Auggie wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 9:28am:

freediver wrote on Apr 9th, 2017 at 7:55am: They will most likely still win it, if their other candidate gets the preferences. Not sure what exactly you are proposing. Most people have enough difficulty figuring out how to preference parties. They are not going to take enough interest to order candidates within parties, though both options are currently open to them. The parties could always use internally democratic mechanisms to determine candidate order. The system is called 'open-list proportional representation'. Electors won't have to order candidates. They simply mark which person in the respective political party they want to vote for; they mark ONE person. They can just mark the top name, but the votes go to the whole party, but the elector can choose a person at the bottom of the list if they choose; and if that person gets 20% more of the vote then he/she is the first candidate on the list, etc. Whilst the parties will still determine the order, this at least gives electors a choice to determine a specific candidate within the party list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_list

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.

Australia already has this. We are listed in the article.

Your proposal appears to be an attempt to limit people's options for specifying how preferences are distributed. Not sure how you propose candidates get moved to the top of the party list, or how voters indicate preferences between parties. It is an elaborate but ineffective way of getting the voters to determine party lists, but avoiding an election outcome.