Juho wrote:
I can see three different local/personal representation concepts here. (just
to clarify my thoughts, and maybe help some others too)?
I think a?better way of?breaking down those options would be based on the how
the seats are allocated.?
The whole regional/national/district
2008/7/17 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Juho wrote:
I can see three different local/personal representation concepts here.
(just to clarify my thoughts, and maybe help some others too)
I think a better way of breaking down those options would be based on the
how the seats are allocated.
The whole
On Jul 17, 2008, at 18:38 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see three different local/personal representation concepts
here. (just to clarify my thoughts, and maybe help some others too)
I think a better way of breaking down those options would be based
on the how the seats are allocated.
I think already the basic open list provides a quite strong link
between candidates and voters. Voters will decide which candidates
will be elected, not the party (this is an important detail).
(Extensions are needed to provide proportionality between different
subgroups of the party.)
Juho wrote:
I think already the basic open list provides a quite strong link between
candidates and voters. Voters will decide which candidates will be
elected, not the party (this is an important detail). (Extensions are
needed to provide proportionality between different subgroups of the
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:34 , James Gilmour wrote:
Juho Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:18 PM
I think already the basic open list provides a quite strong link
between candidates and voters.
Yes, it is certainly much stronger than with closed-list. But see
next proviso.
Voters will
On Jul 16, 2008, at 16:53 , James Gilmour wrote:
raphfrk Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:48 PM
From: James Gilmour
There is always a trade-off between guaranteed local representation
(small districts) and proportionality (large districts),
whatever the voting system.
Local representation
