Condorcet methods
93-441: Positional voting Cardinal voting Quota-remainder methods Approval-based committees Fractional social choice Semi-proportional representation By ballot type Pathological response Strategic voting Paradoxes of majority rule Positive results In political science , parallel voting or superposition refers to the use of two or more electoral systems to elect different members of
186-515: A . For the Nauru system, the first preference a is worth one and the common difference d between adjacent denominators is also one. Numerous other harmonic sequences can also be used in positional voting. For example, setting a to 1 and d to 2 generates the reciprocals of all the odd numbers (1, 1/3, 1/5, 1/7, …) whereas letting a be 1/2 and d be 1/2 produces those of all the even numbers (1/2, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8, …). The harmonic variant used by
279-406: A = N , the number of candidates. The value of the first preference need not be N . It is sometimes set to N – 1 so that the last preference is worth zero. Although it is convenient for counting, the common difference need not be fixed at one since the overall ranking of the candidates is unaffected by its specific value. Hence, despite generating differing tallies, any value of a or d for
372-470: A hypercorrection that attempts to limit the term parallel voting to refer only to mixtures of first-past-the-post and proportional representation. Parallel voting can use other systems besides FPP, and can have any mixture of winner-take-all , semi-proportional , and proportional components. Although the two are often mistakenly conflated , mixed-member majoritarian representation and parallel voting refer to two different things. Parallel voting refers to
465-427: A rule for computing each party's representation in a legislature, which involves two voting systems operating in parallel, with one being layered ( superimposed ) on top of the other. By contrast, mixed-member majoritarian representation refers to the results of the system, i.e. the system retains the advantage that some parties parties get in the winner-take-all side of the system. For this reason, parallel voting
558-723: A winner-take-all system with party-list proportional representation (PR). While first-preference plurality with PR is the most common pairing in parallel voting, many other combinations are possible. The proportion of list seats compared to total seats ranges widely; for example 30% in Taiwan, 37.5% in Japan and 68.7% in Armenia . Parallel voting is used in both national parliaments and local governments in Italy , Taiwan , Lithuania , Russia , Argentina , and other countries, making it among
651-475: A Borda count election will result in identical candidate rankings. The consecutive Borda count weightings form an arithmetic progression . Common systems for evaluating preferences, other than Borda, are typically "top-heavy". In other words, the method focuses on how many voters consider a candidate one of their "favourites". Under first-preference plurality (FPP), the most-preferred option receives 1 point while all other options receive 0 points each. This
744-436: A divisor of 8 (7 seats + 1 per the method's divisor formula) instead of 1. The resulting table would then give 7 seats for Scotland and 4 seats for Wales to the parties possessing the highest averages on the table, although both devolved parliaments do not use a table, instead using a sequential method. The compensatory effect characteristic of MMP is in the fact that a party that won constituency seats would have lower averages on
837-403: A geometric progression with a common ratio of one-half ( r = 1/2). Such weightings are inherently valid for use in positional voting systems provided that a legitimate common ratio is employed. Using a common ratio of zero, this form of positional voting has weightings of 1, 0, 0, 0, … and so produces ranking outcomes identical to that for first-past-the-post or plurality voting . Alternatively,
930-433: A gerrymander can help a local candidate, but it cannot raise a major party’s share of seats, while under AMS the effects of gerrymandering are reduced by the compensation) Japan , and subsequently Thailand and Russia adopted a parallel system to provide incentives for greater party cohesiveness. The party is sure to elect the candidates at the top of its list, guaranteeing safe seats for the leadership. By contrast, under
1023-415: A given rank position ( n ) is defined below; where the value of the first preference is a . w n = a 2 a + ( n − 1 ) d = a 1 + ( n − 1 ) d a , {\displaystyle w_{n}={\frac {a^{2}}{a+(n-1)d}}={\frac {a}{1+{\frac {(n-1)d}{a}}}},} where w 1 =
SECTION 10
#17327728248711116-458: A government. Those who favour proportional representation see this as an advantage as parties may not govern alone, but have to compromise. It is also argued that parallel voting does not lead to the degree of fragmentation found in party systems under pure forms of proportional representation . Because voters have two votes, one for a constituency candidate and one for a list, there is a critique that two classes of representatives will emerge under
1209-448: A high value and all the remaining options with a common lower value. The two validity criteria for a sequence of weightings are hence satisfied. For an N -candidate ranked ballot, let the permitted number of favoured candidates per ballot be F and the two weightings be one point for these favoured candidates and zero points for those not favoured. When analytically represented using positional voting, favoured candidates must be listed in
