Localized list
| A joint Politics and Economics series |
| Social choice and electoral systems |
|---|
 |
 Mathematics portal |
A Localized list or local list is a technique used under party-list proportional representation to determine which party candidates are elected from the party list. This technique stands in contrast to the use of open lists or closed lists. Local lists allow the electorate to to vote for individual candidates like with open lists (in contrast with closed lists), but that preference is expressed at the local or district level.
This type of list works at two levels. The parties race is developed at-large or, at least, in multi-member constituencies, and ordinary proportional mechanisms divide seats between different parties. The candidates races, instead, are developed in local constituencies where each party presents a single nomination, as happens in FPTP systems. Inside every party list, candidates with the highest percentages of votes are elected.
This system allows voters, under some degrees, to show their appreciation to candidates. However, differently from a FPTP race, in a single local constituency the candidate with the highest popular vote can be rejected, because his party-mates in other constituencies have a better percentage, while some of his trackers can be elected, because they are the best candidates of their list. More, many candidates can be elected in a single district, and no candidate in others.
Localized lists are used in Italy during the provincial elections and were used, from 1948 to 2001, during the senatorial elections.
Examples
| District 1 | District 2 | District 3 | District 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| John (Reds), 600 | James (Yellows), 350 | Hughes (Reds), 470 | Anne (Reds), 390 |
| Carew (Yellows), 200 | Paul (Greens), 250 | Joshua (Blues), 290 | Mary (Blues), 280 |
| Andrew (Blues), 150 | Charles (Reds), 210 | Duncan (Yellows), 180 | Trevor (Greens), 170 |
| Millie (Greens), 50 | Ronnie (Blues), 190 | Patty (Greens), 60 | Michael (Yellows), 160 |
| 1000 voters | 1000 voters | 1000 voters | 1000 voters |
Four seats must be filled. The largest remainder method with Hare quota is used.
Reds received 1670 votes, Blues received 910 votes, Yellows received 890 votes, Greens received 530 votes. Red won two seats, while Blues and Yellows one seat each.
John, James, Hughes and Joshua are elected. District 3 elects two candidates, while District 4 none. However, this fact is not seen as a problem, because all winners represent their own party-list at-large, and not their single district.
| District 1 | District 2 | District 3 | District 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| John (Reds), 600 | James (Yellows), 350 | Hughes (Reds), 470 | Anne (Reds), 370 |
| Carew (Yellows), 200 | Paul (Greens), 250 | Joshua (Blues), 290 | Mary (Blues), 300 |
| Andrew (Blues), 150 | Charles (Reds), 210 | Duncan (Yellows), 180 | Trevor (Greens), 170 |
| Millie (Greens), 50 | Ronnie (Blues), 190 | Patty (Greens), 60 | Michael (Yellows), 160 |
| 1000 voters | 1000 voters | 1000 voters | 1000 voters |
Four seats must be filled. The largest remainder method with Hare quota is used.
Reds received 1650 votes, Blues received 930 votes, Yellows received 890 votes, Greens received 530 votes. Red won two seats, while Blues and Yellows one seat each.
John, James, Hughes and Mary are elected. Anne lost her race, while her runner-up won. Again, this fact is not seen as a problem, because Mary represents the Blues at-large, and not simply District 4.