[EM] Re: PR vs. Geographic Representation

James Gilmour jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Thu Jan 29 11:03:02 PST 2004

> > James Gilmour wrote:
> > > If you were to adopt any party list system of PR (closed list, open 
> > > list, MMP) you would give the parities more leverage.  But if you 
> > > adopted STV-PR (Choice Voting) you could shift the balance of power 
> > > away from the parties to the voters.

Stephane said and asked:
> Open list is rather good too. James, please can you justify?

I assume you wanted me to justify my comment   -  not to justify your comment!  There are several
variations of open list, but in most the voter can mark only one candidate in the list.  In most,
the candidate votes are not transferable, so there is very poor PR within parties.  In most, voters'
preferences make very little difference to the election of the candidates at the top of the parties'
lists  -  they'll be elected even if they have little personal support.  Voters cannot usually
express preferences across parties.  But why go on?  It is a PARTY List system and it does just what
it says  -  puts party before elector.  Open List is much better than Closed List, and some Open
List systems are better than some other Open List systems.  But none of these systems justify the
description "rather good too" in relation to shifting the balance of power away from the parties to
the voters.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list