In my recent post Redesigning the New Jersey Legislature, I suggested that one of that body’s houses, the senate, be selected via the party list method of proportional representation rather than by districts each selecting one senator.((The other house, the general assembly, is elected from the same legislative districts, but each district elects two assemblymembers.))
Under the party list system the list sponsor issues a ranked list of its candidates and, based on its share of the vote, the first so many candidates on the list are elected.
There are lots of potential variables.
In the first place, I would not limit potential list sponsors to major political parties, but I would set a reasonable signature threshold for any group to circulate petitions to put forward a list.((Some sub-questions: Should all list sponsors have to list as many candidates as there are seats to be awarded? If not, what if the list overperforms and is awarded more seats than it has candidates? Could a single candidate propose a list with only that candidate’s name?))
Then there is the question of who does the ranking. So far I have assumed that the same group the selects the candidates who compose the list would also rank the candidates (this is called a “closed list”), but there are systems that allow the voters to rank the candidates within a list (an “open list”).((To the voter who is more concerned about the individuals being elected than the candidate’s party, an open list could be a problem : I may want A elected and vote for the party slate if A is sufficiently highly ranked that I think A’s election is likely, but I may not want to support the party if other voters may elevate other candidates over A.))
Should a candidate be able to appear on multiple lists? This could be argued either way, but I would be concerned that this would unduly increase the actual number of lists.
Should a candidate be able to be placed on a list without the candidate’s consent? I think not as the most likely reason to do so (using that candidate’s popularity to support the list as a whole) probably conflicts with the candidate’s free speech rights).
The list system also suggests a possibility for filling vacancies: the candidates on the list not deemed elected would fill vacancies that occur among the candidates who were elected, at least for some period after the election if not the full term.
It is rare, but not too rare, that a member elected as the nominee of a political party under the current system may switch parties. If a list member does so, should that senator be replaced by the next loyal member on the list? I think not, because we do still want senators to be able to vote their conscience and not be bound to toe the party line.
Things to think about.
Jay Bohn
May 20, 2021