1302-411: A legislature. More precisely, an electoral system is a superposition if it is a mixture of at least two tiers, which do not interact with each other in any way; one part of a legislature is elected using one method, while another part is elected using a different method, with all voters participating in both. Thus, the final results can be found by calculating the results for each system separately based on
1395-491: A longtime supporter of MMP. The Green Party of Canada has generally been a staunch supporter of a move to a proportional electoral system. In June 2016, the Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform was formed to examine potential changes to the voting system with MMP being one of the options examined. The committee presented its report to Parliament on 1 December of the same year. In early 2017,
1488-485: A mathematical sequence such as an arithmetic progression ( Borda count ), a geometric one ( positional number system ) or a harmonic one ( Nauru/Dowdall method ). The set of weightings employed in an election heavily influences the rank ordering of the candidates. The steeper the initial decline in preference values with descending rank, the more polarised and less consensual the positional voting system becomes. Positional voting should be distinguished from score voting : in
1581-673: A member with a 'safe' constituency seat is therefore a tremendous asset to a minor party in New Zealand. In elections for the Scottish Parliament, there is no threshold set, because the district magnitude of each electoral region is small enough to impose an inherent threshold in the seat distribution calculations. The following countries currently have MMP representation. Countries which nominally use or have used MMP, but in practice had highly disproportional representation or it as otherwise not implemented are discussed in
1674-598: A method for converting sets of individual preferences (ranked ballots) into one collective and fully rank-ordered set. It is possible and legitimate for options to be tied in this resultant set; even in first place. Consider a positional voting election for choosing a single winner from three options A, B and C. No truncation or ties are permitted and a first, second and third preference is here worth 4, 2 and 1 point respectively. There are then six different ways in which each voter may rank order these options. The 100 voters cast their ranked ballots as follows: After voting closes,
1767-433: A nationwide representative, parties may be required to achieve a minimum number of constituency seats, a minimum percentage of the nationwide party vote, or both. MMP differs from mixed-member majoritarian representation (often achieved by parallel voting ) in that the nationwide seats are allocated to political parties in a compensatory manner in order to achieve proportional election results across all seats (not just
1860-412: A parallel voting system: with one class beholden to their electorate seat, and the other concerned only with their party. Some consider this as an advantage as local as well as national interests will be represented. Some prefer systems where every constituency and therefore every constituent has only one representative, while others prefer a system where every MP represents the electorate as a whole as this
1953-575: A party must earn at least a certain percentage of the total party vote, or no candidates will be elected from the party list. Candidates having won a constituency will still have won their seat. In New Zealand the threshold is 5%, in Bolivia 3%, in Germany 5% for elections for federal parliament and most state parliaments. A party can also be eligible for list seats if it wins at least three constituency seats in Germany, or at least one in New Zealand. Having
SECTION 20
#17327728248712046-602: A party wins too many constituency seats. The problem of ticket splitting strategies can be solved either by eliminating at least one of the two mechanisms that create the opportunity for abuse: This sort of strategy for a coalition of parties to capture a larger share of list seats may be adopted formally as a strategy. By way of example, in Albania's 2005 parliamentary election , the two main parties did not expect to win any list seats, so they encouraged voters to use their list votes for allied minor parties. This tactic distorted
2139-405: A possible replacement for the single-member plurality (SMP) system in use at the time. The commission came to the conclusion that parallel voting would be unable to overcome the shortcomings of New Zealand's previous SMP system. The total seats won by a party would likely remain out of proportion to its share of votes—there would be a "considerable imbalance between share of the votes and share of
2232-604: A result, the mixed-member system utilized in the Philippines is not representative at all of the share of the vote that "normal" political parties obtain (even amongst mixed-member majoritarian systems), let alone for those in full proportional representation systems. In New Zealand , the Royal Commission on the Electoral System reviewed the electoral system in 1985-86 and considered parallel voting as
