closed/open list hybrids?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

closed/open list hybrids?

Craig Carey-2
Helena Catt wrote [in ER]:
>In Italy voters used to have the chance of marking 4 preferences
>within the list from the party they were voting for.  In all of
>these countries party discipline is tight because it is the party
>that chooses who is present on the list in the first place.
>Candidates may campaign for a personal preference but at the same
>time they are campaigning for a vote for their party.  

This doesn't sound like pure open or closed but a hybrid.  Are the
teams working on the closed vs open debate considering possibilities
like this, where the voters open-sort a group closed-selected by the
party?

- - -

And here's another system for the teams' consideration: each party
decides for itself if it will be open, closed, or a hybrid.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

closed/open list hybrids?

Rob Lanphier-2
On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, Steve Eppley wrote:

> Helena Catt wrote [in ER]:
> >In Italy voters used to have the chance of marking 4 preferences
> >within the list from the party they were voting for.  In all of
> >these countries party discipline is tight because it is the party
> >that chooses who is present on the list in the first place.
> >Candidates may campaign for a personal preference but at the same
> >time they are campaigning for a vote for their party.  
>
> This doesn't sound like pure open or closed but a hybrid.  Are the
> teams working on the closed vs open debate considering possibilities
> like this, where the voters open-sort a group closed-selected by the
> party?

The open/closed debate sort of fizzled, it seems.  Dan and I never really
agreed upon a format for the open list opening case, Kevin never
submitted a response.  I'm not blaming anyone, I just don't think the
interest in doing the debate in the way I laid it out was there.

I'd like to concentrate more on educational materials for Condorcet's
method anyway (which includes that program I'm writing).  I'd be happy to
help out with the FAQ and try to integrate what Dan and I have so far
into a FAQ format.  Dan (a.k.a. [hidden email]) posted his explanation of
STV several times to the e.r. list, and I've written an explanation which
can be found at :
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/cpr/stv.txt

Here's what I see as the most important set of questions to address in a
FAQ for the ER list:

What is proportional representation (PR)?
Is PR the same as a parliamentary system?
What forms of PR are available?
What is party-list PR?
What is the difference between open party-list and closed party-list?
What is Single Transferrable Vote (STV)?
What is Cambridge STV?
What is Fractional STV?
What is Additional Member System (AMS) (a.k.a. Mixed-Member Proportional)?
Where is PR being used today?
Which method is best (this section would include a summary of the
arguments in favor of one method over another)?

Why do we need single-winner reform?
What forms of single-winner methods are available?
What is first-past-the-post (FPP)?
What is majority preference voting (MPV) (a.k.a Single Winner STV)?
What is Condorcet's Method?
What is Approval?
What is Copeland's Method?
Which method is best (this section would include a summary of the
arguments in favor of one method over another)?

It'll be a lot of work integrating all of the different explanations into
a coherent FAQ list, which is why I don't want to do it :)  No, actually,
like I've said, I'm getting paid $50 to write that article.  It will
focus, though, mainly on single-winner reform, so the multi-member
election section is one I'd like to punt to some other member of this
list.  Any volunteers for multi-member election FAQ maintainer?

Rob Lanphier
[hidden email]
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla