Talk:Mixed-member proportional representation

Voter Understanding

I cannot find the data in the source website provided, if someone could show me, I would be appreciative. Alex 204.101.241.2 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The section on Voter Understanding. I have a problem with this. Voters tend to not understand any new system, not just MMP. I am going to delete it unless given a decent explanation as to why it should be on the page. A page on the Electoral system of Scotland would be the right place to have (cf. Electoral system of New Zealand. --GeLuxe 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

MMP is difficult to understand for many voters - harder than FPTP or STV, and to this is not just about dumb Scots. And being new is not a convincing argument since understanding in Scotland is getting worse as time goes on. If you can find quotable evidence from other countries that it is better understood there, then include it in the section too. --Henrygb 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • It's hardly any harder to understand than the excruciating STV (and their 74 rounds of counting), much simpler, in fact. If I were to choose a PR system, then MMP would get my vote. Voting is simple, as is the allocation of proportional seats, and the link between the elector and their representatives is retained. (RM21 04:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

MMP is not a difficult system to understand. I would suggest that it is well understood in Germany where it has been in use since 1949. It is the newness' (is that a word?) of the system in Scotland, alongside it being one of two systems used in Scotland (the other being, of course, first-past-the-post to the UK Parliament). This page should focus on the electoral system itself, not on the ability to understand it. No other system page has the understanding at such detail. I think an idea might be to have an advantages and disadvantages section (both Plurality voting system and Parallel voting have them) and mention that there is a lack of understanding in some countries with it --GeLuxe 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You can suggest anything you like. But it would be helpful to have evidence. And the fact that many people do not understand the implication of having two votes is relevant to MMP (and to parallel voting)

I would like to see an advantages and disadvantages section also, but please don't delete this relevant concept before that section is in place. (Alex)204.101.241.2 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see the issue of voter understanding is mainly complicated by a) whether or not other voting systems are in use, especially at the same time, and b) whether or not parties make things clear.

In the case of a) there is a lot of annecdotal evidence in the Greater London Assembly that many voters assume the top-up list vote is a second preference and must be used for a different party. Confusing matters the Assembly constituencies are elected by first past the post, but the Mayor of London is direct elected on a two preference system. Similar evidence of voter confusion with multiple systems has been found in other jurisdictions such as Australia (voters casting a Senate style "above the line" vote on the House ballot paper) or UK local councils with directly elected Mayors (where voters are required to make up to three equal preferences for the council but ordered first & second preferences for Mayor).

In b), some parties are either as confused as the voters or deliberately taking advantage of things, particularly those that only stand for the list - some of whom talk about a "second vote".

It also doesn't help that the media often don't grasp how the systems work - the coverage of the recent Scottish elections contain numerous reports of details that anyone who knew anything about the system in question would recognise as just plain wrong. Timrollpickering 09:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Overhang

I do feel there needs to be a distinction between systems which recognise overhang as an issue and those which dont. If the total number of seats a party is entitled to is calculated from the list vote as a proportion of the total number of seats then overhang is an issue which may need to be dealt with when the number of constituncies won are considered; by contrast the constituencies are counted first and then taken into account in the denominators of a highest averages PR allocation of the list vote then overhang is not something the system needs to consider (even if it still happens). --Henrygb 12:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as an important distinction, since the results will be the same. FYI, the German system explicitly addresses the possibility of overhang seats. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Decoy Lists

Maybe I am being dim, but I cannot understand the Italian example. Can someone with a little knowledge on this please give thought to a re-write ? Thanks--jrleighton 03:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added an intro before the example. Is that better? I don't know enough about Italy to really re-write that section. --Midnighttonight 08:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A complicated story.

In those general elections (the systems has changed since then), for the lower chamber (Camera dei Deputati) each voter had to cast two votes: one for a constituency candidate and the other one for a party; 75% of the seats have been assigned to the winners at the constituency level, while 25% have been assigned on national scale on the basis of the proportional results of the party lists in the second vote.

Each constituency candidate had to declare a link with at least one party list of the proportional section of the ballot. If a candidate is elected in its constituency, the party list he belongs to gets a handicap in the sharing of the 25% proportional seats: the votes needed to win that place (eg the votes taken by the second-placed + 1) must be subtracted to the total party votes.

If the linked party list gets less votes than the 4% threshold, the party simply cannot participate in the proportional seat sharing, therefore there's a clear interest for both coalitions to link its candidates to fake parties that are predicted to take less than 4%.

What happened? Many candidates of both coalitions have been linked to the fake left-wing party ("Paese Nuovo") or the fake right-wing party ("Lista Abolizione Scorporo") that did not reach 4% (of course) and therefore the real parties the candidates belonged to received no handicap in the sharing of the proportional quarter of the seats. This led Forza Italia to win such a high number of seats that they had no enough proportional candidates to fill all the slots earned.

