This basically means “individual candiates are incentivized to get campaign donations from lobbyists”. I don’t think it’s a valuable feature of a democratic system.
I’ll note that in Denmark, parties can choose between closed lists (i.e. the party decides who fills the seats) or open lists (as I described above), but all parties use open lists. I always assumed that this was the case because denizens see value in having open lists; in particular I don’t see any incentives that would encourage parties to use open lists if they don’t provide a better result for the denizens.
Do you have an explanation for why open lists are used if you don’t think it’s a valuable feature of the system?
I’ll note that in Denmark, parties can choose between closed lists (i.e. the party decides who fills the seats) or open lists (as I described above), but all parties use open lists. I always assumed that this was the case because denizens see value in having open lists; in particular I don’t see any incentives that would encourage parties to use open lists if they don’t provide a better result for the denizens.
Do you have an explanation for why open lists are used if you don’t think it’s a valuable feature of the system?