This was a good overall description of "party list proportional representation". I wrote few (actually quite many) minor comments below.
On 4.7.2011, at 2.06, James Gilmour wrote: > First we have to recognise that there is no one voting system called "party > list proportional representation". There are probably > as many variants of "party-list PR" as there are countries and jurisdictions > using such a system for their public elections. > However, these party-list PR voting systems fall into two broad categories: > "closed-list party-list PR" and "open-list party-list > PR". > > In both "closed" and "open" versions of party-list systems the order of the > candidates in each party's list is determined by the > relevant political party. Why do all say this? It is possible that in all used systems parties determine the order. But it could be of no importance from the election result point of view. It could be just e.g. a random or alphabetical order, possibly determined by the election officials. In closed lists the order is essential but not necessarily in open lists. > Different countries have different rules about how that is to be done and > different parties have > different procedures within those rules for ordering the lists. Some parties > exercise very strong centralised control; other > parties are much more democratic and give every member a vote. > > In "closed-list" systems the voters can vote only for a party. Seats are > allocated to parties by an arithmetic formula, usually > d'Hondt (favours parties with more votes) or Sainte-Laguë (favours parties > with fewer votes). I think Sainte-Laguë could be said to be neutral with respect to party size. It is at least less biased than D'Hondt. (D'Hondt is also not grossly biased. It clearly favours large parties in the allocation of the remaining fractional seats. Full seats will be allocated accurately.) > Candidates take the seats allocated > to their respective parties strictly in the order in which they are named on > their parties' lists. > > In "open-list" systems the voters can also mark a vote for a candidate but > usually only for one candidate. Votes for a candidate > are counted as votes for that candidate's party and seats are allocated to > the parties by an arithmetic formula, usually d'Hondt or > Sainte-Laguë as in closed-list party-list systems. When candidates are > allocated to the seats won by each party, the votes for each > candidate within the relevant party are taken into account (in different ways > in the various implementations). Sometimes the > candidates' votes can change the order in which they are allocated to the > party's seats. > > The main objection to party-list voting systems is that they are centred on > the registered political parties and not on the voters. I think they are very much centered on the voters, just like most other voting systems. They just assume that the political field is organized and can be divided into parties or other maybe more election specific lists of candidates. (In addition many but not all list based methods allow also parties to determine to order in which candidates are elected.) > (Of course, such systems cannot be used in non-partisan elections.) The > prime objective of all party-list voting systems is to > deliver PR of the registered political parties. ... and other (non-registered) groupings of candidates and candidates running alone. > Party-list voting systems entrench the political power of the political > parties > (especially the central party machine) at the expense of the voters. Maybe in the form of the party determined order in the closed lists. Otherwise maybe not more than in any other party based political system. I however note that methods that provide proportionality also within parties may reduce the power of the "central party machine" since then the opinions of the voters become more visible. Party lists don't exclude such proportionality although they usually do not provide any party internal proportionality. One more thing is that methods where candidates run as independent citizens and join together as parties or other groupings only after the election put at least psychologically more weight on the party independent role of the representatives. Also voters' ability to vote across party border lines (as e.g. in STV) may have some similar psychological effects. > This is most certainly true of "closed-list" party-list voting > systems where the voters have no say in which candidates are elected. > "Open-list" systems do allow the voters some say in which of > the parties' candidates should be elected Not "some say" but possibly also "all say". In the beginning of the mail you said that there are two categories, "closed-list party-list PR" and "open-list party-list PR". It s a matter of taste in which of those categories one puts those methods where voters have "some say" on which candidates will be elected (could depend on e.g. if voters vote for parties/lists or individual candidates by default). > , but most such systems do not provide proportional representation WITHIN the > respective > parties. In some situations, getting the balance of representation right > between competing wings WITHIN one party may be as > important as getting the balance of representation right among the parties. > > Whether these approaches are acceptable or not is determined by political > philosophy. If all you want is PR of the registered > political parties, party-list voting systems will deliver that. The > "closed-list" variety will deliver nothing more. The > "open-list" variety will allow the voters (to varying degrees) some power to > affect the balance of representation within parties, > but only the most complex of the "open-list" systems will deliver anything > approaching proportionality of the voters' wishes. I'm not aware of any list based method (in use in political elections) that would provide full proportionality also within parties. But one could say that already basic open list methods do "approach proportionality". If candidates with most personal votes are elected, that does not guarantee proportionality, but normally it does provide some level of proportionality also within the parties (assuming that candidate nomination and their "popularity distribution" is reasonably balanced between different wings of the party). > > But there are other views - that "representation" should be about the > voters and not just about the registered political parties. As already noted above. Lists force political representation to follow the structure of the parties or other groupings. Voters are still the ones that decide. List based systems are no good for associations or political systems that are purely individual based. For political environments with clear party structure differences in the resulting political environment between list based methods and methods where voting does not follow any list structure (e.g. STV) may not be that big. > That the "proportional representation" the voting system should delver should > be PR of the voters' wishes (as expressed by their > preferences among the candidates who offer themselves for election) and not > just PR of the registered political parties. What is the difference? Do you mean that also party internal proportionality should be included? I think the thoughts in this mail touched in many places the differences between closed list, open list and STV style proportional elections. Roughly I'd say that pure closed lists allow parties to determine the order in which candidates are elected, pure open lists allow voters to determine which candidates are elected, and in STV also proportionality within the parties is provided. STV is typically used in elections with less candidates and less seats per district. That may reduce the level of proportionality a bit. List based elections are typically used in elections with large districts (maybe only one country wide district) and large number of candidates. One thing that was not mentioned yet is that list based systems may reduce the power of the parties and the "central party machine" if the number of candidates is large. In that case the political parties tend to nominate all candidates that may efficiently collect votes. And at least in open lists voters can then decide which candidates will be elected (and also which minor candidates will receive many enough votes to become major candidates in the next election). In this way party internal battle and decision on candidate nomination becomes less crucial with respect to which citizens can be elected. > There are > historical reasons why different countries have favoured one approach over > the other, reflecting, and reflected in, differences in > political culture. Yes, most developments can be explained better as historical developments than as rational decisions. Juho > > James Gilmour > Scotland (where we use 5 different voting systems for public elections, > including 3 different PR systems, one of which is > closed-list party-list) > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com >> [mailto:election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] On >> Behalf Of Kathy Dopp >> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 4:50 PM >> To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com >> Subject: [EM] What's wrong with the party list system? >> >> >> Someone from Europe on this list recently said that they did >> not like the party list system. Why not? Party list seems >> like a fair, simple system of electing legislators who >> represent people in approximately the same proportion that >> they exist in the electorate. I have not found a >> better-sounding proportional system yet. So, what's wrong >> with the party list system? >> >> -- >> >> Kathy Dopp > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
