Knowledge Base Wiki

A joint Politics and Economics series
Social choice and electoral systems
Social choice Mechanism design Comparative politics Comparison List (By country)
Single-winner methods Single vote - plurality methods First preference plurality (FPP) Two-round (US: Jungle primary) Partisan primary Instant-runoff UK: Alternative vote (AV) US: Ranked-choice (RCV) Condorcet methods Condorcet-IRV Round-robin voting Minimax Schulze Ranked pairs Maximal lottery Positional voting Plurality (el. IRV) Borda count (el. Baldwin) Antiplurality (el. Coombs) Cardinal voting Score voting Approval voting Majority judgment STAR voting
Proportional representation Party-list Apportionment Highest averages Largest remainders National remnant Biproportional List type Closed list Open list Panachage List-free PR Localized list Quota-remainder methods Hare STV Schulze STV CPO-STV Quota Borda Approval-based committees Thiele's method Phragmen's method Expanding approvals rule Method of equal shares Fractional social choice Direct representation Interactive representation Liquid democracy Fractional approval voting Maximal lottery Random ballot Semi-proportional representation Cumulative SNTV Limited voting
Mixed systems By results of combination Mixed-member majoritarian Mixed-member proportional By mechanism of combination Non-compensatory Parallel (superposition) Coexistence Conditional Fusion (majority bonus) Compensatory Seat linkage system UK: 'AMS' NZ: 'MMP' Vote linkage system Negative vote transfer Mixed ballot Supermixed systems Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional Majority jackpot By ballot type Single vote Double simultaneous vote Dual-vote
Paradoxes and pathologies Spoiler effects Spoiler effect Cloning paradox Frustrated majorities paradox Center squeeze Pathological response Perverse response Best-is-worst paradox No-show paradox Multiple districts paradox Strategic voting Lesser evil voting Exaggeration Truncation Turkey-raising Paradoxes of majority rule Tyranny of the majority Discursive dilemma Conflicting majorities paradox
Social and collective choice Impossibility theorems Arrow's theorem Majority impossibility Moulin's impossibility theorem McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem Gibbard's theorem Positive results Median voter theorem Condorcet's jury theorem May's theorem Condorcet dominance theorems Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem
Politics portal Economics portal Mathematics portal

Open list describes any variant of party-list proportional representation where voters have at least some influence on the order in which a party's candidates are elected. This is as opposed to closed list, in which party lists are in a predetermined, fixed order by the time of the election and gives the general voter no influence at all on the position of the candidates placed on the party list.

An open list system allows voters to select individuals rather than, or in addition to parties. Different systems give the voter different amounts of influence to change the default ranking. The voter's candidate choices are usually called preference vote; the voters are usually allowed one or more preference votes for the open list candidates.

Open lists differ from mixed-member proportional representation, also known as "personalized proportional representation" in Germany. Some mixed systems, however, may use open lists in their list-PR component.

A "relatively closed" open list system is one where a candidate must reach a full electoral quota of votes on their own to be assured of winning a seat. The total number of seats won by the party minus the number of its candidates that achieved this quota gives the number of unfilled seats. These are then successively allocated to the party's not-yet-elected candidates who were ranked highest on the party list.

Iceland: In both parliamentary and municipal elections, voters may alter the order of the party list or strike candidates from the list completely. How many votes need to be altered in this way to have an effect on the results varies by the number of seats won by the party in the constituency or municipality in question and the candidate's place on the list.^[1] In the parliamentary elections of 2007 and 2009, voters altered the party lists enough to change the ranking of candidates within party lists. However, this did not affect which candidates ultimately got elected to parliament.^[2]

Norway: In parliamentary elections, 50% of the voters need to vote for a candidate in order to change the order of the party list, meaning that, in practice, it is almost impossible for voters to change the result and it is de facto a closed list system. In county elections there is a threshold of 8%.^[3]

In a "more open" list system, the quota for election could be lowered from the above amount. It is then (theoretically) possible that more of a party's candidates achieve this quota than the total seats won by the party. It should therefore be made clear in advance whether list ranking or absolute votes take precedence in that case. The quota for individuals is usually specified either as a percentage of the party list quota, or as a percentage of the total votes received by the party.

Example: The quota is 1000 votes and the open list threshold is specified as 25% of the quota, i.e. 250 votes. Therefore, a party which received 5000 votes wins five seats, which are awarded to its list candidates as follows:

Candidate position on the list	Preference votes	25% of the quota	Elected
#1	3500	x (first)	x
#2	50		x
#3	150		x
#4	250	x (third)	x
#5	100
#6	100
#7	450	x (second)	x
#8	50

Candidates #1, #7 and #4 have each achieved 25% of the quota (250 preference votes or more). They get the first three of the five seats the party has won. The other two seats will be taken by #2 and #3, the two highest remaining positions on the party list. This means that #5 is not elected even though being the fifth on the list and having more preference votes than #2.

In practice, with such a strict threshold, only very few candidates succeed to precede on their lists as the required number of votes is huge. Where the threshold is lower (e.g. in Czech parliamentary elections, 5% of the total party vote is the required minimum), results defying the original list order are much more common.

Parties usually allow candidates to ask for preference votes, but without campaigning negatively against other candidates on the list.

The members of the National Council are elected by open list proportional representation in nine multi-member constituencies based on the states (with varying in size from 7 to 36 seats) and 39 districts. Voters are able to cast a single party vote and one preference votes each on the federal, state and electoral district level for their preferred candidates within that party. The thresholds for a candidate to move up the list are 7% of the candidate's party result on the federal level, 10% on the state level and 14% on the electoral district level.^[4] Candidates for the district level are listed on the ballot while voters need to write-in their preferred candidate on state and federal level.

In Croatia, the voter can give their vote to a single candidate on the list, but only candidates who have received at least 10% of the party's votes take precedence over the other candidates on the list.^[5]

In Czech parliamentary elections, voters are given 4 preference votes. Only candidates who have received more than 5% of preferential votes at the regional level take precedence over the list.^[6] For elections to the European Parliament, the procedure is identical but each voter is only allowed 2 preference votes.

In Indonesia, any candidate who has obtained at least 30% of the quota is automatically elected.^{[7][needs update]}

In the Netherlands, the voter can give their vote to any candidate in a list (for example, in elections for the House of the Representatives); the vote for this candidate is called a "preference vote" (voorkeurstem in Dutch). Candidates with at least 25% of the quota takes priority over the party's other candidates who stand higher on the party list but received fewer preference votes. Most people vote for the top candidate, to indicate no special preference for any individual candidate, but support for the party in general. Sometimes, however, people want to express their support for a particular person. Many women, for example, vote for the first woman on the list. If a candidate gathers enough preference votes, then they get a seat in parliament, even if their position on the list would leave them without a seat. In the 2003 elections Hilbrand Nawijn, the former minister of migration and integration, was elected into parliament for the Pim Fortuyn List by preference votes even though he was the last candidate on the list.

In Slovakia, each voter may, in addition to the party, select one to four candidates from the ordered party list. Candidates who are selected by more than 3% of the party's voters are elected (in order of total number of votes) first and only then is the party ordering used. For European elections, voters select two candidates and the candidates must have more than 10% of the total votes to override the party list. In the European election in 2009 three of Slovakia's thirteen MEPs were elected solely by virtue of preference votes (having party-list positions too low to have won otherwise) and only one (Katarína Neveďalová of SMER) was elected solely by virtue of her position on the party list (having fewer preference votes than a number of other candidates who themselves, nevertheless had preferences from fewer than 10 percent of their party's voters).

In Sweden, a person needs to receive 5% of the party's votes for the personal vote to overrule the ordering on the party list.^[8] Voting without expressing a preference between individuals is possible, although the parties urge their voters to support the party's prime candidate, to protect them from being beaten by someone ranked lower by the party. The share of voters using the open list option at 2022 Swedish general election was 22.49%.^[9]

The most-open list, fully-open list, or simply open list system is one where the number of votes for each candidate fully determines the order of election. This system is used in all Finnish, Latvian, and Brazilian multiple-seat elections. Since 2001, lists of this "most open" type have also been used in the elections to fill the 96 proportional seats in the 242-member upper house of Japan.^{[citation needed]}

A "free list", more usually called panachage or mixed list, is a variant on the most open list where voters may support candidates on different lists. Candidates are typically elected using either cumulative or block plurality voting. This gives the voters full control over which candidates are elected, not just within a particular party, but even across them. As a result, independents are not forced to support candidates of only one party, and can support candidates across multiple lists, while still ensuring the results are ultimately proportional.^[11]

It is used in elections at all levels in Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, in congressional elections in Ecuador, El Salvador, and Honduras, as well as in local elections in a majority of German states, in French communes with under 1,000 inhabitants, and in Czech municipal elections.^{[citation needed]}

Some ways to operate an open list system when using traditional paper-based voting are as follows:

• One method (used in Belgium and the Netherlands) is to have a large ballot paper with a box for each party and sub-boxes for the various candidates. In Belgium, when electronic voting is used (in Flanders and Ostbelgien), the voter has to choose with an electronic pencil on a touchscreen between lists and blank vote, then on the list's page between the top box (vote for the list without preference for specific candidates) or the box(es) for one or several candidates on the same list.^[12]
• Another method (used in Norway, Slovakia and Spain) is to have a separate ballot paper for each party. To maintain voter secrecy, the voter is handed ballot papers for every party. The voter chooses the candidates (or may vote for the party as a whole) on one of the ballot papers, for example, by drawing circles around the candidate numbers (which is why casting preference votes is called circling in the Czech Republic and Slovakia). Then, the voter puts the party ballot paper into an envelope and puts the envelope into the ballot box.
• In Brazil, each candidate is assigned a number (in which the first 2 digits are the party number and the others the candidate's number within the party). The voting machine has a telephone-like panel where the voter presses the buttons for the number of their chosen candidate. In Finland, each candidate is assigned a 3-digit number.
• In Italy, the voter must write the name of each chosen candidate in blank boxes under the party box.

Some of these states may use other systems in addition to an open list, for example first-past-the-post in individual constituencies. Some countries use open list may only be used in one of the chambers of the legislature.

•  Kosovo
•  Northern Cyprus

Types of open list systems used in the lower house of the national legislature.^[36]

Country	Legislative body	System		Variation of open lists	Number of votes (for candidates)	Apportionment method	Electoral threshold	Governmental system	Notes
Albania	Parliament (Kuvendi)		Open list party proportional representation			D'Hondt method	4% nationally or 2.5% in a district	Parliamentary republic
Armenia	National Assembly		Open list party proportional representation			D'Hondt method	5% (parties), 7% (blocs)	Parliamentary republic	Party lists run-off, but only if necessary to ensure stable majority of 54% if it is not achieved either immediately (one party) or through building a coalition.[37][38] If a party would win more than 2/3 seats, at least 1/3 seats are distributed to the other parties.
				—
Aruba	Parliament		Open list party proportional representation		0-1	D'Hondt method
Austria	National Council		Open list party proportional representation	More open: 14% on the district level (among votes for the candidates party)	1 in each geographic level of candidate list	Hare quota	4%	Parliamentary republic
				More open: 10% on the regional (state) level (among votes for the candidates party)		Hare quota
				More open: 7% of the on the federal level (among votes for the candidates party)		D'Hondt method
Belgium	Chamber of Representatives		Open list party proportional representation		As many as there are mandates in the district	D'Hondt method	5% (per constitutiency)	Constitutional monarchy
Bosnia and Herzegovina	House of Representatives		Open list party proportional representation		0-1	Sainte-Laguë method		Parliamentary directorial republic
Brazil	Chamber of Deputies		Open list party proportional representation		0-1	D'Hondt method	2% distributed in at least 9 Federation Units with at least 1% of the valid votes in each one of them	Presidential republic
Bulgaria	National Assembly		Open list party proportional representation		0-1	Hare quota	4%	Parliamentary republic
Chile	Chamber of Deputies		Open list party proportional representation		1
Croatia			Open list party proportional representation		0-1		5%
Cyprus			Open list party proportional representation		0-1 for every 4 seats in the district
Czech Republic			Open list party proportional representation		0-4		5%
Democratic Republic of the Congo			Parallel voting		0-1 to 0-5 depending on number of mandates in the district
Denmark	Folketing (Unicameral legislature)		Open list two tier proportional representation with compensating		0-1		2%
East Timor
Ecuador	National Congress		Open list two tiers proportional representation without compensating	—	As many as there are mandates in the district Panachage allowed	Sainte-Laguë method
El Salvador	Legislative Assembly		Open list party proportional representation		As many as there are mandates in the district Panachage allowed	D'Hondt method
Estonia			Open list party proportional representation		1		5%
Fiji			Open list party proportional representation		1	D'Hondt method	5%
Finland			Open list party proportional representation		1	D'Hondt method
Greece			Majority bonus		0-1 to 0-5 depending on number of mandates in the district	Largest remainder (Hare quota)	3%		Nationwide closed lists and open lists in multi-member districts. The winning party used to receive a majority bonus of 50 seats (out of 300), but this system will be abolished two elections after 2016.[39] In 2020 parliament voted to return to the majority bonus two elections thereafter.[40]
Honduras			Open list party proportional representation		As many as there are mandates in the district Panachage allowed	Largest remainder (Hare quota)
Iceland			Open list party proportional representation		May change order of candidates on list or cross out rejected candidates	D'Hondt method
Indonesia			Open list party proportional representation		0-1	Sainte-Laguë method	4%
Kosovo			Open list party proportional representation		0-5	Sainte-Laguë method
Latvia			Open list party proportional representation		May vote for as many candidates or reject as many candidates as there are on the list	Sainte-Laguë method	5%
Lebanon			Open list party proportional representation		0-1	D'Hondt method
Liechtenstein			Open list party proportional representation		As many as there are mandates in the district		8%
Lithuania			Parallel voting		0-5	Largest remainder (Hare quota)	5% (parties), 7% (coalitions)
Luxembourg	Chamber of Deputies		Open list party proportional representation	Panachage (number of votes equal to the number of members elected)	May vote for or delete as many candidates as there are mandates in the district Panachage allowed	D'Hondt method	No de jure threshold	Parliamentary system
Netherlands	House of Representatives		Open list party proportional representation	More open (25% of the quota to override the default party-list)	0-1	D'Hondt method	0.67% (1/150)	Parliamentary system
Norway	Parliament (Storting)		Open list Two tier proportional representation with compensating	De facto closed list (50% of votes to override)	May change order of candidates on list or cross out rejected candidates	Sainte-Laguë method	4%
Panama			Parallel voting		As many as there are mandates in the district	Largest remainder (Hare quota)
Peru			Open list party proportional representation		0-2	D'Hondt method	5%
Poland	Sejm		Open list party proportional representation		1	D'Hondt method	5% threshold or more for single parties, 8% or more for coalitions or 0% or more for minorities	Parliamentary republic
San Marino			Majority jackpot / Open list party proportional representation		1	D'Hondt method	3.5%		If needed to ensure a stable majority, the two best-placed parties participate in a run-off vote to receive a majority bonus.
Slovakia			Open list party proportional representation		0-4	Largest remainder (Hare quota)	5%
Slovenia			Open list party proportional representation			Largest remainder (Droop quota)	4%
					0-1	D'Hondt method	4%
Sri Lanka	Parliament		Open list Two tier proportional representation without compensating	Panachage (up to 3 preference votes)[41]	0-3	Hare quota with largest party receives bonus seat de facto D'Hondt method	5% (per constituency)	Semi-presidential system
				—		?	No threshold
Suriname	National Assembly		Open list party proportional representation	Most open	0-1	D'Hondt method	No threshold	Assembly-independent republic
Sweden	Riksdag		Open list Two tiers proportional representation with compensating	More open (5% of the party vote to override the default party-list)[42]	0-1	Sainte-Laguë method (leveling seats)	4% nationally or 12% in a given constituency	Parliamentary system
Switzerland	National Council (Lower house of national legislature)		Open list party proportional representation	Panachage	May vote for or delete as many candidates as there are mandates in the district Panachage allowed	Hagenbach-Bischoff system	No threshold	Semi-direct democracy under an assembly-independent[43][44] directorial republic

CEPPS

• British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform - A debate on the merits of open and closed lists by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in the Canadian province of British Columbia, 2004.
• "Preferential Voting: Definition and Classification" - Paper presented by Jurij Toplak at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association's 67th Annual National Conference, Chicago, IL, April 2009.