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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3500 | x (first) | x | |
| 50 | x | ||
| 150 | x | ||
| 250 | x (third) | x | |
| 100 | |||
| 100 | |||
| 450 | x (second) | x | |
| 50 | |||
\vdots | ||||
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.
See main article: Elections in Indonesia. In Indonesia, any candidate who has obtained at least 30% of the quota is automatically elected.[7]
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). Candidate 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, the "most open" list is used, but 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 system is the one where the absolute number of votes every candidate receives fully determines the "order of election" (the list ranking only possibly serving as a "tiebreaker").
When such a system is used, one could make the case that within every party an additional virtual non-transferable vote election is taking place.
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.
See main article: Panachage. 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.[10]
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.
Some ways to operate an open list system when using traditional paper-based voting are as follows:
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.
Brazil[13]
Chile[13]
Colombia
Ecuador[14]
El Salvador[15] [16] [17]
Honduras[18]
Panama[19]
Peru[20]
Suriname[21]
Albania[26]
Armenia[27]
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina[28]
Bulgaria[29]
Croatia[30]
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany in:
Greece
Iceland
Italy for European, regional and municipal elections. (formerly used for national parliamentary elections)[31]
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania[32]
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
San Marino[33]
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland[13]
Ukraine[34]Types of open list systems used in the lower house of the national legislature.[35]
| 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.[36] [37] 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.[38] In 2020 parliament voted to return to the majority bonus two elections thereafter.[39] | |||||
| 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 | No de jure threshold, but an effective threshold of 0.67% (1/150) for a seat | 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)[40] | 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)[41] | 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[42] [43] directorial republic | |||
CEPPS
Fiji
Indonesia
Japan
Jordan
Lebanon
Sri Lanka