On 8/18/08, Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:00 AM, James Gilmour wrote: > > I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with "lists". > An assumption, I think, that voters won't have the patience and attention > span to evaluate a long list of candidates, and need the crutch of party > guidance to cast their votes.
I think a system that requires people to rank 10-20+ candidates is going to run into trouble. Australia is the perfect example where voters just don't bother (and thus just vote for one of the party lists). Ofc, maybe they would fill out the ballot in its entirety if that was the only way to actually cast a valid ballot. However, in that case they would probably not pay much attention to what they are actually doing and would probably rank 'don't care' candidates in the order listed on the ballot. Forcing them to do that doesn't help democracy. Giving the option of a list allows a compromise to be found. Your first and second rankings are normally the most important in PR-STV and as long as they remain under the control of the voter, then the balance of power remains with the voters rather than with the party leadership. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
