.	Medium. Individuals can be voted out, but the party link is weak.	Fluid & Instant. Voters can revoke their delegated vote at any time. Proxies are constantly accountable.	High to the Data. Experts must follow verifiable logic.
Voter Burden	Low. Simple "Pick one from a list" choice.	Low. Pick a party whose platform you align with.	High. Requires ranking multiple candidates.	Flexible. Vote directly on issues you know, delegate on others. Can be high or low.	Zero. The public is deemed unqualified to decide.
Wasted Your Energy	Extreme. "Strategic Stress"—calculating polls just to vote "safely."	Low. Honest voting. Just pick the logic you actually agree with.	High. The mental tax of ranking 10+ people in precise order.	Low to Medium. Low if you delegate to trusted sources; medium if you constantly manage delegations.	Zero. The burden of choice is removed from the masses.
Wasted Your Money	~$100.00 / Voter. Massive spend on toxic ads and "Gerrymander" maps.	~$11.00 / Voter. Efficient spend on national policy platforms.	~$3.50 / Voter. Low cash spend, but high "sweat equity" (door-knocking).	Near Zero. Reputation-based, not campaign-finance based.	$0.00. No campaign marketing or "Idol Show" exists.
Wasted Your Opinion	Maximum. Forced "Lesser Evil" choice; your true nuance is erased.	Zero. Multi-party niche options allow for an "Honest Match."	Medium. You rank choices, but individuals often break promises.	Minimal. You can always vote directly. Delegation is a choice, not a requirement.	Variable. Depends entirely on if "someone like you" gets picked.

[!info]- The "Personal/Party Drama" vs. "National Decision" Matrix

The "Personal/Party Drama" vs. "National Decision" Matrix

Feature	Person Focused System (WTA, STV)	Party Focused System (PR)
Primary Unit	The Person.	The Logic (A national framework).
Focus of Election Spend	Promote/Attack Person.	Inform Voters.
Voter's Task	Judging a human’s character.	Auditing a national direction.
Information Life	Expires when the "Idol" falls.	Durable. Logics last decades.
Entertaining?	8/10 (Personal Drama)	2/10 (Professional Debate)
The Research Lifespan	Short.	Long.

The Decisive Factor: Acknowledging Our Blind Spots

Modern society is built on the Division of Labour. To be efficient, we must specialize. A software engineer is not a farmer; a doctor is not an economist. This makes us productive, but it also creates a fundamental problem:

Specialization makes us blind to what others are doing.

This is a disaster for democracy. We, the voters, are asked to judge the work of politicians—a field that requires understanding economics, law, social dynamics, and foreign policy. We cannot possibly be experts in all of these areas.

The Voter's Impossible Job

To make a good decision, we need to understand how the country works. But learning this is an inherently impossible job for any single citizen. We have a limited attention budget to spend on becoming "good enough" to make a choice.

This is the critical failure of a person-focused system (like Winner-Take-All):

It tricks us into wasting our limited attention.

Every second we spend analyzing a candidate's personality, their charisma, or their latest gaffe is a second stolen from the real work: trying to understand the actual policies that will affect our lives.

The Only Efficient Solution: Focus the Debate

If our attention is our most valuable and limited resource, then the best system must be the one that uses it most efficiently.

• A person-focused system fragments our attention. It creates thousands of local dramas and personality contests. You can't discuss your local candidate with someone from another part of the country. It is an inefficient use of national attention.

• A party-focused system concentrates our attention. It forces the entire country to debate a handful of competing national plans. The choice is no longer about who is the most likable person, but about which policy direction is best for the nation.

This is the most efficient way for a society of specialists to make a collective decision. It directs our precious, limited attention to the one thing that matters: the plan for the future.

Proportional Representation is the Closest Proven System

Thus, this is the choice.