This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mixed-member proportional representation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I do not understand the system: are national percentages used in determining the overhang at the state level? I suggest that
1) the following sentence from /info/en/?search=Overhang_seat be added: Small number of constituencies — The higher the absolute number of constituencies, the more likely it is that different reasons for overhang seats will balance out between parties. E.g., in Germany the almost sole reason for overhang seats is the fact that compensation happens at the state level instead of the federal level.
2) Both here and in the overhang article several specific examples from the 2009 German election should be added which show exactly where some of the overhang seats came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Blaine ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
There is a proposed merger of Additional Member System into this article. Have your say at Talk:Additional Member System. -- Midnight tonight 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose that the Additional Member System article be merged with Mixed-member proportional representation. AMS is really just a minor variation on MMP with a limited number of seats and a different name, and doesn't really warrant a separate article. By merging them, I think there would be less duplication, because the advantages and criticisms of both systems are basically the same. AJF ( talk) 11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
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 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)
HELLO — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
UnicornGuy67 (
talk •
contribs) 16:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
The threshold is not a necessary part of the Mixed member proportional representation (= Personalized Proportional Representation). -- MBelzer ( talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Overhang seats are not a necessary part of the Personalized Proportional Voting System.-- MBelzer ( talk) 17:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Can this information be worked into the article? It's very unclear as it is. -- Doradus 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
This section on Decoy votes is potentially misleading, because it gives the impression that MMP is rife with potential for abuse. (Indeed, if you add up the long section on Decoy Votes and the one on Strategic voting above - both of which seem like minor issues to me - you end up with an article in which about 40% of the content is taken up with minor issues pretending to be important. I may be wrong in this assessment, but if I am right, this is an important issue.) My sense is that the danger of decoy voting is probably just a quirk that needs to be addressed. Like others, I don't really understand the Italian example discussed earlier. However, as I try to work the logic of decoy voting for myself, it seems that the problem arises if parties can register for one ballot but not the other. In Canada's case that could mean that the Conservatives would split again into Conservatives and Reform (they are now a single party). Then the Conservatives would run at the constituency level but not at the list level, while Reform would do the opposite. The solution seems obvious. Make this illegal, although I do note that in the Venezuelan case that was considered unconstitutional and they had to move to Parallel voting - too bad!.I fear that by having this long section on Decoy voting without an adequate explanation of how unusual it might be (?) or of how easily (?) it can be addressed is dangerous as it biases readers away from a system that otherwise has a lot to recommend it. People need to have some sense of how serious an issue this is (or not). I'm a bit worried about playing around too much with this myself, but will give it a try at some point with some help if no-one else steps up to the plate.
For now, I have boldly added the following sentence: "The solution is simple and obvious: parties that contest constituency seats must be required to participate in the list seat competition, as well." Someone more expert than me may wish to reword this in a more nuanced way, but I do feel that this article is heavily biased against MMP the way it is currently designed. -- Reallavergne ( talk) 13:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
OK - I have now dealt with this to my satisfaction. The section formerly called Decoy Lists is now part of a section called "Collusion" because the Albania example from the previous section was very similar to the "decoy list" examples for Lesotho, Venezuela and Italy, and I thought they should go together. The various examples now tell a more coherent story, and the section ends with a conclusion (which could use a citation from a more reputable source than me, though!). I removed some of the material from the Italian example, because I could not figure it out, but regardless, having studied the results of the Italian election in 2001, I was able to determine that the example fit the pattern and deserved to be included without the unnecessary and confusing part that I removed. I also beefed up both the Lesotho and Venezuela examples, with additional text and references. Both are interesting stories. -- Reallavergne ( talk) 20:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
