Talk:Majority bonus system

I hope this is not a POV

Well, well,

if the majority bonus is used in Italy and Greece which are presently hit by this global crisis in a worse way compared to the other countries in the Eurozone... maybe there is something wrong in the political theory that has conceived it.

Or not?

D'oh! ®

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the crisis has nothing to do with electoral systems, jackass... --93.39.197.43 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

Is the term "Majority bonus" commonly used? E.g. in Greece the bonus is awarded to the plurality party, which may not achieve a majority even with it; so "Plurality bonus" would be much more appropriate (also e.g. in Italy, since it's a bonus for the plurality party). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the above, I think the (unilateral) move from "Majority bonus" to "Majority bonus system" should be reverted - the bonus is an variation of a given PR system, it's not a "system" in itself. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Roentgenium111. A system which does not divide seats proportionally to votes is not a PR, not a "variation of a given PR system"....--79.54.152.218 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.britannica.com/place/Italy/Security. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majority-minority apportionment system

@Rankedchoicevoter I think as written, the bonus/jackpot terminology is a bit confusing. I think this could be clarified by dividing this into two separate articles, or perhaps two separate subsections of the mixed-member winner-take-all system.

On the one hand we have the bonus system, which is a kind of parallel voting where most seats are elected proportionally while some bonus seats are by general ticket.

For jackpots, I think Pukelsheim calls this mechanism a "majority-minority apportionment", which might be a more intuitive name. (Although he happens to discuss it in the specific case of a majority-guarantee clause, which guarantees any party with a majority of the vote doesn't get "rounded down" to a seat or two short of a majority.) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The more I look into it the more these should be differentiated. For now I would try to split it under the name majority bonus and majority jackpot. Majority bonus, particularly in Greece is also called reinforced proportionality. In the same article, it is possible to talk about special systems with effectively majority bonuses and maybe connect it to overhang seats too. There is many local instances to be elaborated on, especially France and Italy and how it related to parallel voting, double vote and single vote, runoff and non-runoff versions.

For the majority jackpot there might be more history, you could add the alternative name majority-minority apportionment which I didn't know of and extra sources, and we could connect it to limited voting. The limited voting article is mostly about the candidate based version, but the party list version is very close to this jackpot or majority minority thing. For example where 3 seats are assigned, 2 always to the plurality winner and 1 to the second party regardless of the vote. So this article can get into minority jackpots too and try to bring together with effectively similar systems such as the binomial system.

I think we really need to try to give an overview and connect all these various national implementations of unconventional systems, so they can be found (from the general article where they use it), categorized (on the specific instance you can refer to the general principle article) and differentiated (on the general article the differences are clearly explained). Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to fusion

I'm a bit confused—I thought "Fusion" just meant any combination of multiple systems into a single tier? If that's the case, it wouldn't seem to be related to majority bonuses in particular. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same thing as we discussed on other pages. Fusion is the mechanism, majority bonus is the system where it is used. I couldn't name another at the moment, even one where is it not winner-take-all + PR, but only one of those things.

The source (Massicotte) that calls it fusion basically equates it to the bonus system, since it is a PR + bonus (winner-take-all). I think by the same logic of course majority jackpot is also fusion, while being conditional, that was a but unclear, but maybe just because they didn't want to overload it with too many systems classified as supermixed and there are few pure conditional mixed systems.

Fusion is:

-same tier

-same district (nationwide also counts as a district)

-independent

-as least two formulas (if there is one winner take all and one PR is is mixed, therefore majority bonus)

I think fusion can exist outside of mixed systems but we'd need to find it. Until then, the principle should be explained here I think. That can be done without equating it in the article title but I think in any case it is better than a split. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think fusion vs. non-fusion is a distinction unrelated to majority bonus.

An example of fusion without majority bonus is dual-member proportional. In fact, every mixed system can be used either with or without fusion, which is the principle underlying biproportional apportionment.
A majority bonus could be assigned using a separate tier—there's no reason the majority bonus couldn't be elected based on a separate party-list vote, using a non-fused superposition (different lists for the majority bonus and proportional components).

Greece happens to use majority-bonus together with fusion, but they're not inherently related. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

true. Two articles then? Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! Maybe we could combine fusion with an article on tiered systems in general, and what it means for an electoral system to be multi-tiered? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]