[EM] 12/22/02 - Markus Schulze Wrote and Wrote again:

[James Gilmour]

Adam wrote
> While I agree wholeheartedly with the desire to limit the influence
> political parties have over their candidates, it seems to me that this is
> mostly a property of CLOSED party list PR.  In open list PR, candidates
> don't have to play nice to move up the list, since the voters decide which
> candidates on the list get elected.  Also, in theory one could run as an
> independent in list PR, although it's unlikely that a single candidate
> would break the quota.  So I do see the benefits of STV.  I see PAV as even
> better, though - especially if there aren't many seats to allocate.

There are two fundamental advantages of STV-PR over all forms of Party List PR
(PL-PR).

First, the sole objective of PL-PR is to secure PR of parties and other
pre-registered groups.  With STV-PR the objective is to secure PR of what the
voters want, as expressed by their responses to the candidates who offer
themselves for election.  Where the voters "vote the party ticket", party PR will
be the outcome of STV-PR, but it is not the objective.  Where voters are motivated
not to "vote the party ticket" you will not see PR of the political parties, but
you will still get PR of the voters' views.

Second, even with "open list" PL-PR, you cannot obtain PR of the voters' views
WITHIN the parties.  PL-PR gives you PR only among the parties.  To obtain PR
within a party, the votes need to transferable among the candidates within that
party.  If you are going to allow transferable votes within parties, why not go
the whole hog and allow transferable votes between parties?  Then you have
re-inverted STV-PR.

These two differences are fundamental.  They make STV-PR uniquely different from
all other forms of PR.  Party apparatchiks may be content with PL-PR or even
oppose STV-PR.  But elections are for electors.

James

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em