David Gamble said: > Recently their have been a number of posts regarding the merits of open > versus closed lists for list PR. I dislike closed lists and feel that > voters not parties should decide which individuals on a list are > elected. However the fact that in an open list system a vote counts > both for an individual and a party list can produce results unintended > by the voters. Take the following example:
<snip> > If you must use list PR my preferred type of list is the 'loose' list. A > voter can only vote for one party list but can vary the order of > candidates on that list ( for example in say an 8 member district the > voter votes for one list and up to 4 candidates on that list. The votes > for the party lists are used to allocate the seats between parties and > the votes for the candidates to determine who on the list is elected). Your goal here is to protect voters from themselves. I think it's pretty clear that when voters divide their votes among lists they run the risk of electing a less preferred candidate from one of the lists. Now, admittedly, I'm the guy who said STV shouldn't be used until 80% of voters in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Palm Beach "axis of befuddlement" understand it. My main concern is that the mechanics of the system, and the possible consequences of actions, be easy to understand. STV flunks the simplicity test IMO, even though it does a decent job of protecting voters from themselves. List systems that allow cross-over voting pass the simplicity test, even though they don't protect voters from themselves. It's similar to the situation with Approval Voting: It might be tough to decide whether I should approve my second choice in a 3-way race, but the possible consequences of doing so are clear to me, as are the possible consequences of NOT voting for him. The only thing I have to figure out is which outcome is more likely, and then I can take my chances as I see fit, just like any other adult. Now, there may be another good argument for a "loose list" rather than a completely free list (distribute your votes among lists and candidates however you see fit): Say that a list is divided between moderates and extremists. The extremists might complain that cross-over voters helped the moderates, essentially hijacking the party. But I reject even that argument: If the extremists want to maintain purity in their party, they should form their own party and exclude moderates from the lists. (And, as always, insert all the usual caveats that this discussion is in the spirit of "IF we have a list system, what should it be?" not "Should we have a list system in the first place?") Alex ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