A number of sources I've noticed seem to describe AMS as a form of MMP and I'm not sure that the distinction made in our article is sane or supported. AMS seems to be at best a variation of MMP but more accurately simply a different name for MMP. While most or all systems which call it AMS may not have overhang seats (well more accurately a party which wins an overhang keeps their extra seats but the number of list seats is reduce to compensate), it not clear to me that this is sufficiently different to make the system different. Our article says because AMS doesn't have overhang seats, it's not guaranteed to be perfectly proportional which while true doesn't seem to be a clear cut difference as MMP is generally not guaranteed to be proportional either. As overhang seats explains, under a lot of systems including the German system until recently, an overhang is allow but simply in the form of assigning the designated number of list seats. It's still easily possible therefore for a party to have more seats than they are entilted to, or if you want, other parties to have less seats compared to that party (if the system is properly designed they should still be proportional to each other as much as possible with the reduced seast available). And such systems are definitely called MMP, after all while the German system changed recently, it has always been the traditional model for MMP. On the otherhand, overhang seats may not always be needed (and ideally they should not be) and when they are not there's no difference between AMS and any form of MMP at least according to the explanations given in our articles. (And let's not forget the threshold which most systems have means there will often be wasted votes for parties who have enough votes to theoretically need a representative for proportionality but not enough to be entitled to list seats which effectively mean the system is not proportional.) Note that for systems which are really different, e.g. supplementary member system, this isn't the case as even if by some miracle you end up with a perfectly proportional body, there are obvious differences in how and what you vote for, how and for what people are assigned etc. (On that note and I myself was confused by this, is it even clear that AMS always refers to the UK like system? I initially thought AMS referred to a supplementary member system and see some comments on the AMS talk page expressing similar concerns.) Nil Einne ( talk) 00:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
In Hungary, Fidesz won with 53% of the vote 68% of the seats. That would be possible only with overhang mandates. For overhang mandates, there is no allocation of list seats. But Fidesz won 90 list seats.
This clearly shows the independence of direct mandate and mandate list.
Please remove the references to Hungary. Akademischer Hinweisgeber ( talk) 02:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
As there are several methods of counting votes under MMP, paras on MMP in particular countries should say what one is used. (ew Zealand uses the Sainte-Laguë (or modified Sainte-Laguë?) method. It appears that the largest remainder method is little used and most use some form of highest averages method, ie D'Hondt method, the Sainte-Laguë method, the Modified Sainte-Laguë method (Nepal, Norway & Sweden) or the Danish method. How about a table? Hugo999 ( talk) 07:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Does MMP always have to go with FPTP?
Does the district component always have to be based on plurality voting, and not preferential voting / ranked voting?
Does the district component always have to be single-member, and not multi-member? Kjk2.1 ( talk)
Here is the sourced and updated list of nations which use or have used MMP:
MMP is currently in use in:
Does anyone disagree with this list? If so, please provide sources which contradict any of this sourced information PRIOR to reverting. This should not be controversial content as it is simply a sourced list of nations which use or have used MMP. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 21:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The sources for venezuela and russia don't mention that the countries use an MMP system at all. While the hungarian system has some connection between the party list and single member parts, I don't see how it can be argued that it's very proportional after the latest changes leading up to the 2014 election, it also doesn't have any system for overhang seats (see [7]). Bolivia seems to be using something similar to the system used in Scotland/Wales, so it's probably better described as an "additional member system" (see [8]. (One could argue that MMP and AMS should be covered by the same article since many sources mix these terms but that is a different discussion.) Øln ( talk) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I think my earlier merge proposal was a mistake and I undid the merge. - AJF ( talk) 13:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
—Preceding
undated comment added 16:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
On New Zealand's government website, it states: " What are other names for Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)? In the United Kingdom, MMP is sometimes known as AMS (which stands for Additional Member System)." [17]
A prominent British newspaper also states: "AMS is a hybrid voting system, part First Past The Post and part closed party list, the party list element added on to make the result more proportional. Outside the UK it is more commonly referred to as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)." [18]
I will add these two sources to the growing list of sources which state that MMP is known as AMS in the UK. User:Ajfweb, do you feel the sources have been misrepresented? Do you feel the sources are unreliable? Please answer these two questions prior to reverting. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 12:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
South Africa's local government elections use MMP or a very similar system. You vote for a ward candidate and a party. Ward candidate is chosen FPTP, party votes are used for a proportional system (I'm only familiar with metro-municipalities, it seems like district municipalities might have a different system). See question 3 here (municipalities come in 3 types - local, which are under a district municipality, district (several local municipalities) and metro, where no district municipalities are involved) MoHaG ( talk) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The article would benefit from a clear explanation of the differences between MMP and AMS and seat-allocation example. At present there is nothing in the article that would support the claim that AMS is so different from MMP that it warrants a separate article. The fact that the system is called AMS in the UK and MMP elsewhere by itself is not a significant difference. 90.253.29.22 ( talk) 12:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone (add a section to) explain the difference between MMP and Party-list proportional representation? I tried to read both articles, and I couldn't see any major differences. The later system has been used much longer than since 1945. At least I know Denmark has been using it since 1915.