2325-451: A second one is given 10 points. The next eight consecutive preferences are awarded 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 point. All remaining preferences receive zero points. In positional voting, the weightings ( w ) of consecutive preferences from first to last decline monotonically with rank position ( n ). However, the rate of decline varies according to the type of progression employed. Lower preferences are more influential in election outcomes where
2418-464: A very strong base in certain constituencies to gain individual seats. Smaller parties are still disadvantaged as the larger parties still predominate. Voters of smaller parties may tactically vote for candidates of larger parties to avoid wasting their constituency vote. If the smaller party close to the threshold may refrain from voting for their preferred party in favour of a larger party to avoid wasting their list vote as well. In countries where there
2511-483: A worse-ranked candidate must receive fewer points than a better-ranked candidate. The classic example of a positional voting electoral system is the Borda count . Typically, for a single-winner election with N candidates, a first preference is worth N points, a second preference N – 1 points, a third preference N – 2 points and so on until the last ( N th) preference that is worth just 1 point. So, for example,
2604-466: Is a ranked voting electoral system in which the options or candidates receive points based on their rank position on each ballot and the one with the most points overall wins. The lower-ranked preference in any adjacent pair is generally of less value than the higher-ranked one. Although it may sometimes be weighted the same, it is never worth more. A valid progression of points or weightings may be chosen at will ( Eurovision Song Contest ) or it may form
2697-621: Is a type of representation provided by some mixed electoral systems which combine local winner-take-all elections with a compensatory tier with party lists , in a way that produces proportional representation overall. Like proportional representation , MMP is not a single system, but a principle and goal of several similar systems. Some systems designed to achieve proportionality are still called mixed-member proportional, even if they generally fall short of full proportionality. In this case, they provide semi-proportional representation . In typical MMP systems, voters get two votes: one to decide
2790-531: Is called MMP, while in other countries similar systems are known under other names. The seat linkage compensatory mixed system often referred to as MMP originates in Germany , and was later adopted with modifications under the name of MMP in New Zealand. In Germany, where is was differentiated from a different compensatory mixed system it was always known as personalized proportional representation (PPR) ( German : personalisiertes Verhältniswahlrecht ). Since
2883-469: Is more favourable to candidates with many first preferences than the conventional Borda count. It has been described as a system "somewhere between plurality and the Borda count, but as veering more towards plurality". Simulations show that 30% of Nauru elections would produce different outcomes if counted using standard Borda rules. The Eurovision Song Contest uses a first preference worth 12 points, while
Parallel voting - Misplaced Pages Continue
2976-492: Is no interaction between its systems to exploit in a way that makes it irrelevant. However, other types of tactical voting (such as compromising) are more relevant under parallel voting, than under AMS, and are virtually irrelevant under MMP. Tactical voting by supporters of larger parties in favour of allied smaller parties close to a threshold, to help their entry to parliament are a possibility in any parallel, AMS or MMP system with an electoral threshold. Parallel systems support
3069-427: Is not always mixed-member majoritarian. For example, parallel voting may use a two proportional systems like STV and list-PR and then it would not be mixed-member majoritarian, and a majority bonus system (which is not the same as parallel voting) may also be considered mixed majoritarian. In addition, some mixed-member majoritarian systems are not parallel, in that they allow for interaction (limited compensation) between
3162-433: Is one dominant party and a divided opposition, the proportional seats may be essential for allowing an effective opposition. Those who favour majoritarian systems argue that supplementary seats allocated proportionally increases the chances that no party will receive a majority in an assembly, leading to minority or coalition governments .; the largest parties may need to rely on the support of smaller ones in order to form
3255-436: Is reflected in the electoral system as well. Parallel systems are often contrasted with mixed-member proportional systems (MMP) or the additional member system (AMS). There are a unique set of advantages and disadvantages that apply to these specific comparisons. A party that can gerrymander local districts can win more than its share of seats. So parallel systems need fair criteria to draw district boundaries. (Under MMP
3348-402: Is straightforward. All the preferences cast by voters are awarded the points associated with their rank position. Then, all the points for each option are tallied and the one with the most points is the winner. Where a few winners ( W ) are instead required following the count, the W highest-ranked options are selected. Positional voting is not only a means of identifying a single winner but also