Funny story but also a very sad proof of the low ethical level of the mainstream politicians in my country. --MauroVan 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can this information be worked into the article? It's very unclear as it is. --Doradus 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

There is a proposed merger of Additional Member System into this article. Have your say at Talk:Additional Member System. --Midnighttonight 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As per proposed merger, the last merger proposal failed. Why is it nominated again? I oppose any such merger --Midnighttonight 05:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominated them, mainly because they are one, and the same thing. The only derivative of MMP, or SUP, could easily be accommodated within the article. Unless it can be proved that they contain distinctive differences, then they ought to be merged. Also, having separate articles based on separate names/nomenclature can be confusing for folks who are unaccustomed to voting systems, and wanting to learn more about them. (RM21 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

They are not one in the same thing though. AMS is used to refer to both SM and MMP, although not to both together, and thus AMS works as a form of disambig page. At the last discussion, I proposed to move the AMS article to Mixed Electoral Systems, which is a term used to refer to both and having AMS redirect to it. AMS and MMP are not the same thing. Furthermore, for people wanting to learn more, the current article serves quite well in providing for that. It shows that there is a difference, and then provides clear links for more info.

If you haven't already, have a look at the previous discussion Talk:Additional Member System#proposed merger. --Midnighttonight 22:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, SM and MMP are completely different systems. MMP is a proportional system, SM is a semi-proportional system. Very different results. The NZ Royal Commission on the Electoral System treated them very differently. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 02:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No replies. I will remove the tags in a few days if nothing happens. Second time that this debate has 'pettered' out. But if those wanting them merged don't make replies, then one can only infer that they have been convinced. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 08:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Extra seats going to the most popular runners-up?

Does any jurisdiction have an MMP electoral system where the top-up seats go not to the individuals on a "party list", but to the party's candidates who garnered the most votes without winning their own seat? For example, suppose there are 100 electoral districts and some party gets a plurality in 30 of them, while receiving 30.7% of the popular vote nationwide. Then that party would receive one additional seat (for a total of 31 out of 101). The additional seat would go to the losing candidate for the party who received the highest fraction of the votes in his/her electoral district. This way, the individuals filling the top-up seats would be chosen by the electorate, not by the party leadership. --Citefixer1965 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think at least one of the Italian elections (Senate or Deputies) in 2001 had this - hence the problem with decoy lists where Forza Italia did not have enough runners-up. But they still had two votes, while the logic of your suggestion would be a single vote for candidate and party.--Henrygb 17:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Swedish and Norwegian systems really are examples of MMP, then the answer is Yes (with these two examples). In both cases, the "levelling seats" that a party receives is distributed to the original, geographically smaller units (by different rules in the two countries), and thus could be said simply to increase the smaller constituency representation for the party. There is no distinction between seats alloted in the first (small unit) or second (whole assembly) round.

However, note that the constituencies are not single seat electorates, and that also within each of these smaller unit there is a degree of proportionality in the seat distribution (no 'first past the post', as mandated by the description in Mixed member proportional representation#Procedures). Also, the "lesser-used variant" is employed, where just one vote is cast. I've simply not found this system described, neither here nor in the article Additional Member System. JoergenB 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why I love the wiki

I got an interesting flyer in the mail today. The Ontario provincial elections are upcoming, and until I got the flier I was unaware that there is going to be a referendum as well.

The referendum is whether or not Ontario should switch to a MPP type election system. I had heard of this proposal, but had no idea it had progressed to the point where they were ready to have a referendum on it. I thought this was all years off, and as a result I really hadn't put much effort into learning about it. I figured this is something I needed to learn about, quickly.

So I turned to the wiki. Wow. I feel fairly confident that I have a really good understanding of the system now, both its pros and its potential cons. I still don't know how I'll vote, but at least now I understand the questions I need to ask.

This is am amazing article, and I just thought you all should know that. Thanks to everyone involved!

Maury 23:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism added (now that Ontario will vote on MMP?) is mainly directed at the party-leaders power to choose which candidates to nominate on the list of their party. It is not specific for MMP but for List-PR in general. And while we're talking: can the same criticism not be directed against FPTP: isn't it the same party-leadership who selects the local candidate in a particular constituency? In OPEN list-PR, people can choose between many candidates of the same party, in FPTP, there's only one candidate for each party on the ballot...--Bancki 14:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about other places, but the proposed system in Ontario will force the parties to make their list available to the public as well as providing details on how the list was created well before the election takes place. So since most parties will want to elect their list by some democratic process, won't this somewhat resolve the problem of the 'list maker' having a lot of undeserved power? --emd 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the criticisms in the criticism section to their appropriate locations in the Proportional representation, Closed list, and Additional Member System pages, as appropriate. They were not specific to MMP. Wikisteff 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There should be mmp-specific pro's and con's in this article. I came to the article to find those. What are the benefits of this kind of system, and what are the disadvantages?--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

South Africa

I believe that the references to the the south african parliament are incorrect. South africa currently uses a PR system with both national and provincial lists which is nonetheless a native PR system not an MMP system. Correct? 213.186.171.3 (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. The South African system is not MMP. It's just PR conducted at two different levels. I don't know why they bother, since it makes no difference to the outcome. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Special elections/by-elections/other vacancies

