[EM] Open and Closed Lists (was ...STV for Candidate...)

[Blake Cretney]

  Adam Tarr wrote:

> While I agree with most of what you said, I think open list is almost 
> unambiguously better than closed list.
>
>> 1.  It allows districts/constituencies to be eliminated.  They tend 
>> to corrupt the process.
>> 2.  It provides a high degree of proportionality.
>> 3.  It is simple both to use and understand.  Voter's need not even 
>> be literate.
>
>
> All of these advantages are shared by open list. (Note that in Open 
> list, there's no reason to stop people from just voting for the party, 
> a la closed list, and not voting within the party.  I only mention 
> this for the sake of the illiterate voter argument.)

You are going to have to have some districting to make the ballot 
manageable.  

>> 4.  More importantly, the elections themselves are easier to 
>> understand, because they are so partisan.
>
>
> True, it becomes party vs. party.  But do you have any evidence that 
> this actually reduces spending?  Perhaps it will reduce the 
> personality-based campaigning, but I'm not certain that's a social 
> good I want to work toward anyway.  If people want to elect 
> representatives they like over representatives they agree with, that's 
> their prerogative.

I don't know that personality itself makes a difference.  I mean, 
whether its Bush vs. Gore or the Republican vs. the Democrats, I don't 
know which takes the more money.  But in a Country with 100 Democrats 
and Republicans, each trying to explain to the voters what positions he 
or she takes on each issue, each incumbent trying to portray his rival 
as an extremist, out of step even with his own party, I think its clear 
that more money will be spent.  We all know that National advertising is 
more cost effective than regional advertising.

Consider why McDonald's is so profitable compared to all those little 
Burger restaurants.  It's because McDonald's can run national campaigns. 
 A restaurant that wanted to raise its profile in a small area to the 
level of McDonald's would spend a fortune compared to the amount that 
McDonald's has spent on that one area as a proportion of its national 
spending.

Returning to politics, I don't claim that personal politics inevitably 
results in more spending.  A country can set strict spending limits.  It 
could ban national advertising.  But something's got to give.  If 
candidates aren't spending enough money, then voters will be confused. 
 As well, voters are more likely to vote for the incumbent because this 
is at least a known entity, and there is no effective branding by a 
national party.

I think this difference shows up in the difference between Canada and 
the US.  In Canada, most voters vote along string party lines. 
 Incumbency is much less important.  Parties spend less, and don't seem 
to suffer from it.  To some extent this may be due to differences in 
spending/fundraising limits, but I think its the other way around. 
 Parties in Canada are less afraid of fundraising limits because they 
are less dependent on large sums of money.

But maybe I'm wrong.  What's really necessary is a comparison of many 
countries.  I don't know of any countries where the individual candidate 
is anywhere near as important as in the US, though.  Usually in STV, 
voters vote along party lines anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

>
> One thing I _am_ certain I want to do is minimize is the control the 
> parties have over the debate.  When you pit party versus party, then 
> the voters have to pick between the party platforms.  When you allow 
> voters to pick an individual candidate in a party, the voters can now 
> pick between all the subtle variants of the individual platforms, and 
> thereby achieve a closer match to their own views.

Someone is going to make the subtle choice of which party members get 
elected.  I think that the party is in a better position to make a good 
choice than is the voter.  The party should know these people.  The 
party is responsible for them if they embarrass themselves.  The party 
is able to use a voting method superior to SNTV.

>> 5.  Although there are strategy issues, party list doesn't have many 
>> of the peculiarities of other methods.
>
>
> Open list essentially has the same strategy as closed list, with the 
> addition of the strategy for picking a candidate within a given 
> party.  But even if that choice is completely intractable, you still 
> have as much control of the outcome as you do with closed list.  In 
> reality, the choice within the list is basically a SNTV vote, which is 
> not a terribly tough strategic problem.  If you vote sincerely you 
> will generally do pretty well from a utility-maximizing standpoint.

I pretty much agree.   This was meant as a criticism of STV and 
mixed-member.

>> 6.  Voters are voting for a known entity, a pre-determined party 
>> list. Voter's aren't forced to make every decision, but they are able 
>> to respond effectively when list makers make bad choices.  That's a 
>> more realistic model of democracy than the micro-management model.
>
>
> Open list basically takes some control out of the party leadership's 
> hands and gives it to the electorate.  I can't see this as a bad 
> thing.  It fosters independence in the representatives, as they don't 
> need to vote in lock-step with the party line in order to advance up 
> the ranks.  This is a very real problem in many closed list democracies.

It seems to me that in open list, if I control the nomination process, I 
can still select a group of yes-men.  In fact, an open list forces me to 
insist on homogeneity if I don't want those meddlesome voters to get in 
the way.

This has a lot to do with how the list is made up.  I think the list 
should be made by the party, but that doesn't necessarily mean the party 
leadership.  I think that the list should represent the party as a whole 
(or at least the majority) and not simply the current leaders.  

---
Blake Cretney