tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615716556540686703.post6426137098076230260..comments2023-09-01T00:35:22.182-04:00Comments on Wilf Day's Blog: Open-list mixed member proportional models: The Bavarian exampleWilf Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05546880754492040363noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615716556540686703.post-27251194530513180802016-01-09T15:27:51.311-05:002016-01-09T15:27:51.311-05:00Thank you very much for this.Thank you very much for this.Boyd M L Reimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10720235301095251673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615716556540686703.post-50899207066984271302016-01-08T20:53:51.810-05:002016-01-08T20:53:51.810-05:00Very informative. I'm surprised Wilf that in y...Very informative. I'm surprised Wilf that in your reference to the LCC report you didn't mention Belgium which is referred to in an end note rather than the main text itself. It seems to me if we (more likely the parties) want flexible lists rather than open lists like Bavaria has the Belgian (as well as other) model of a non-preferential single transferable vote mechanism based on a quota formula (in Belgium candidate & party votes divided by one more than the number of seats allocated to the party). That would definitely be more flexible than Sweden's system. The LCC report incidentally had the interesting notion of an open list that unlike in Bavaria candidate votes and party votes would be strictly separated with the former used strictly to rank candidates and the latter used strictly to allocate seats to the party. Interesting that the world's most widely used PR formula would be declared unconstitutional. But they would have been better off to follow New Zealand's lead and adopted pure Ste Lague. You know why...Gregg Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01950070146354332675noreply@blogger.com