I'll compare the Brazilian open list method to a somewhat corresponding case, open list based parliamentary election in Finland and the plans to improve it.
In Finland the smallest districts have now 6 seats. That is considered a problem since having both districts with lots of seats (max 32) and small ones means that it does not make sense to vote for the smallest parties in the small districts (they may get some seats in the 32 seat district but in districts of 6 all seats go to big parties (and votes to small parties are in a way lost)). One of your possible solutions is to reduce the district size. Reducing district size would make the system less proportional. Maybe the intention is to eliminate some of the smallest parties this way. That would work (there are also other ways to go in that direction) but I don't know if that is the intention (and if reducing proportionality is a target). In Finland the discussion has been rather to make all the districts close to same size. The aim is to achieve this by combining small districts to bigger ones rather than to split big ones to smaller districts (bit more complex than this but that's the overall direction). You mentioned excessive district magnitude and that leading to high number of candidates. You mention also the possibility of limiting the number of candidates by party. Why is it a problem to have a high number of candidates? I assume the method gives each party a proportional part of the seats (based on the sum of votes of the candidates of the party). In Finland people roughly (in theory) first pick their party and then vote someone on that party's list. No problem if other parties have an excessive number of candidates. (Do you maybe have lots of work and large ballot papers because of the numerous candidates. In Finland the ballot is very simple, just a small white paper with a circle where you can write the number of your candidate.) Can you explain how the surpluses are transferred. Why unpredictable? Is the transfer algorithm somehow not working? You mentioned STV. That is an option (quite ok) but this method leads to a considerably different political system. Is such a system what people want in Brazil? The parties may not like this idea since the end result may be a "less party based" system, so the battle may be an uphill battle (good luck to you though if you want this change). Closed lists: Typically gives the power of deciding which individuals will be elected from voters to the parties. Is that what Brazil wants? (I don't yet.) Single member: Does this mean a dual party system based on single seat districts? Is that what Brazil wants? (I don't yet.) MMP: More complex than open list. What is the rationale? Maybe interest to have local single seat districts to elect very local (small district) representatives? Is this what Brazil wants? Isn't basic (open list based) proportional representation in bigger districts enough? Top-two runoff (for single winner elections): Yes, in many cases good enough but has also some clear problems and can be improved. I don't think ranked methods (e.g. Condorcet that is a more "compromise candidate oriented" (good or bad) and that is better from strategic voting point of view) would be too difficult. At least if the number of candidates is not large (7 candidates in the last presidential elections according to wiki) then also the ballots can be e.g. some simple ticking exercises. (The method should tolerate/allow some ticking errors to avoid losing the votes of people who are not that familiar with using the method.) Juho Laatu On Nov 19, 2007, at 20:50 , Diego Renato wrote: > I've read in this list that possibly the worst electoral system > used is Brazilian open list PR. In this year, Brazilian Congress > discuted the change of electoral law to closed lists, single member > plurality or MMP. > > Presidents, Governors and Mayors are elected by top-two runoff. I > think this method is sufficiently good. Maybe ranked methods are > not suitable for Brazilian voters' degree of skill, and for voting > machines. > > Federal, State and Muncipal representatives are elected according > open lists. The main problem of this method is the excessive > district magnitude (8 in least populated states up to 70 in São > Paulo) and resulting high number of candidates. Transfers of > surpluses are unpredictable. My suggestions for improvements of > this system are: > > - reduce district size to 3, 4 or 5; > - limit number of candidates by party. Candidates should be > nominated by primary elections. > - prohibit surplus transfers among different parties. > - adoption of STV in the future. > > Do you agree with these measures? > > _______________________________ > Diego Renato dos Santos > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for > list info ___________________________________________________________ Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