"Mixed member proportional representation" hindi very is not available. Please translate this page in hindi language Shakilsayed ( talk) 17:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mixed-member proportional representation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I do not understand the system: are national percentages used in determining the overhang at the state level? I suggest that
1) the following sentence from /info/en/?search=Overhang_seat be added: Small number of constituencies — The higher the absolute number of constituencies, the more likely it is that different reasons for overhang seats will balance out between parties. E.g., in Germany the almost sole reason for overhang seats is the fact that compensation happens at the state level instead of the federal level.
2) Both here and in the overhang article several specific examples from the 2009 German election should be added which show exactly where some of the overhang seats came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Blaine ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
There is a proposed merger of Additional Member System into this article. Have your say at Talk:Additional Member System. -- Midnight tonight 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I propose that the Additional Member System article be merged with Mixed-member proportional representation. AMS is really just a minor variation on MMP with a limited number of seats and a different name, and doesn't really warrant a separate article. By merging them, I think there would be less duplication, because the advantages and criticisms of both systems are basically the same. AJF ( talk) 11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
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 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)
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 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)
HELLO — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
UnicornGuy67 (
talk •
contribs) 16:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
The threshold is not a necessary part of the Mixed member proportional representation (= Personalized Proportional Representation). -- MBelzer ( talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Overhang seats are not a necessary part of the Personalized Proportional Voting System.-- MBelzer ( talk) 17:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Can this information be worked into the article? It's very unclear as it is. -- Doradus 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
This section on Decoy votes is potentially misleading, because it gives the impression that MMP is rife with potential for abuse. (Indeed, if you add up the long section on Decoy Votes and the one on Strategic voting above - both of which seem like minor issues to me - you end up with an article in which about 40% of the content is taken up with minor issues pretending to be important. I may be wrong in this assessment, but if I am right, this is an important issue.) My sense is that the danger of decoy voting is probably just a quirk that needs to be addressed. Like others, I don't really understand the Italian example discussed earlier. However, as I try to work the logic of decoy voting for myself, it seems that the problem arises if parties can register for one ballot but not the other. In Canada's case that could mean that the Conservatives would split again into Conservatives and Reform (they are now a single party). Then the Conservatives would run at the constituency level but not at the list level, while Reform would do the opposite. The solution seems obvious. Make this illegal, although I do note that in the Venezuelan case that was considered unconstitutional and they had to move to Parallel voting - too bad!.I fear that by having this long section on Decoy voting without an adequate explanation of how unusual it might be (?) or of how easily (?) it can be addressed is dangerous as it biases readers away from a system that otherwise has a lot to recommend it. People need to have some sense of how serious an issue this is (or not). I'm a bit worried about playing around too much with this myself, but will give it a try at some point with some help if no-one else steps up to the plate.
