Why shouldn’t the electorate put the lists of candidates in order of preference themselves?
Because the very act of making a mark on a ballot paper confers a direct mandate to the candidate. For example, the Scottish Parliament uses a form of PR called the Additional Member system. Electors cast two votes, one for a candidate and one for a party. Candidates are elected on a first past the post basis and party seats are allocated proportionally from a list. Because voters actually marked the ballot paper in order to elect both types of member, the end result is that both successful individual and party list candidates sit together in the parliament chamber and have equal legitimacy. So if, in order to elect members of a reformed second chamber, voters were required to put candidates in order of preference, in doing so they would be giving them a direct mandate and the same legitimacy as MPs. The primacy of the Commons would be compromised.
Related Questions
- Where can I find financial statements and lists of contributors (i.e. donations) filed by registered political parties, candidates, constituency associations, and leadership contestants?
- Why shouldn’t the electorate put the lists of candidates in order of preference themselves?
- How long do lists of qualified candidates last?