3441-400: Is the most top-heavy positional voting system. An alternative mathematical sequence known as a geometric progression may also be used in positional voting. Here, there is instead a common ratio r between adjacent weightings. In order to satisfy the two validity conditions, the value of r must be less than one so that weightings decrease as preferences descend in rank. Where the value of
3534-607: Is the number of constituency seats that party won, so that the additional seats are compensatory (top-up). If a party wins more FPTP seats than the proportional quota received by the party-list vote, these surplus seats are called overhang seats ( Überhangmandate in German), which may be an obstacle to achieving full proportionality. When a party wins more constituency seats than it would be entitled to from its proportion of (party list) votes, most systems allow for these overhang seats to be kept by those candidates who earned it in
3627-700: The 2008 New Zealand general election the Māori Party won 2.4% of the party vote, which would entitle them to 3 seats in the House, but won 5 constituency seats, leaving an overhang of 2 seats, which resulted in a 122-member house. If the party vote for the Māori Party had been more in proportion with the constituency seats won, there would have been a normal 120-member house. To combat disproportionalities caused by overhang seats, in most German states leveling seats ( Ausgleichsmandate in German) are added to compensate for
3720-645: The South Wales West region, and every election in the South Wales Central region apart from the 2003 election. This situation arises because Labour has continued to hold the overwhelming majority of constituency seats in these regions, and only around one-third of the total number of seats are available for distribution as additional regional seats. ( MMM ) ( Gallagher ) number of overhang seats As in numerous proportional systems , in order to be eligible for list seats in many MMP models,
3813-597: The United Kingdom the sometimes less proportional implementation of MMP used in Scotland and the London Assembly is referred to as the additional member system . In South Africa, MMP is generally referred to as a "mixed-system". The Scandinavian countries have a long history of using both multi-member districts (members elected through party-list PR) and nationally-based compensatory top-up seats using
Parallel voting - Misplaced Pages Continue
3906-611: The representative for their single-seat constituency , and one for a political party, but some countries use single vote variants . Seats in the legislature are filled first by the successful constituency candidates, and second, by party candidates based on the percentage of nationwide or region-wide votes that each party received. The constituency representatives are usually elected using first-past-the-post voting (FPTP). The nationwide or regional party representatives are, in most jurisdictions, drawn from published party lists , similar to party-list proportional representation . To gain
3999-410: The "best near-winner" method in a four-region model, where the regional members are the local candidates of the under-represented party in that region who received the most votes in their local constituency without being elected in it ( Zweitmandat , literally "second mandate"). At the regional or national level (i.e. above the constituency level) several different calculation methods have been used, but
4092-511: The Government announced that it would accept only some of the committee's recommendations, and would not pursue the issue of electoral reform any further. The pan-European party VOLT Europa proposes transnational mixed-member proportional representation with the combination of Majority Judgment and party-list PR . In other cases, a party may be so certain of winning a large number of constituency seats that it expects no extra seats in
4185-467: The MMP or AMS system a party that does well in the local seats will not need or receive any compensatory list seats, so the leadership might have to run in the local seats. Certain types of AMS can be made de facto parallel systems by tactical voting and parties using decoy lists, which (other) MMP systems generally avoid. This specific type of tactical voting does not occur in parallel voting systems as there
4278-566: The additional seats). Under MMP, two parties that each receive 25% of the votes end up with about 25% of the seats, even if one party wins more constituency seats than the other. Depending on the exact system implemented in a country and the results of a particular election, the proportionality of an election may vary. Overhang seats may reduce the proportionality of the system, although this can be compensated for by allocating additional party list seats to cover any proportionality gap. The specific system of New Zealand for electing its parliament
4371-487: The basic characteristic of the MMP is that the total number of seats in the assembly, including the single-member seats and not only the party-list ones, are allocated to parties proportionally to the number of votes the party received in the party portion of the ballot. This can be done by different apportionment methods : such as the D'Hondt method or the Sainte-Laguë method . Subtracted from each party's allocation
