Proportional system. Country divided into large multi-member regions, parties submit a ranked list of candidates per region, voters vote for a party (not a candidate). Seats allocated to parties by vote share (e.g. D’Hondt method), filled from the top of each party’s list downward.
Used for European Parliament elections in Great Britain 1999-2020 (Northern Ireland used STV instead). No longer in use in the UK since Brexit.
Disadvanages of Regional (closed) List
No candidate choice
- Voters choose a party, not a person — list order is decided by the party, not voters
- Weakens accountability of individual representatives compared to FPTP or even STV
Very weak constituency link
- Regions cover millions of voters (e.g. South East England had over 70 constituencies’ worth of population)
- Effectively no personal representative — contrasts sharply with FPTP’s single named MP
Party control over candidates
- Safe/high list positions are gifts from party leadership
- Encourages loyalty to party hierarchy over constituents, can entrench incumbents and marginalise dissenting candidates
Can fragment representation
-
High proportionality (like STV) but without any transfer mechanism, so small extremist parties can win seats on a low regional vote share
- e.g. BNP won 2 seats in the 2009 European Parliament elections
Advantages of Regional (closed) List
High proportionality
- Seats closely match parties’ regional vote shares, minimal wasted votes
- Stronger proportionality than lower-magnitude STV regions (e.g. NI’s 5-seat constituencies)
Simple ballot for voters
- Voters just mark one party — simpler than ranking candidates under AV/STV
- Easy to count: no transfers, just vote totals and a seat-allocation formula
Encourages smaller/minor parties
-
Low threshold to win at least one seat in a large region, compared to concentrated-support requirements under FPTP
- e.g. UKIP and Greens historically outperformed their Westminster seat share in European elections
Reflects a genuinely national contest
- European Parliament elections functioned as a proportional referendum on parties nationally/regionally, rather than hundreds of local contests — arguably appropriate for a supranational body