Advantages of a list-based system

[Dios]

In the interest of moving away from parish pump politics, whereby elections become a local popularity contest, and moving towards a more issues based rather than personality based election system, while keeping proportional representation, what would people think of a list based system? What we have now is preference voting, the single transferable vote.

This method of proportional representation uses a system of preferential voting to determine the results of the election

A constituency elects two or more representatives per electorate. Consequently the constituency is proportionally larger than a single member constituency. Parties tend to offer as many candidates as they most optimistically could expect to win: the major parties may nominate almost as many candidates as there are seats, while the minor parties and independents rather fewer. Voters mark their ballot, allocating preferences to their preferred ranking for some or all candidates. A successful candidate must achieve a quota, being the total number of votes received divided by the number of candidates to be elected plus one; i.e. in a nine member constituency the quota would be the number of votes divided by 10 (9 + 1). Only in a few cases is this achieved at the first count. For the second count, if a candidate wins election his surplus vote (in excess of the quota) is transferred to his voters' second choices; otherwise, the least popular candidate is eliminated and his votes redistributed according to the second preference shown on them. If there are more than one candidate who can not get enough votes after the transfer of votes of least popular candidate, he will be eliminated too (as he could not avoid it on the next round under any circumstance).

This process continues for as many counts as are needed until all seats are filled either by the required number of candidates achieving a quota and being deemed to be elected or until there are only the number of candidates remaining as there are number of seats. Although the counting process is complicated, voting is clear and most voters get at least one of their preferences elected.

All deputies are answerable directly to their local constituents.

What might be of more value especially in the context of the Irish political landscape is a list based system.

Party-list proportional representation systems are a family of voting systems emphasizing proportional representation (PR) in elections returning multiple candidates (e.g. elections to parliament). They can also be used as part of mixed additional member systems.

In these systems, parties make lists of candidates to be elected, and seats get allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes the party receives. Voters may vote directly for the party, as in Israel, for candidates and that vote will pool to the party, as in Turkey and Finland, or for a list of candidates, as in Hong Kong.

The order in which a party's list candidates get elected may be pre-determined by some method internal to the party or the candidates (a closed list system) or it may be determined by the voters at large (an open list system).

This system is used by the overwhelming majority of countries that use proportional representation.

[locke]

I don't think the perfect system has been invented.

Of the main systems, the problems seem to be

First Past The Post - Complete lack of proportionality. The party with the plurality of the votes can get a large majority.

STV - Encourages people to vote for who does them personal favours, rather than o the issues at hand.

Closed List - Problems with representation surrounding floor crossing and disintegration of parties. A party can end up with votes it never earned. At least with the vote tied to a person there is some form of mandate

Open List - Mitigates the problems of closed list somewhat, but reintroduces the idea of personal favours getting votes.

Direct Democracy - Ends up with people having a direct vote on things they may not understand; you lose the benefit of professional legislators who have examined things in detail. Very hard to make international agreements etc. as they may get rejected by the electorate; it's even questionable who has the right to negotiate.

Open List (e.g. the system used in Finland) seems the best compromise, but all have their flaws.

[Question R24U]

IMHO, only a hybrid system here would work, say 64 from constitunencies and 60 from list.

Direct
8 constituencies each elect 8 TDs directly to represent 500,000 people in each. The constituencies could divide the euros in two.

List
The total first preference votes could be used to elect at least 60 list TDs.
The 60 would be the next highest losers from all of the constituncies in proportion to the votes cast based on party affiliation.
The list would be used to make the total Dail proportionate as opposed to a direct proportion from the list.

eg However since FF might get 22 of the seats from the direct system with 28% of the Vote ( a seat bonus of 3), Labour get 13 seats with 20% of the vote and SF only get 6 seats from 7% of the vote.
The adjustment would be:
For 28% FF gets only 13 additional seats from the list.
Labour get 12 list TDs to bring its total to 20%.
SF would get 2 seats from the list ie total representation of 8/124.

In order to round numbers the Dail might have to vary around the 124-128 from the list.

Pros:
One ballot paper.
Still directly elected.
Parties can't impose their own stooges, but favoured candidates eg an well known economist (who would not have the numbers in a 8 seater), could run in more than one constituency to bolster their numbers for the list.
Much further from the Parish pump.

[seabhcan]

The problem with the list system is it tranfers power from the voter to the guy who decides who gets on the list and in what order.

FirstPastThePost has the same problem, just the list has only one name per constituency.

[ivnryn]

IMHO, only a hybrid system here would work, say 64 from constitunencies and 60 from list.

I agree, that gives a balance between the 2. Also, ministers could be selected from the list candidates and so wouldn't be dependent on local votes.

Direct
8 constituencies each elect 8 TDs directly to represent 500,000 people in each. The constituencies could divide the euros in two.

You mean 8 overlapping constituencies, i.e. everyone would vote in all 8?

I don't think that is a good idea.

List
The total first preference votes could be used to elect at least 60 list TDs.
The 60 would be the next highest losers from all of the constituncies in proportion to the votes cast based on party affiliation.
The list would be used to make the total Dail proportionate as opposed to a direct proportion from the list.

Ok, so kinda like mixed member plurality, "mixed member STV?". Anyway, the problem is that it can be gamed.

Ofc, it looks like you are inferring the party vote from the candidate votes? That makes it less abusable.

Pros:
One ballot paper.
Still directly elected.
Parties can't impose their own stooges, but favoured candidates eg an well known economist (who would not have the numbers in a 8 seater), could run in more than one constituency to bolster their numbers for the list.
Much further from the Parish pump.

My preference is a candidate based list system. Each candidate submits a ranked ballot and if you vote for the candidate, then you are considered to have voted in accordance with his list. The ballots are then combined using PR-STV. This allows PR-STV but at the nationwide level. It also prevents the effect where list systems move power to the party hq from the candidates and voters.

I would also have the list and local elections considered separate. This makes it harder to abuse. Also, it isn't fair to assume that a vote for a candidate is automatically a vote for his party. Lots of candidates have a personal vote.

[Question R24U]

No, 8 separate constitunecies, each elected 8 TDs.
Eg. Dublin North, Dublin South, South Leinster, Munster West, etc.

[locke]

The problem with the list system is it tranfers power from the voter to the guy who decides who gets on the list and in what order.

FirstPastThePost has the same problem, just the list has only one name per constituency.

Open list mitigates that to an extent.

While voters don't get to decide who is on the list, they do get to decide the order of people on the list.

[Dios]

Direct Democracy - Ends up with people having a direct vote on things they may not understand; you lose the benefit of professional legislators who have examined things in detail. Very hard to make international agreements etc. as they may get rejected by the electorate; it's even questionable who has the right to negotiate.

The Swiss have an interesting take on direct democracy.

[ivnryn]

Open list mitigates that to an extent.

While voters don't get to decide who is on the list, they do get to decide the order of people on the list.

True, but it doesn't support surplus or elimination based transfers.

If you vote for a very popular candidate or vote for a very unpopular candidate, then you vote is wasted (other than for determining the number of seats that the party gets).

Also, candidate list wouldn't need to be party based. An independent would rank himself first, but his lower rankings wouldn't necessary go party by party.

[bormotello]

Unfortunately, current system designed to give advantage to aggressive minorities and ignore passive majority.
I think the best that would be something like this:
Half of TD’s will be elected in constituencies and half from national list of parties.

On local level everything is easy. Candidate, which got majority in constituency will go to Dail
On national level all registered parties must pass certain threshold (lets say 7%) and then half of seats must be proportionally divided between parties.