In article ,
rosenstiel@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

> In article ,
> usenet@bondegezou.demon.co.uk () wrote:
> 
> > rosenst...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
> > > use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > > There is no need for the compulsory use of all preferences, and
it
> > > > acts to dissuade people from casting preferences other than as
> > > > recommended by the parties. The effect is to turn the voting
> > > > method into something more akin to a list system with a 
> > > > pre-specificed party linkage (as has been used in France). I 
> > > > can't, however, remember the technical name for a list systme 
> > > > with a pre-specified party linkage...?
> > >
> > > Panachage?
> > 
> > That may have been what I was thinking of... although on checking
that
> > apparently means something else (voters being able to mix candidates
> > from different party lists).
> 
> Then it's something else. Must look it up in Lakeman when I have 
> time. I have a feeling it's apparentement but I'm far from sure.

It may be 40 years since I read this stuff but Lakeman confirms that I
remembered correctly that it was indeed /apparentement/ you were probably
thinking of. It allows parties to declare that they are in alliance and
that unused votes of all such parties are pooled so that votes of any
party too small to elect a representative of its own may contribute to
the election of a representative from an allied party.

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/