4464-461: The binary number system, a common ratio greater than one-half must be employed. The higher the value of r , the slower the decrease in weightings with descending rank. Although not categorised as positional voting electoral systems, some non-ranking methods can nevertheless be analysed mathematically as if they were by allocating points appropriately. Given the absence of strict monotonic ranking here, all favoured options are weighted identically with
4557-441: The binary, ternary, octal and decimal number systems use a radix R of 2, 3, 8 and 10 respectively. The value R is also the common ratio of the geometric progression going up in rank order while r is the complementary common ratio descending in rank. Therefore, r is the reciprocal of R and the r ratios are respectively 1/2, 1/3, 1/8 and 1/10 for these positional number systems when employed in positional voting. As it has
4650-407: The chosen progression employs a sequence of weightings that descend relatively slowly with rank position. The more slowly weightings decline, the more consensual and less polarising positional voting becomes. This figure illustrates such declines over ten preferences for the following four positional voting electoral systems: To aid comparison, the actual weightings have been normalised; namely that
4743-619: The compensation mechanism was manipulated by decoy lists. Countries with systems which have been confused with mixed-member proportional representation: In March 2004, the Law Commission of Canada proposed a system of MMP, with only 33% of MPs elected from regional open lists, for the House of Commons of Canada but Parliament's consideration of the Report in 2004–05 was stopped after the 2006 election. The New Democratic Party has been
SECTION 50
#17327728248714836-680: The constituency elections. A counter-example would be the In Germany's Bundestag , where constituency winners may not always keep their seats since the latest modification of the electoral law. In an MMP variant used in Romania in the 2008 and 2012 legislative elections , where constituency seats could only be earned by the winning candidate if they also achieved an absolute majority in their district, thereby eliminating overhang seats. In New Zealand House of Representatives , all members elected for constituencies keep their seats. For example, in
4929-490: The creation of single-party majorities more often than MMP or AMS systems, this may be a positive or a negative depending on the view of the voter. Parallel voting is currently used in the following countries: The Philippines' electoral system for Congress is an exceptional case. Political parties running for party-list seats are legally required to be completely separate from those running in constituency seats. Furthermore, political parties are capped at 3 seats (out of 61). As
5022-472: The decimal point are employed rather than fractions. (This system should not be confused with the use of sequential divisors in proportional systems such as proportional approval voting , an unrelated method.) A similar system of weighting lower-preference votes was used in the 1925 Oklahoma primary electoral system . For a four-candidate election, the Dowdall point distribution would be this: This method
5115-486: The denominators of the above fractional weightings could form an arithmetic progression instead; namely 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and so on down to 1/ N . This further mathematical sequence is an example of a harmonic progression . These particular descending rank-order weightings are in fact used in N -candidate positional voting elections to the Nauru parliament . For such electoral systems, the weighting ( w n ) allocated to
5208-429: The first preference is a , the weighting ( w n ) awarded to a given rank position ( n ) is defined below. w n = a r n − 1 , 0 ≤ r < 1 {\displaystyle w_{n}=ar^{n-1},\qquad 0\leq r<1} For example, the sequence of consecutively halved weightings of 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, … as used in the binary number system constitutes
5301-418: The first preference is set at one and the other weightings in the particular sequence are scaled by the same factor of 1/ a . The relative decline of weightings in any arithmetic progression is constant as it is not a function of the common difference d . In other words, the relative difference between adjacent weightings is fixed at 1/ N . In contrast, the value of d in a harmonic progression does affect
5394-401: The former, the score that each voter gives to each candidate is uniquely determined by the candidate's rank; in the latter, each voter is free to give any score to any candidate. In positional voting, voters complete a ranked ballot by expressing their preferences in rank order. The rank position of each voter preference is allotted a specific fixed weighting. Typically, the higher the rank of
5487-569: The individual candidate vote in a clearly distinct fashion from open-list systems, it may still be considered mixed-member proportional in the sense of a proportional system having two kinds of MP: one (may be) elected by personal (candidate) votes, one elected by (closed list) votes. Previously, the federal elections used a flexible number of additional compensatory seats, also known as leveling seats , which essentially guaranteed mixed-member proportional representation even with extremely disproportional constituency results, but dramatically increased
