Talk:Open list

message: This article incorrectly shows Italy as using open-lists, and the citation for it does not mention open lists at all.  The use of open lists for Italian elections is currently a proposal being debated and not law.  Unless anyone objects I intend to remove Italy from the list of countries using open lists.
184.69.77.162 (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Italy uses indeed open lists for several elections, not for national legislative elections but for European and local ("administrative") elections. So refrain from removing anything. --Minorities observer (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy using Open Lists? 

message: I added a clarification regarding how we cast our ballot in Brazil. Here's some more detail, in case anyone wants it:
Every registered political party has a fixed two-digit number (9 as a first digit is reserved for testing purposes; 0 and 8 also have yet to be used). As candidates must be registered by political parties (there are no independents), this number is used even in FPTP elections. In proportional elections, voters may cast a party ballot, inserting only the two digits for the party, or vote for a candidate, pressing the two digits for the party and then two or three other digits for the candidate. Quotas are calculated based on each party's total votes, i.e. its "pure" party votes and the total votes for its candidates. 189.120.107.71 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil - candidate numbers 

message: Is it an "open list" if candidates are running on one party/ticket? –HTD 18:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a "list" in Plurality-at-large voting ? When you vote for a candidate and this candidate is not elected, do the votes for him benefit to the other candidates on the same party/ticket ? --Minorities observer (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a "list" in the sense that a party/coalition has a roster of candidates for the seats that would be disputed. The list per se is not ranked. As for votes for losing affecting other candidates, no. Is this the same as the "free list" as stated on the article? –HTD 14:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plurality-at-large voting]] 

message: This line should be gender-neutralized or removed: "Many women, for example, vote for the first woman on the list."  Mnoble10 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole paragraph should be marked as CITATION NEEDED, and that sentence itself should have the "says who?" tag. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  And Men Don't?

message: The "free list" (panachage) system as described here (and in the article of the ACE project) is quite difficult to understand. If someone with a good understanding of German could have a look at Kommunalwahlrecht (Hessen) on the Wikipedia in German and synthetise it here, it would be quite interesting. It is easy to understand their voting system from the viewpoint of the voter, but I totally failed to understand how votes are counted after the election, as one voter may give for instance 40 votes on a bulletin for several candidates on several lists, while on the same time "deleting" several candidates and giving some others up to three votes. --Minorities observer (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Free list" 

message: I've removed the section entitled "Arbitrary List", since it has no sources and I can't find any reference to this system outside of this article. Please feel free to correct me and add it back if I'm wrong. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Arbitrary List" 

message: The article seems to gloss over the distinctions between open-list and no-list (party-free) proportional representation. For example, do single transferable vote or proportional approval voting count as open list, or something else? Neither of these systems uses party lists at all, but both are proportional representation systems (where voters select candidates). Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better explanation of PR systems needed