Part of the Politics and Economics series
Electoral systems
Comparison of electoral systems Social choice theory Mechanism design List ( By country)
Single-winner methods Single vote- runoff methods Plurality (FPP) Two-round (US: Jungle primary) Partisan primary Alternative vote (US: Ranked-choice) Condorcet-IRV Condorcet methods Ranked pairs Schulze Minimax Kemeny–Young Nanson Condorcet-IRV Maximal lottery Positional voting First-preference plurality Borda count Anti-plurality voting Cardinal / graded methods Score voting Approval voting Majority judgment STAR voting Quadratic voting
Proportional representation Party-list List type Open list Closed list Localized list Spare vote Apportionment Highest averages Largest remainders National remnant Biproportional apportionment Single transferable vote ( Quota methods) Hare STV ( Gregory · Wright) Schulze STV CPO-STV Single non-transferable vote Single divisible vote Approval-based committee Thiele's method Phragmen's method Expanding approvals rule Method of equal shares Weighted and Fractional social choice Direct representation Interactive representation Liquid democracy Maximal lottery
Mixed systems By type of representation Winner-take-most Mixed-member proportional Non-compensatory mixed systems Parallel voting Majority bonus Compensatory mixed systems Additional member system Mixed single vote Scorporo Double simultaneous vote Mixed ballot transferable vote Alternative Vote Plus Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional
Voting system criteria Spoiler-resistance Condorcet criterion Smith independence Spoiler independence Clone independence Strategy-resistance No lesser evil voting IIA Later-no-harm Later-no-help Rational response Participation criterion Monotonicity criterion Reversal symmetry
Social and collective choice Impossibility theorems Arrow's theorem Impossibility of majority-rule Moulin's impossibility theorem Gibbard's theorem Fishburn's theorem Positive results Median voter theorem Condorcet's jury theorem May's theorem Campbell-Kelly theorem Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem Tournament sets Smith set Landau set Copeland set Split-cycle set Bipartisan set Tournament solution
Politics portal Economics portal
v t e

Panachage (English: /ˌpænəˈʃɑːʒ/, from French meaning "blend, mixture") ^[1] is a mixed single vote variant of proportional representation. In panachage, voters support individual candidates (rather than parties). Voters have multiple votes, which they can split between individual candidates in different party lists. Seats are then allocated to parties based on the total number of votes for all of their candidates, combined. Seats within a party go to that party's most-popular candidates (assuming a completely open list). ^[2]

The system is used in legislative elections for Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Switzerland; in national elections in Ecuador, El Salvador, and Honduras; and in local elections in a majority of German states, in Czechia, and in French communes with under 1,000 inhabitants.^{[ citation needed]}

Fictitious example

The Central Strelsau constituency in the Ruritanian Assembly of the Republic elects six members using a fully open list. Three lists, containing twenty-two candidates in total, are vying for its seats. There are 40,500 votes. The totals for each candidate and party are:

In the first step, seats are apportioned between the parties in according to their vote share. When using the D'Hondt method of rounding, the Social Democratic Party wins 3 seats, the NCP 2, and the LCC 1. (See highest averages method for further explanation.)

The SDP seats go to their top-3 candidates by number of votes: Megan Vargas, Matt Wright, and Pranav Kapoor. The NCP seats go to the top 2 candidates, Bob Jones and Tricia Chapman. The LCC seat goes to Sam Miller.

By country

Argentina

From 1912 to 1948, and from 1958 and 1962, Argentine voters had the possibility of crossing out or adding candidates to the electoral lists of the legislative elections. ^{[3][ clarification needed]}

Austria

Panachage was used in Austria until the 1970s. ^[4]

Belgium

Until the parliamentary elections of 1900, panachage was allowed in provincial and parliamentary elections in Belgium. Candidates were placed on lists in alphabetical order of surname. ^[5]

Municipal elections were held under the panachage system until passage of the 5 July 1976 Law. This change was adopted before the first elections (October 1976) following the 1976 communes merger, which reduced the number of Belgian communes from 2,359 to 596. Bills were introduced in 1995 and 1999 by senators from the Volksunie to reinstitute panachage, but they were never put to votes. ^{[6] [7]}

Ecuador

In the Ecuadorian parliamentary elections, voters have as many votes as there are seats to be filled. They may use their votes to support candidates across party lines (and they may also give several votes to a single candidate). ^[8]

El Salvador

El Salvador adopted an open list proportional system for the 2012 legislative elections. It introduced panachage for the 2015 elections:

"For the first time, voters will be able to select individual candidates from any party rather than being forced to vote for a single party with an established list of candidates. Voters can still opt to simply choose a party." ^{[9] [10] [11]}

France

Since 2014, voters in municipal elections in communes having fewer than 1,000 inhabitants (at the time: 26,879 communes, representing 73.5% of the total) have been able to cast ballot papers indicating their preference for candidates either listed or named individually, and, in addition, cross out if they so wish the names of one or more candidates. (Before that time, the upper population limit for communes qualified for this system of voting had been 3,500.) The number of candidates selected by a voter must not, however, exceed the total number of available seats. ^[12]

Until a reform effective 17 May 2013, voters had been able to write in the names of other, unlisted eligible citizens. But now all nominations must be filed in advance with the prefecture or sub-prefecture, and voters may no longer add names on election day. ^[13]

Germany

Of sixteen federal states, two ( Bremen and Hamburg, both of which are city-states) have adopted electoral systems including panachage (Panaschieren) for state and municipal elections. Eleven others use the system only for municipal elections. Schleswig-Holstein uses block plurality voting to select candidates from lists, i.e. voters may only give one vote to a candidate they support. In all other states allowing panachage, voters may give more than one vote for one or several candidate(s) ( cumulative voting). Berlin, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland do not use panachage. ^{[14] [15]}

Honduras

Panachage within an open list proportional system has been used since 2005 for legislative elections in Honduras. ^[16]

Luxembourg

In all proportional elections, ^[17] such as those for the Chamber of Deputies, a voter in Luxembourg has as many votes as there are seats to be filled in that constituency. The individual may vote either for candidates on the same list or for candidates on different lists and may allocate up to two votes to a single candidate. ^[18]

Switzerland

In Switzerland, in addition to being able to distribute their votes between different lists, voters may add names to lists, and/or delete one or more of the names appearing on others. Each candidate can be placed up to two times on the ballot paper. ^[4] This practice is known as cumulative voting.^{[ clarification needed]}

References