$p_m$ significantly decreased with increasing $m$ (increase in the effective aspect ratio of the rods) for $s<1$ (see, e.g., Fig. \[II\_delta\_vs\_p\](c) for $s=0.8$). For the given $m$ (see, e.g., $m=2048$ in Fig. \[II\_delta\_vs\_p\](a)) the value of $p_m$ decreased with decrease of the order parameter, while significant electrical anisotropy was observed for $s<1$. For example, for $s=0.5$ the anisotropy value was $\delta \approx 0.18$ at $p_m \approx 0.1$. Note that we can expect even more complexity in the presence of rod-rod junction resistances [@Ackermann2016]. So, the alignment of the rods can significantly affect the electrical anisotropy and optical transmission in their dependence on the values of $s$ and $m$. This corresponds to the possibility of preparing an of optically transparent system with small values of $p_m$ and a high electrical anisotropy using rods with a high aspect ratio.

![Electrical anisotropy ratio, $\delta$, versus the filling fraction, $p$, (a) for $m=2048$ and different values of order parameter $s$, (b) for fixed value of order parameter, $s=0.8$ and different values of $m$, (c) for fixed value of order parameter, $s=1$, and different values of $m$.\[II\_delta\_vs\_p\]](deltam2048 "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"}\
![Electrical anisotropy ratio, $\delta$, versus the filling fraction, $p$, (a) for $m=2048$ and different values of order 