Categorizing election systems -- STV, list PR,
- Tom Monto
- Apr 15
- 4 min read
John M Carey, "Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: a Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas"
categorization of varieties of PR
13 (or 14?) varieties of families of PR systems.
based on four variables:
BALLOT measures the degree of control party leaders exercise over access to their party's label, and control over ballot rank in electoral list systems,
POOL measures whether votes cast in the general election are pooled across entire parties, or among factions or candidates, or are not pooled at all. In the latter case candidates are elected to office solely on the votes they earn individually.
VOTES measures the number and types of votes cast; a single partisan vote, multiple votes, or a single vote below the party level. We rank thirteen feasible combinations of these variables ordinally, according to the relative incentives each creates for candidates to cultivate personal, as opposed to party, reputations.
The fourth variable, District Magnitude (M), has as many intervals as there are seats in a given legislature.
=================
"The thirteen configurations [of the first three variables] ... describe all feasible electoral systems according to the interval established for each variable.
The same configuration often describes more than one electoral system, for two reasons.
First, a given electoral formula used in a single-member district may have a different conventional name than the same formula when used in a multimember district. Where a cell for example is left blank, it is because we know of no empirical referent. Second, although the ordinal scoring system is inclusive, each position in the order necessarily groups together systems that vary somewhat.
For example, both a multiple-list system and an open list system may allow a single vote below the party level (for factional lists in one case, candidates in the other) and both involve pooling at the party level. The systems are not identical, but appear to be in this model. The lack of a separate rank for each system is not a weakness, however. By grouping systems according to the critical variables, the model highlights similarities among electoral systems that can be overlooked in a less systematic analysis."
=====
13 types of PR election systems:
(a) Closed-list Formula with One Round.
(b) Closed-list Formula with Two Rounds.
(c) Open-list Formula with Multiple Votes.
(d) Single Transferable Vote with Party Endorsements.
(e) Open-list, Single Vote. We now have our first systems in which voters cast a single vote below the party level, either for an individual candidate or a factional list.
(f) Plurality Formula with Party Endorsement and Candidate Voting. At this position (1,2,1) we have our first formula with an absence of any vote pooling....
(g) Open-list Formula with Open Endorsement and Multiple Votes. Now we have our first formula in which party leaders do not have the ability to select candidates (2,0,1).
(h) Single-transferable Votes, Open Endorsements. At the next rank we remove the pooling of votes at the level of the party. Instead, votes are pooled at the level of candidates who receive preference votes (2,1,1). STV with no leadership control over the use of a party name would fit this description.
(i) Open list Formula with Open Endorsement and Single Vote. Now remove the ability of candidates to run as blocs, requiring each to compete for the indivisible vote of each voter. Here we find an open list system in which party leaders do not control endorsements, and in which voters cast a single vote below the party level (2,0,2). In Finland, ...
(j) Plurality, Formula with One Endorsement and Candidate Voting. With vote pooling removed, we have systems like those under (f), above, but with one important difference: parties cannot determine which candidates use their labels. Thus there is no leadership control over endorsements, no pooling, and multiple votes (2,2,1). The system of primaries used in U.S. congressional elections in nearly all states is of this type.
(k) Single Nontransferable Vote (SNTV), Party Endorsement. At this rank (1,2,2) we have our first system in which there is neither vote pooling nor the possibility of more than one candidate sharing support from the same voter. Thus it really is a case of every candidate for herself. This formula was used in Japan through 1993 and is also used in Taiwan. ...
(l) Personal-list Formula. Now we remove the ability of parties to determine who their candidates are, but allow for some pooling at the sub-party level. In such a system (2,1,2), the only pooling takes place within the individual lists that compete within a party. Because each list is headed by a candidate who need not have received party endorsement to use the party label, this system, used in Colombia
(m) Single Nontransferable Vote (SNTV), Open Endorsement. Finally, SNTV, minus any leadership control over access to party lists (2,2,2), represents the zenith in the value of personal reputation relative to party reputation. Here, any politician can run under any party label (or at least cannot be prevented from doing so by party leaders), and must compete with all other politicians for each voter's single vote.
====
Different DM provides variation on each of these.
online see
Comments