Truncated ballots

[Gary Swing]

On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, IH Farrow wrote:

> Steve Eppley [SMTP:SEppley at alumni.caltech.edu] wrote:
> 
> >We might look to Australia, which provides a truncating 
> >shortcut used by most voters in Australia's STV proportional 
> >representation elections.  The shortcut allows the voter 
> >to select one party instead of ranking all parties' candidates.  
> >(In other words, contrary to conventional belief, Australia 
> >doesn't really use STV PR; they use party list.)  
> 
> 1.	Australia does not have a party list system in any elections. 
> Confusion may be caused by the system introduced in 1984 for Senate
> elections (largely for the convenience of the political parties) which
> enabled voters to place one mark in a square indicating an intention to
> cast a ballot in accordance with the voting ticket submitted by that
> party organisation. By marking the 'above-the-line' square the voter is
> able to indicate support for the ordinal ranking submitted by the party
> organisation.  It is correct that more than 90 per cent of voters choose
> to use this 'above-the-line' voting method.  The ballot is however,
> still regarded in the same way as an STV ballot in which the voter had
> ordinally marked every square on the ballot paper.   

Then, in practical effect, wouldn't that make it a party list system with
the option of voting either for pre-ordered party lists or for individual
candidates (of any party) using STV? It sounds like a hybrid party
list/STV voting system proposed by George Hallett, Jr. in his book
Proportional Representation. The ballots may look different, but otherwise
it sounds like Hallett's proposal.

I find it very interesting that most voters would choose to cast a single
vote for their party, rather than choosing individual candidates. Is this
true in all party list systems where voters have an option of voting
either for a pre-ordered list or selecting individual candidates of their
own choice?

Gary Swing