Forget about primaries, they want closed lists as well.

One the one hand, the importance of limiting a politician to serving in only one elected position at a time, should be obvious to even the least interested, but it would need to be coupled with term limits as well in order to stop politicians developing a career out of public service (self aggrandizement is a powerful lure).

What’s most troublesome in the ”electoral system shake up” is the suggestion that parties will have more control over the candidates people will be able to vote for. Already they exact an amazing amount of control over their parties. They pick who can run for election, exert a top down ”play by the rules or you’re out” mentality in parliamentary votes, and there is no primary system as in the American model by which the people can seek to exert control of (or at least challenge) the party.

This closed list system further removes the people from decision making processes. Not only are they be able to field candidates of their choosing, but the people’s vote only goes towards the party itself, they themselves choose who makes it into parliament. It’s a monopoly of the electoral system. Tyranny. I have a feeling that that is exactly the reason why it’s being proffered.

NOTE: Statism is a powerful elixir.

The closed list system allows parties to determine the order of their candidates in advance, asking voters to select a party slate to vote for without having any input into which candidates within the list might make it through.

Government looks to shake up electoral system Finland could be set to change the electoral system, moving from a candidate-based election to a closed list system where parties have more power to decide who gets elected. The debate was prompted by a new tier of regional government to be introduced—and elected—as part of a reform of health and social care.