5580-479: The island nation of Nauru is called the Dowdall system as it was devised by Nauru's Secretary for Justice (Desmond Dowdall) in 1971. Here, each voter awards the first-ranked candidate with 1 point, while the 2nd-ranked candidate receives 1 ⁄ 2 a point, the 3rd-ranked candidate receives 1 ⁄ 3 of a point, etc. When counting candidate tallies in Nauru, decimal numbers rounded to three places after
5673-542: The legislature, under parallel voting, proportionality is confined only to the list seats. Therefore, a party that secured, say, 5% of the vote will have only 5% of the list seats, and not 5% of all the seats in the legislature. The major critique of parallel systems is that they cannot guarantee overall proportionality. Large parties can win very large majorities, disproportionate to their percentage vote. Parallel voting systems allow smaller parties that cannot win individual elections to secure at least some representation in
SECTION 60
#17327728248715766-466: The legislature; however, unlike in a proportional system they will have a substantially smaller delegation than their share of the total vote. This is seen by advocates of proportional systems to be better than elections using only first-past-the-post, but still unfair towards constituents of smaller parties. If there is also a threshold for list seats, parties which are too small to reach the threshold are unable to achieve any representation, unless they have
5859-425: The nature of the calculations used to distribute the regional list seats, overhang seats are not possible; the list allocation works like a mixed-member majoritarian system, but in using the d'Hondt method 's divisors to find the averages for the allocation, the first divisor for each party takes into account the number of constituency seats won by the party; i.e. a party that won 7 constituency seats would start with
5952-464: The next section. Though not all overhang seats are perfectly compensated for, New Zealand is widely considered to be a typical example of mixed-member proportional representation due to the high proportionality of the system (disregarding the electoral threshold). MMP replaced (modified): There are several other countries which attempted to introduce MMP by seat linkage compensation , but either not enough leveling seats were provided to achieve it, or
6045-469: The number of list seats or "overhang" seats, Albania subsequently decided to change to a pure-list system. In an abusive gambit similar to that used in Albania, major parties feeling that they are unlikely to win a large number of list seats because of their advantage at the constituency level might choose to split their party in two, with one subdivision of the party contesting the constituency seats, while
6138-434: The other contests the list seats—assuming this is allowed by electoral law. The two linked parties could then co-ordinate their campaign and work together within the legislature, while remaining legally separate entities. The result of this approach, if it is used by all parties, would be to transform MMP into a de facto parallel voting mechanism . An example could be seen in the 2007 Lesotho general election . In this case
6231-470: The overhang seats and thereby achieve complete proportionality. For example, the provincial parliament ( Landtag ) of North Rhine Westphalia has, instead of the usual 50% compensatory seats, only 29% unless more are needed to balance overhangs. If a party wins more local seats than its proportion of the total vote justifies, the size of the Landtag increases so that the total outcome is fully proportional to
6324-634: The party's regional list: Bavaria uses seven regions for this purpose. A regional open-list method was recommended for the United Kingdom by the Jenkins Commission (where it is known as AMS) and for Canada by the Law Commission of Canada ; neither recommendation was ever implemented. In contrast, the open-list method of MMP was chosen in November 2016 by voters in the 2016 Prince Edward Island electoral reform referendum . In Baden-Württemberg , there were no lists prior to 2022; they used
6417-493: The plurality winner. In German, this localized list system now shares the name of PPR with the mixed systems still used in the federal states of Germany that are referred to as MMP in English. In English, due to this change, the system is no longer considered to be MMP in the sense of a mixed member system combining proportional and majoritarian representation , but it would be a personalized/localized version of PR. As it retains
6510-420: The points are respectively 4, 3, 2 and 1 for a four-candidate election. Mathematically, the point value or weighting ( w n ) associated with a given rank position ( n ) is defined below; where the weighting of the first preference is a and the common difference is d . w n = a − ( n − 1 ) d {\displaystyle w_{n}=a-(n-1)d} where
6603-428: The points awarded by the voters are then tallied and the options ranked according to the points total. Therefore, having the highest tally, option A is the winner here. Note that the election result also generates a full ranking of all the options. For positional voting, any distribution of points to the rank positions is valid, so long as the points are weakly decreasing in the rank of each candidate. In other words,
