Controlling what gets voted on, and in which order, is a significant feature of any voting body/​process.
The common decision across environments seems to be that the faction or coalition that can command a majority gets to set the agenda unilaterally (or via back-room conversation based decision making between coalition partners)
It would seem better if, at least, the agenda were set by the most moderate person.
For example, the lawmaking body could elect the agenda-setter via 3-2-1 voting or STAR voting or some other sensible many-choice single-winner election method, with all lawmakers being candidates on the ballot. The winner of this process would probably be more moderate than the typical winning-coalition leader.
The theory is that this one person is most representative of the governed, and should cleverly optimize the agenda to minimize distortion.
Controlling what gets voted on, and in which order, is a significant feature of any voting body/​process. The common decision across environments seems to be that the faction or coalition that can command a majority gets to set the agenda unilaterally (or via back-room conversation based decision making between coalition partners)
It would seem better if, at least, the agenda were set by the most moderate person.
For example, the lawmaking body could elect the agenda-setter via 3-2-1 voting or STAR voting or some other sensible many-choice single-winner election method, with all lawmakers being candidates on the ballot. The winner of this process would probably be more moderate than the typical winning-coalition leader.
The theory is that this one person is most representative of the governed, and should cleverly optimize the agenda to minimize distortion.