I am not sure if that case is stronger with closed or open lists. But the incentive of dual-nominated list members to represent districts, even if elected off the list, is a real strength of MMP that does not get played up enough.

On the specific question of open lists in MMP, one of the most commented threads at Fruits & Votes (”MMP and dual candidacy,” permalinked on my left sidebar) was about just such an idea. The idea I presented there might not be good for the argument I suggest working on above. But it, too, was meant to be a starting point–for addressing a somewhat different problem.

The “too complicated” argument was used, of course, but less prominently than the two main arguments always used against PR. (1) Under FPTP, you have a “relationship” [sic] with “your own” [sic] member of the legislature. That person is “your” personal representative. (2) FPTP keeps “fringe” parties at bay. You know the drill.

I think people in the English speaking countries find this personal representative stuff genuinely appealing, in a way that arguments about percentages of votes and seats don’t really touch, precisely because they revolve around numbers. We need another way to state the case for PR and against the personal vote.

Of course, leadership nominates the riding candidates anyway.

I hypothesize that the (closed) list objection was a red herring that descended from on high. People approach referenda with antipolitics in mind, ready and willing to vote no. Stoking fears about evil list elites will resonate. Nobody’s really discussed why the Citizens’ Assembly opted for closed lists (i.e. ethnic, gender and geographic diversity), and it’s a shame.

To highlight the positive, at least opposition has coalesced around this point rather than the usual, simplistic argument that PR is “too complicated” for voters.

I think I can see the way closed list MMP is a bit more egregious than SMP/FPTP to people upset with party hacks getting nominations. If the Liberals or Conservatives put someone high on their list, they’re virtually assured of being elected; that’s not the case if the candidate is a sure vote loser in a constituency seat.