6696-439: The preference, the more points it is worth. Occasionally, it may share the same weighting as a lower-ranked preference but it is never worth fewer points. Usually, every voter is required to express a unique ordinal preference for each option on the ballot in strict descending rank order. However, a particular positional voting system may permit voters to truncate their preferences after expressing one or more of them and to leave
6789-617: The proportional top-up (list seats). Some voters may therefore seek to achieve double representation by voting tactically for another party in the regional vote, as a vote for their preferred party in the regional vote would be wasted. This tactic is much less effective in MMP models with a relatively large share of list seats (50% in most German states , and 40% in the New Zealand House of Representatives ) and/or ones which add " balancing seats ", leading to fewer opportunities for overhangs and maintaining full proportionality, even when
6882-501: The rate of its decline. The higher its value, the faster the weightings descend. Whereas the lower the value of the common ratio r for a geometric progression, the faster its weightings decline. The weightings of the digit positions in the binary number system were chosen here to highlight an example of a geometric progression in positional voting. In fact, the consecutive weightings of any digital number system can be employed since they all constitute geometric progressions. For example,
6975-541: The remaining options unranked and consequently worthless. Similarly, some other systems may limit the number of preferences that can be expressed. For example, in the Eurovision Song Contest only their top ten preferences are ranked by each country although many more than ten songs compete in the contest. Again, unranked preferences have no value. In positional voting, ranked ballots with tied options are normally considered as invalid. The counting process
7068-488: The representative is by default chosen using a single winner method (though this is not strictly necessary), typically first-past-the-post : that is, the candidate with the most votes (plurality) wins. Most systems used closed party lists to elect the non-constituency MPs (also called list MPs). In most jurisdictions, candidates may stand for both a constituency and on a party list (referred to in New Zealand as dual candidacy ). In Wales between 2006 and 2014 dual candidacy
7161-662: The same method as MMP, however because the local MPs are also elected using PR, these systems are not usually considered MMP as they are not mixed systems . As especially mixed electoral systems can be quite different, sometimes there is no consensus on their classification as mixed-member proportional, mixed majoritarian or something between the two. These cases include partially or conditionally compensatory systems such as those of Hungary, Mexico and South Korea, which are typically said to be supermixed systems or partially compensatory systems, but sometimes inaccurately referred to as MMP even though they are highly disproportional. In MMP,
7254-612: The size of the Bundestag. This meant that it was potentially the most proportional MMP system used after the one in New Zealand , where only overhang seats are added back as list seats, which resulted in minor flexibility of the parliament size. In the Canadian province of Quebec , where an MMP model was studied in 2007, it is called the compensatory mixed-member voting system ( système mixte avec compensation or SMAC). In
7347-428: The smallest radix, the rate of decline in preference weightings is slowest when using the binary number system. Although the radix R (the number of unique digits used in the number system) has to be an integer, the common ratio r for positional voting does not have to be the reciprocal of such an integer. Any value between zero and just less than one is valid. For a slower descent of weightings than that generated using
7440-731: The system was adopted after the 1993 electoral referendum . In another referendum in 2011 , 57.77% of voters elected to keep current the MMP system. Among the 42.23% that voted to change to another system, a plurality (46.66%) preferred a return to the pre-1994 SMP system. Parallel voting was the second-most popular choice, with 24.14% of the vote. Positional voting Condorcet methods Positional voting Cardinal voting Quota-remainder methods Approval-based committees Fractional social choice Semi-proportional representation By ballot type Pathological response Strategic voting Paradoxes of majority rule Positive results Positional voting
7533-558: The table than it would if the election used MMM. Because of no provision for overhang seats, there have been cases where a party ended up with fewer total seats than its proportional entitlement. This occurred, for example, in the elections in the South East Wales electoral region in both 2007 ( Welsh Conservatives under-represented) and in 2016 ( Welsh Labour over-represented, Plaid Cymru under-represented). Labour has also been over-represented on this basis in every election in
