You misunderstand how it works, Bob.
I showed you an example of a nation in which they use these lists in which the top person is given the advantage unless another candidate steals the thunder, which does happen.
First off, all voters know about the setup, so there is no surprise. Yet voters also drop candidates like hot potatoes when the candidates do not deliver. The winners better pay attention because they will be gone next time if they don't.
--
So, let's use your example, in which there are 10 seats and ten parties with ten candidates, therefore 100 candidates, and show you the local Thomas Jefferson voting system which does not use these ‘top position’ lists.
You as the voter have orange as your favorite color, and you pick a candidate from the Orange list, one of ten candidates.
If you feel strong about an individual, you can pick one of these ten, and hope that others feel the same. You may not feel strong about any one Orange candidate in particular, but you do feel strong about Orange. Any pick you made will then go toward your political color.
If Orange gets enough votes for just one seat, then the most popular Orange candidate by all these voters gets the seat. So, the outcome is always optimized based on the voter's wishes. This is then different from the paper ballot I showed in the prior example in which the vote flow upwards to number 1 on the list.
--
Now, if there are 100 candidates and you can pick as many as you like, you will end up undermining your favorite color, which was Orange. You end up picking a variety of folks, not just all ten Orange candidates because they are not organized according to their political colors. So, you will always end up watering things down.
As a result, the voters are shooting themselves in the foot because their message is then not direct and precise but contains a lot of rope to hang themselves.
As such, we see the same aspects of the at-large voting system because that system warps voters toward the center and waters down the power of the voters. A secret ‘diktat’ is included in the setup.
It is a trick to think that with voting more you have greater empowerment, Bob. By voting more, each of your votes become less important.
Mix orange, blue, and green, and you end up with an outcome that is more grayish.
The same advice is therefore given as with at-large to optimize one's political expression: pick one, never more than one. Don't undermine your most important vote with less important votes.
Do you see it? With approval voting your focus is first on the individual given free range who to pick and how many, then the focus shifts to the overall outcome of all the votes, and you fail to see the in-between reality of shooting yourself in the foot.
That reminds me of the quiz game with three windows and one having the prize. Pick one window, and then the host removes one of the other two windows, and most people stick with their choice. They shoot themselves in the foot because they do not see the two-step.
Only one-man-one-vote is honest, there is no two-step, and it is best only when used in proportional voting.
Any other system is inferior from the perspective of voter empowerment. All other systems undermine the control the voters have over their representatives.
