For new parties with limited funds, it spells chaos

Mr. Harðarson has been on one election observation in Montenegro in 2006 and was impressed by it. He is very happy that you are here to have a closer look at icelandic democracy.
He wants to make a few comments about the draft legislation currently before parliament on personalized voting, i.e. that parties can choose whether they offer this option to their voters or not.

• One point he makes is that not all of those who agree to stand on a list, are ready or interested in heading it. Someone who intends participation as a support to a cause only  may end up in the awkward situation of becoming elected members of parliament.
• Second point he makes is that parties should/could signal to their voters whether they want previously arranged lists or personalized voting. He says that those parties or movements who choose previously arranged lists, will be vilified and critizised as undemocratic for not allowing or encouraging personalized voting.
• Third point he makes is that in reality only established parties with well-oiled party machines can make use of personalized voting, for new parties with limited funds, it spells chaos.
• An additional point Mr. Hardarson mentiones finally is the idea currently discussed of a constitutional assembly, which he describes as an idea by the established political parties to move the debate and decision-making about the constittution away from the public.