[Election-Methods] Matrix voting and cloneproof MMP questions

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Stéphane Rouillon wrote:
> For your second point, there is one way to enforce coherency (using a 
> mathematical definition)
> within an MMP election. If one uses the same results to elect the 
> individual representatives
> and to determine the corrected proportion obtained after electing list 
> members. The simple way to enforce
> such coherence between these two proportions is to use a single ballot 
> MMP, where voting
> for an individual is considered too as giving support in favor of this 
> candate party list.
>  From what I know two german landers use this system. Otherwise you have 
> to relie on cultural
> honesty of the parties or electorate to avoid the decoy problem.

Wouldn't that turn MMP into, in essence, open party list? To me it seems 
that this solution would turn into one where constituency votes for a 
party just results in a reordering of the list for the constituency in 
question (so that it is better than closed party list).

Votes for independents could be handled one of two ways. Either by 
letting those who vote for an independent manually choose his party. In 
that case, parties can run candidates as nominal independents, though 
this strategy may be too visible for parties to pull off without a 
backlash of complaints that the party is being dishonest. The other way 
would be to deprive those who vote independent of the list vote 
altogether (since it's not formally certain who the independent is 
aligned with).

But now that I think about it, there might be a way to save this system. 
Independents have to state party allegiance, and their supporters' list 
votes go to the party in question. That's a slight improvement upon open 
list PR because independents can state party allegiance without actually 
having to join any party. (One would also assume that the independents 
so aligning would not be subject to party whips.)