Why would Sweden switch from one of the best systems (Sequential Proportional Approval Voting) to the worst system (Party List). The only gain for anybody would be partisanship, polarization and party discipline. This is great for parties but it seems weird that the voters would just go along with it. There must be some historical context here.
@fsargent Why am I able to edit the title of Keith’s post?
It’s probably the easiness of the vote-counting with Party List, if I remember what the rangevoting.org article based on this said. This is actually an example where perhaps there is a way to compare the performance of SPAV and PL. I’d guess the results with either method may have looked rather similar, or that voters didn’t fully understand the implications of the change i.e. they thought of it as more of a change in tabulation mechanism rather than the actual voting method. Also, considering 95% of Australians used to choose a Group Voting Ticket (essentially a Party List) rather than rank the candidates in STV, perhaps there just wasn’t enough candidate-based voting in Sweden to keep momentum for preventing a party-based method from going into effect.
You’re trust level 3 – you’ve been here a while. https://meta.discourse.org/t/editing-titles-in-discourse/40287 Happens automatically.
On Warren Smith’s RRV page, he says it was difficult for him to find an explanation and that it would likely be helpful to have someone who knows Swedish look into it. However, he conjectures that it was because SPAV was more challenging to count.
I know Swedish but I don’t have any access to the documents
Svante Janson explains why in appendix D of his 2016 (?) paper titled “Phragmén and Thiele’s Election Methods”
Can you give a summary? Or a link to the document?
It’s easy to find with a quick Google search, and shows various weirdness with the method, too (called “Thiele’s unordered method” in the paper)
Would you mind summarizing here?