The article needs some discussion on how to fill vacancies arising from the resignation (or death or disqualification) of members elected under the MMP system. If a "list" member resigns, does the next available member on that party's list automatically elected? More importantly, if a "constituency" member resigns and a special election is held, are the list allocations recalculated? (A change in the share of votes in a single constituency might be enough to alter the number of list seats allocated to each party. I believe this issue arose a few years ago in the Scottish Parliament.) Obviously the answers to these questions will vary from place to place, but the article should discuss them. I don't really know enough about the topic myself. KarenSutherland (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I can answer this only in the case of Germany: If a "list" member resigns, the next available member on that party's list is automatically elected. If a "constituency" member resigns, there is no by-election, but the seat also goes to the party-list's next member (except when it's an overhang seat: these seats are just dropped when becoming empty, decreasing parliament's size). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In NZ, if a list MP resigns, the next available member on the party's list is automatically elected (unless they are unwilling or unable to take on that role, sometimes a party may convince a member to give up their place if there is someone they now consider more important they want to take on that role). If a constituency MP resigns, a byelection is held and the winner takes the seat even if that distorts the previous balance. Similarly, if someone quits their party to join another, they keep their seat even if they were elected from the list (for a while if an MP resigned from their party they would be required to resign from parliament, see waka-jumping which suggests it only applied to list MPs but it was my impression it would have applied to constituency MPs too albeit they would have the chance to stand for re-election). Note that AFAIK, it's always the list of the party which the list MP resigned from, even if the balance has been changed by constituency MP changes or waka-jumping. Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In all the UK jurisdictions using AMS (introduced roughly at the same time) list vacancies are filled by the next available person on the list the outgoing member was elected from. I think there's a provision that requires the party's nominating officer to approve the new member - this is mainly to handle situations where an unsuccessful list candidate has left the party in the interim - but I don't think they can nominate someone who wasn't on the list at the election. Certainly when the Scottish National Party elected a non-Member of the Scottish Parliament as their leader in 2004 I don't remember any suggestion that he could enter the Parliament immediately by filling a(n engineered) list vacancy.

A change in the party holding a constituency seat, whether because of a by-election or defection, has no effect on the list allocations whatsoever. Back in 2000 the Ayr by-election saw the Conservatives take a constituency from Labour. Had this been the result in the 1999 election (Ayr had been the most marginal constituency in the whole of Scotland so the calculation was easy to make) then the overall effect would have been the Conservatives had one less list seat in that region, but as Labour still had an overhang (with no compensation mechanism) the list seat would have gone to the SNP. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Germany

In Germany the Mixed member proportional representation is used for all levels of elections, such as Federal-, State-, District- and Community-Elections. In some states this system is widened in district- and community-elections, so you can upgrade or downgrade specific candidates on a list (Panaschieren = Panachage ). Michael Belzer --MBelzer (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not used for all state elections (e.g. Saarland uses pure prop. rep.) and I doubt it's generally (if at all) used for district- and community-elections. Thus I would prefer the original wording of the article. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is used at all levels because it is the only way to represent the vote of the people in a fair and local way. This is the basic idea of this voting system! To my knowledge all parliamentary elections use two lists, the first list for the Representive Vote and the second list for the Party Vote. Any deflection from this principle is not consistent with the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) of the Federal Republic of Germany. Michael Belzer --MBelzer (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This includes the städtischen Bundesländer (town-sized federal states) Hamburg, Berlin. --MBelzer (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Then your knowledge is incomplete, as I said in my above post (Saarland doesn't use it, neither does Bremen AFAIK). And your interpretation of the Basic Law is vastly incorrect: it would allow both a pure proportional representation and probably also a plurality voting system (as was discussed in the 1960s). In fact, the current MMP voting system for the Bundestag has been judged unconstitutional by the German Supreme Court (because of "negatives Stimmgewicht"). MMP is not the only democratic system... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Threshold

The threshold is not a necessary part of the Mixed member proportional representation (= Personalized Proportional Representation). --MBelzer (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, but this is already said in the article.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Overhang seats

Overhang seats are not a necessary part of the Personalized Proportional Voting System.--MBelzer (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are. The MMP system always leads to overhang seats for some (sufficiently "bad") election results, AFAIK. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

The template of the infobox Electoral methods is in need of a revision. In my mind the advantages and disadvantages of the diverse voting systems should discussed much more. --MBelzer (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Decoy lists

I removed the paragraph about the so-called "decoy lists" which have not relations with a MMP (which is a form of PR). They were used in Italy during 1996 and 2001 elections, after the referendum of 1993 which abolished the PR in the country. We should not confuse the AMS used in Britain, which is a form of semi-proportional representation, with the MMP used in Germany, which is a proportional representation. Despite German electors have two ballots, the second one is the sole to determine the political result of the election. This is not the case of the AMS used in Britain, where the FPTP ballot has influence over the final result of the election. We must remark that AMS was seen as a majoritarian system in Italy when it was used between 1993 and 2005.--Cusio (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)