Proportional representation also means that parliamentary candidates are nominated by state or regional party conferences rather than by local party associations. This leads to a situation in which the executive committee is able to lever greater influence if necessary. Under proportional representation, the voter does not cast his/her vote for a single constituency candidate, but rather for an individual party list on which the candidates are listed in a particular sequence. Voters, then, do not have an individual member of parliament for their constituency. Some of this system's disadvantages is that you are choosing a party, not an individual, so you cannot be sure you will approve of your representative's exact views. People who do not like the Party System would not like Proportional Representation because it strengthens political parties, and some would also argue that it does not acurately show the majority view. Proportional Representation is also a more complicated method of voting. It generally demands more knowledge of party beliefs/manifestos etc and greater activity of the voters (for example, to rank candidates in order of preference such as in the ), and hence may discourage participation. The procedure may simply prove to be too complex for many voters.
In a list system electors choose from a list of candidates in large multi-member constituencies. Seats are allocated according to the proportion of votes won by each political party. In open list systems, voters select from a list of individual candidates representing political parties and independent candidates without a party affiliation. In closed list systems, electors can only vote for a party slate or for an advantage or for an independent candidate.
As a result of proportional representation list systems do suffer from these disadvantages. A candidate's position on the party list, and therefore likelihood of success, is dependent on currying favor with party bosses, whose relationship with the electorate is of secondary importance. With a closed-list system it is from being responsible and accountable to one's local electors, to the local community, for the way in which one represents them and looks after their interests both at local and national level. Democratic decision-taking is reversed by a system of closed-list proportional representation as decision-taking by representatives is replaced with obedience to dictates from the top.
Another negative aspect of closed lists is that voters have no say in determining who the representative of their party will be. Closed lists are also extremely unresponsive to changes in events. In East Germany’s pre-unification elections of 1990, the top –ranked candidate of on party was exposed as a secret-police informer only four days before the election, and immediately expelled from the party; but because lists were closed, electors had no choice but to vote for him if they wanted to support his former party.
Parties can stifle independent and minority opinion within their ranks. This means that it then breaks the link between the member and their constituency.
In the regional or national list systems, party leaders may draw up lists of only like-minded candidates which may disadvantage minority groups within a party. Although there is a larger than average number of women in the Scottish Parliament, there are few representatives from other groups such as ethnic minorities or the disabled. This is not desirable for an effective democracy.
However there are some advantages of the list systems. The strength of such of the system guarantees a high degree of proportionality. If a party receives 32% of the vote, they will get 32% of the seats in parliament. Every vote has the same value. Also the system is very simple for voters, who have only to make one choice for a party out of a small section.
Proportional representation voting systems facilitate the election of legislatures that accurately reflect the diversity of opinion of the electorate and tend to produce policy that adheres more closely to the "will of the majority" because more people have representation. Nevertheless at the same time, governance can be more complicated and geographic representation less certain than with winner-take-all elections.