7626-873: The top F rank positions in any order on each ranked ballot and the other candidates in the bottom N - F rank positions. This is essential as the weighting of each rank position is fixed and common to each and every ballot in positional voting. Unranked single-winner methods that can be analysed as positional voting electoral systems include: And unranked methods for multiple-winner elections (with W winners) include: Mixed-member proportional representation Condorcet methods Positional voting Cardinal voting Quota-remainder methods Approval-based committees Fractional social choice Semi-proportional representation By ballot type Pathological response Strategic voting Paradoxes of majority rule Positive results Mixed-member proportional representation ( MMP or MMPR )
7719-472: The total seats"—and it would be unfair to minor parties (who would struggle to win constituency seats). In the indicative 1992 electoral referendum , parallel voting was one of four choices for an alternative electoral system (alongside MMP , AV and STV ), but came last with only 5.5 percent of the vote. An overwhelming majority of voters supported MMP, as recommended by the Royal Commission, and
7812-461: The two components, for example this is the case in South Korea and Mexico. In South Korea, the hybrid of parallel voting and seat linkage compensation, being between the MMP and MMM type of representation has been called mixed-member semi-proportional representation as well. Unlike mixed-member proportional representation , where party lists are used to achieve an overall proportional result in
7905-753: The two leading parties, the Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD) and the All Basotho Convention (ABC) used decoy lists, respectively named the National Independent Party and the Lesotho Workers' Party to avoid the compensatory mechanisms of MMP. As a result, the LCD and its decoy were able to take 69.1% of the seats with only 51.8% of the vote. ABC leader Tom Thabane called the vote "free, but not fair." In
7998-476: The two-vote variant to make local members of parliament (MPs) more personally accountable. Voters can thus vote for the local person they prefer for local MP without regard for party affiliation, since the partisan make-up of the legislature is determined only by the party vote. In the 2017 New Zealand election , 27.33% of voters split their vote (voted for a local candidate of a different party than their party vote) compared to 31.64% in 2014. In each constituency,
8091-420: The variants used in Germany almost always produce very proportional results, the proportionality is emphasized over the mixed nature of the electoral system, and it is essentially considered a localized or personalized form of PR, used instead of conventional open-list systems . The new modified federal election system does not allow overhang seats at all, therefore not all local districts are guaranteed to elect
8184-407: The voter casts two votes: one for a constituency representative and one for a party. In the original variant used in Germany, citizens gave only one vote, so that voting for a representative automatically meant also voting for the representative's party, which is still used in some MMP elections today and is more robust against tactical voting than typical two-vote versions. Most of Germany changed to
8277-549: The votes alone, then adding them together. A system is called fusion (not to be confused with electoral fusion ) or majority bonus , another independent mixture of two system but without two tiers. Superposition (parallel voting) is also not the same as " coexistence ", which when different districts in the same election use different systems. Superposition, fusion and coexistence are distinct from dependent mixed electoral systems like compensatory (corrective) and conditional systems. Most often, parallel voting involves combining
8370-464: The votes, with other parties receiving additional list seats to achieve proportionality. The leveling seats are added to the normal number of seats for the duration of the electoral period. In the German state of Bavaria , the constituency vote and party vote are combined to determine the distribution of seats. Scotland uses a modified variant of MMP known as the additional member system where due to
8463-627: The working of the model to the point that the parties that won list seats were almost always different from the parties that won constituency seats. Only one constituency member was elected from parties that won list seats. The election was condemned by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe which said it failed to comply with international standards because of "serious irregularities", intimidation, vote-buying and "violence committed by extremists on both sides." Rather than increasing
8556-523: The world's most popular electoral systems. In parallel voting, voters cast two (or more) votes, one for each method the system contains. However, these votes do not interact in any way: the vote in one method has no effect on the calculation of seats in the other methods. Under the most common form of parallel voting, a portion of seats in the legislature are filled by the single-member first-preference plurality method (FPP), while others are filled by proportional representation . This sometimes leads to
8649-402: Was banned, i.e. candidates were restricted to contend either for a constituency or for a party list, but not both. If a candidate is on the party list, but wins a constituency seat, they do not receive two seats; they are instead crossed off the party list and the party seat goes to the next candidate down. In Bavaria , the second vote is not simply for the party but for one of the candidates on
#870129