I did not see you defining "The Libertarian Voting System" here or in the article you reference.
Is this the correct definition?
https://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation_and_the_libertarian_party
The complaint I hear from US people living in such voting systems major parts of their life is the opposite of what you claim. They say not being able to vote for candidates, but for party, leads to a government run entirely by central government technocrats. At least with the US system the representatives for a place are accountable to that place.
This version of Libertarian Voting is also called "Closed Party Voting" systems.
A less extreme version called "Open Party List Voting" combines the two extremes in voting, literally. You vote for both party and you vote for individuals to represent you in some defined way. The people I talk to who know both Closed and Open Party List Voting are similarly sanguine about losing the needs of their districts in the results they get.
I also believe I hear that what I think you call Libertarian Voting is the same as what others call "socialistic democracy" or "social democracies" -- because of the focus by the government on "taking care of the people" as a whole but not having representation bound to individual districts. Is this correct? It certainly correlates almost perfectly with the countries you mention.
Paul Mason's book is pretty objective on the history around these things. I assume the scholarly literature on this stuff is pretty large but it is hard to distinguish the real scholarship from various forms of marketing (i.e., political) spin.
The article I linked on "MAGA Democracy circa 1940" attempts to curb the excesses of either type of voting system with it's suggested "Creed" and much more nuanced educational obligations of the US democracy that it's scholarly authors provided in their 1940 pamphet on the crisis in democracy in the US.
I think your discussion is interesting but it takes time to try to figure out exactly what you mean by "Libertarian Voting System."
I hope I have it right.
My own views are much more extreme in the sense that I believe we need much stronger privacy controls so that manipulations of the agency of the people by lying can be made expressly illegal. As Christopher Wylie suggested in his book: The government has a fundamental obligation to protect not only the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but also the right that we now know can be taken away by malevolent players, of your God given right to your own agency.
I make this case for the government providing free access to perfect agency in "How to Get Your Privacy Back".
And I argue the technical tools to deliver such perfect (near perfect) right to agency (informed self-will) already exist and are in the hands of companies and governments right now, but not in the hands of the people they control. Big case s in point: China, Singapore, and the US Company, Palantir. And of course, you already heard of Cambridge Analytica and know what they did in 2016 with Russian help. Russia is a Social Democracy of the closed form now taken over by a Dictator.
More detail on my book on needed privacy protection to protect human agency (your right to reason and not being manipulated to steal it):
Also see @cogsec on Twitter.
