Party-List Proportional Representation: Why Small Numbers of Seats is Beautiful!

Over at A New Kind of Third Party, I point out how the Electoral Reform Society of the United Kingdom's arguments against closed(or party)-list proportional representation do not hold true when only a few seats are contested.

3-seated Largest Remainder Hare keeps things simple with "One Man [sic], One Vote". And when there's only one candidate per party*, the impersonal nature of ordered party-lists and excessive power for party leaders are removed.

dlw
*One candidate along with a tacit or specified vice-candidate. With a 3-seated LR Hare election rule, the most common outcome would be for the top three vote-getting candidates to win a seat each. Yet a vice-candidate would get the second seat if their candidate gets first place and beats the third place candidate by more than one-third of the total vote. So if the vote-percents were 40-30-20-10 then the top three would win one seat each. If the vote-percents were 45-35-11-9 then the top candidate would win two seats for her/his party and second place would win the third seat.
dlw