[Election-Methods] Local representation

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Juho wrote:
> I think already the basic open list provides a quite strong link between 
> candidates and voters. Voters will decide which candidates will be 
> elected, not the party (this is an important detail). (Extensions are 
> needed to provide proportionality between different subgroups of the 
> party.)

I'd classify the various party systems like this:

Closed list: Forced party-based voting.
Open list: Opt-out party-based voting.
Ranked ballot PR: Manual opt-in party-based voting.

In other words, although a properly constructed open list may be 
equivalent to ranked ballot PR (it would be pretty easy, if pointless, 
to make a party list that translates the votes into ranked ballots), 
which way the default goes makes a difference.

I would put STV+above-the-line somewhere in there, but because the only 
implementation of "above the line" voting is Australia's, and since the 
forced "rank all below the line if you're going to vote below the line" 
constraint means that it'll be prohibitively expensive, in terms of 
effort, to vote below the line, it's probably quite similar to closed 
list PR.

The "vote for some, then your party completes the rank" method would go 
in between open list and STV (ranked ballot) somewhere.

(I don't think there's a point in having closed list if you can have 
open list. Others may disagree, though; they could argue that coherent 
policies is what matters and that individual candidates would become 
demagogues and swing to the short-sighted public opinion instead of 
forming such coherent policy. But inasfar as democracy has a problem in 
that people are shortsighted, that should be handled separately, such as 
by long term limits or rotating assemblies.)