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

[Olli Salmi]

At 02:56 +0200 7.2.2002, Blake Cretney wrote:
>  Adam Tarr wrote:
>
...
>> 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.

It may be difficult in the USA where the ballot usually contains many
offices. And voting machines may have their limitations. With paper ballots
there's no problem.

In Germany and Austria they seem to manage open lists with these huge
ballots that contain all the candidate information.

We use blank ballots, A5 folded (210*149mm, half a sheet). The candidate
information is on a separate schedule of candidate lists which is posted in
every ballot booth and all over the polling station. It's published in the
newspapers and the candidates also seem willing to spread information about
themselves.

"Schedule" is a word I picked up from the STV manual of the Electoral
Reform Society.

Here's a ballot paper from an unofficial youth election:
http://www.jalasjarvi.fi/jannu/lippu1997.jpg

And here's the official format of a schedule of candidate lists. The number
of the candidate is written on the ballot paper.
http://www.lemi.fi/kunta/ehdokas.htm
I don't know what American voting machines are like, probably all
different, but it might be possible to punch holes for numbers. Blank
ballot papers are very easy in organizations and societies.

The biggest district in this country is the Helsinki municipal council,
with 80 seats and about 900 candidates. This works fine and they even have
a Somali councillor. I think it's good if the political system can
integrate recent immigrants this way. I don't think the voters of a female
Somali Green Party candidate live in a certain part of the city, which is
why I think it's good that municipalities are not divided in districts.

>>> 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.

This is the fear they have in Sweden. They are slowly experimenting with a
personal vote. If a candidate polls 8% of the party vote, he or she is put
on the top of the list. They are advancing slowly because are afraid that
open lists would mean that candidates become dependent on their sponsors.
Besides, too quick a change might cause unforeseen problems.

>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.

Even though we have open lists, campaigns are national even in local
elections. If the governing coalition loses votes, the press immediately
starts discussing whether the government should resign, as if the
government was responsible to local councils.

>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.

Parties and politicians always think they are in a better position to make
good choices than is the voter. With open lists the parties try to get
popular candidates, sometimes non-partisan, women, young people, old
people, minorities, beautiful people, athletes. Sometimes these people are
elected, to the consternation of the party leaders. Some are good, some
less good. They are supposed to represent the people, not the parties,
that's why the people should decide. Yet I think parties are inevitable.
They provide for predictability.
...

>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.

You'd want to get all the votes you can. With closed lists the voters know
that only the top names will be elected.

>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.

There can be more candidates than there are seats to be filled, maybe up to
twice the number of seats, because there are no bye-elections with list PR.
This gives room for all sort of people.

Olli Salmi