[EM] Israeli party-list primary elections

[Tom Round]

X-Sender: schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:37:44 +0100
To: T.Round at mailbox.gu.edu.au
From: Markus Schulze <schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [EM] Israeli party-list primary elections

Dear Tom,

you wrote (11 Mar 1999):
> Do you mind if I cc this message to the election-methods
> list, by the way?

You are invited to do that.

Markus Schulze



>Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:55:52 +1000
>To: Markus Schulze <schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de>
>From: Tom Round <aisround at kraken.itc.gu.edu.au>
>Subject: Re: [EM] Israeli party-list primary elections
>In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990310230239.009f03d0 at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de>
>
>Thanks, Markus, I read and printed your document without any problems. The
article greatly clarified the matter for me. The last I had read on Israeli
candidate selection [a book by Lijphart or Ranney, I think, published circa
1980] simply said the party executives drew up the lists. Incidentally, do
you know if I'm correct about German parties filling each list position by
separate majority vote?
>
>The electoral methods used in Israeli primaries seem to be all forms of
first-past-the-post -- either "block limited vote" (ie, voting for a number
of candidates somewhere between a minimum and a maximum that are both less
than the number to be elected) or an Austrian-style points system. 
>
>I dislike all non-preferential voting systems but, if forced to choose
one, I think the best _ uniform _ rule would be to ask each voter to put an
X for either one, two or three candidates, regardless of the number of
seats. This would translate into something like Approval Voting for 1, 2 or
3 seats, and then a semi-proportional Limited Vote for 4 or more seats. It
would mitigate the evils of a split vote on the one hand and of a "winner
take all" clean sweep on the other.
>
>I find it interesting also that Hazan regards candidate selection by the
party leaders as producing a more workable, cohesive Knesset, whereas
candidates who owe their high list position to primary elections he sees as
voting more independently, as individuals. The opposite is usually alleged
in UK and USA (and Australia) -- that candidates chosen from defined local
districts are more accountable and cooperative than those "responsible only
to the party leaders".
>
>I suppose if one has closed lists with candidates chosen and ordered by
primaries, the next step might be to allow the party members to recall, or
dismiss, MPs in mid-term by another ballot. At present in India,
Bangladesh, South Africa and Sri Lanka this can be done by the party
machine, which I find objectionable, but if done by a direct vote of all
members, might be acceptable. Indonesia apparently enables parties to
recall MPs elected from their lists, but under Suharto this was simply used
as a way of keeping Opposition deputies "tame".
>
>My own first choice is very much in favour of Single Transferable Vote
with 5- or 7-seat electorates, although I will concede that it is much
harder to operate a right of recall under STV than under either party-list
proportional representation or under a winner-take-all system, where the
MP's "constituency" is easily identified (ie, the whole of either a
district or a party). Under STV, with a secret ballot, the MP represents an
anonymous quota of voters within an electorate, not necessarily defined by
their party membership. On the other hand, STV makes candidates so
personally accountable at each regular election that I think it would
remove much of the demand to remove them between elections.
>
>Do you mind if I cc this message to the election-methods list, by the way?
>
>Thanks
>Tom
>
>
>At 11:02  3/10/99 +0100, you wrote:
>>Dear Tom,
>>
>>I have just sent a paper (Reuven Y. Hazan, "The 1996
>>Intra-Party Elections in Israel: Adopting Party Primaries,"
>>Electoral Studies, vol. 16, p. 95-103, 1997) to you as an
>>attachment of an e-mail. This attachment has a size of
>>about 540 kB.
>>
>>Markus Schulze
>>
>

=============================================================
Tom Round
[1] Research Officer, Key Centre for Law, Ethics, Justice and Governance
(incorporating the National Institute for Law, Ethics and Public Affairs), and
[2] Associate Lecturer, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
Griffith University, Queensland [Australia] 4111
Ph:	[1] 07 3875 6671 or [2] 07 3875 5957
Fax:	[1] 07 3875 6634 or [2] 07 3875 5608
E-mail: 	T.Round at mailbox.gu.edu.au
=============================================================
"Dogs have owners: Cats have staff." -- Anonymous
=============================================================