[EM] Worst methods ever used?

[Stephane Rouillon]

Kevin Venzke wrote :

> The worst I think I've heard of is Brazil's open-list PR.  (You can vote either
> for a party or for a single candidate within a party, which also counts as a vote
> for the party.  The seats are divided up based on each party's share of the vote, and
> the seats are filled in the order of who got the most individual votes.)

I use the same mechanism to determine support to parties within SPPA.
It has the advantage of getting support for parties ideas, related to
how the politicians intend to apply them and the level of confidence
voters have toward those politicians.  Thus, it is still possible to make
the candidates accountable to apply policies they defended during
the electoral campaign, even if party members change their program
after the election...

> Most voters vote for an individual, and are unconcerned with parties.  That means
> a candidate's "surplus" votes serve to elect candidates who may not have any
> connection beyond party affiliation.  Parties can't discipline candidates because
> parties aren't what earn votes.

I do not know where these comments come from. I suppose you voted in Brasil
or know some Brasilian voters...  However, I definitively not agree with what you
said.  First, if "most voters vote for an individual, and are unconcerned with parties"
I would consider that a democratical progress, because it would show that candidates
can differ on some issue with the party chief line of believes.  This would give
more choices to keep or reject different versions (shades, colours, "nuances" in french)
of the same political major orientation. For example, I could be a liberal, fully in
agreement
with ZLEA, federalism and health issues, but placing marijuana's legalisation higher as a
priority,
and against homosexual weddings.  Or I could be a liberal in the exact position of my
party,
that would decide to exceptionnaly vote for another party because the liberal candidate I
am
offered makes a major issue of space research spendings and I disagree.

"That means a candidate's "surplus" votes serve to elect candidates who may not have any
connection beyond party affiliation."
I think you need to do your analysis again.  With such systems, direct support of elected

members is almost always higher than the party mean support (because only the best
representatives of a party get elected).  So surplus help only to elect candidates that
were missing by a tiny margin to get elected, and among all candidates of that party that
were in competition.
Check the proportions...

"Parties can't discipline candidates because parties aren't what earn votes."
Totally wrong. First sometimes candidates earn the vote, and sometimes parties earn the
vote.
What is beautiful with such a system is that you can tell.  If a candidate gets more vote

than the party mean support, (s)he's worth something. If (s)he gets less, this person is
a bad representative of what the population wants from that party program. So winners
discipline loosers
and this is what we want as a mass of represented people. Sometimes, winner candidates
discipline their party after showing how to get the best results, sometimes winner
parties discipline their looser candidates. The latter can be effectively disciplined by
being kicked out to run elsewhere at the next election. So discipline goes both way.

Stephane Rouillon, ing.