Good governance is a loaded term. Good for who? Different stakeholders will frequently have opposing goals, desires, and needs. Cutting foodstamps program helps some by lowering taxes, but hurts others who need help. Then the argument moves into secondary effects, cutting foodstamps will make poor people better off because the economy will grow, or cutting foodstamps will hurt taxpayers because poor nutrition and financial instability fewer people will escape poverty. The problem becomes complex enough that no one really knows the answer and so even the smartest often just end up restating their preheld belief.
Markets are supposed to be efficient they match demand with production efficiently, or some such. Political demand needs to be matched with equal efficiency. Imposing good governance into a voting system will very likely create distortions.
You seem to ignore my point about multiple stakeholders.
I believe that the happiness measure is not a measure of outcomes but happiness with getting a representative closer to his/her choice or preference...meaning one that may best represent their views, desires, and needs in government. Tha seems like good governance.
You seem to ignore my point about the collective good. By definition measuring happiness is measuring feelings. Rule by emotion. When has that ever worked out well?
If closer to personal preference is better, shouldn't direct democracy - absolute majority rule - be the ideal? But it's clearly not the case, at least not in any sizeable country.
Markets are supposed to be efficient they match demand with production efficiently, or some such. Political demand needs to be matched with equal efficiency. Imposing good governance into a voting system will very likely create distortions.