For now, I have boldly added the following sentence: "The solution is simple and obvious: parties that contest constituency seats must be required to participate in the list seat competition, as well." Someone more expert than me may wish to reword this in a more nuanced way, but I do feel that this article is heavily biased against MMP the way it is currently designed. -- Reallavergne ( talk) 13:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
OK - I have now dealt with this to my satisfaction. The section formerly called Decoy Lists is now part of a section called "Collusion" because the Albania example from the previous section was very similar to the "decoy list" examples for Lesotho, Venezuela and Italy, and I thought they should go together. The various examples now tell a more coherent story, and the section ends with a conclusion (which could use a citation from a more reputable source than me, though!). I removed some of the material from the Italian example, because I could not figure it out, but regardless, having studied the results of the Italian election in 2001, I was able to determine that the example fit the pattern and deserved to be included without the unnecessary and confusing part that I removed. I also beefed up both the Lesotho and Venezuela examples, with additional text and references. Both are interesting stories. -- Reallavergne ( talk) 20:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
A number of sources I've noticed seem to describe AMS as a form of MMP and I'm not sure that the distinction made in our article is sane or supported. AMS seems to be at best a variation of MMP but more accurately simply a different name for MMP. While most or all systems which call it AMS may not have overhang seats (well more accurately a party which wins an overhang keeps their extra seats but the number of list seats is reduce to compensate), it not clear to me that this is sufficiently different to make the system different. Our article says because AMS doesn't have overhang seats, it's not guaranteed to be perfectly proportional which while true doesn't seem to be a clear cut difference as MMP is generally not guaranteed to be proportional either. As overhang seats explains, under a lot of systems including the German system until recently, an overhang is allow but simply in the form of assigning the designated number of list seats. It's still easily possible therefore for a party to have more seats than they are entilted to, or if you want, other parties to have less seats compared to that party (if the system is properly designed they should still be proportional to each other as much as possible with the reduced seast available). And such systems are definitely called MMP, after all while the German system changed recently, it has always been the traditional model for MMP. On the otherhand, overhang seats may not always be needed (and ideally they should not be) and when they are not there's no difference between AMS and any form of MMP at least according to the explanations given in our articles. (And let's not forget the threshold which most systems have means there will often be wasted votes for parties who have enough votes to theoretically need a representative for proportionality but not enough to be entitled to list seats which effectively mean the system is not proportional.) Note that for systems which are really different, e.g. supplementary member system, this isn't the case as even if by some miracle you end up with a perfectly proportional body, there are obvious differences in how and what you vote for, how and for what people are assigned etc. (On that note and I myself was confused by this, is it even clear that AMS always refers to the UK like system? I initially thought AMS referred to a supplementary member system and see some comments on the AMS talk page expressing similar concerns.) Nil Einne ( talk) 00:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
In Hungary, Fidesz won with 53% of the vote 68% of the seats. That would be possible only with overhang mandates. For overhang mandates, there is no allocation of list seats. But Fidesz won 90 list seats.
This clearly shows the independence of direct mandate and mandate list.
Please remove the references to Hungary. Akademischer Hinweisgeber ( talk) 02:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
As there are several methods of counting votes under MMP, paras on MMP in particular countries should say what one is used. (ew Zealand uses the Sainte-Laguë (or modified Sainte-Laguë?) method. It appears that the largest remainder method is little used and most use some form of highest averages method, ie D'Hondt method, the Sainte-Laguë method, the Modified Sainte-Laguë method (Nepal, Norway & Sweden) or the Danish method. How about a table? Hugo999 ( talk) 07:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Does MMP always have to go with FPTP?
Does the district component always have to be based on plurality voting, and not preferential voting / ranked voting?
Does the district component always have to be single-member, and not multi-member? Kjk2.1 ( talk)
Here is the sourced and updated list of nations which use or have used MMP:
MMP is currently in use in:
Does anyone disagree with this list? If so, please provide sources which contradict any of this sourced information PRIOR to reverting. This should not be controversial content as it is simply a sourced list of nations which use or have used MMP. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 21:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The sources for venezuela and russia don't mention that the countries use an MMP system at all. While the hungarian system has some connection between the party list and single member parts, I don't see how it can be argued that it's very proportional after the latest changes leading up to the 2014 election, it also doesn't have any system for overhang seats (see [7]). Bolivia seems to be using something similar to the system used in Scotland/Wales, so it's probably better described as an "additional member system" (see [8]. (One could argue that MMP and AMS should be covered by the same article since many sources mix these terms but that is a different discussion.) Øln ( talk) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I think my earlier merge proposal was a mistake and I undid the merge. - AJF ( talk) 13:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
—Preceding
undated comment added 16:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
On New Zealand's government website, it states: " What are other names for Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)? In the United Kingdom, MMP is sometimes known as AMS (which stands for Additional Member System)." [17]
A prominent British newspaper also states: "AMS is a hybrid voting system, part First Past The Post and part closed party list, the party list element added on to make the result more proportional. Outside the UK it is more commonly referred to as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)." [18]
I will add these two sources to the growing list of sources which state that MMP is known as AMS in the UK. User:Ajfweb, do you feel the sources have been misrepresented? Do you feel the sources are unreliable? Please answer these two questions prior to reverting. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd ( talk) 12:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
South Africa's local government elections use MMP or a very similar system. You vote for a ward candidate and a party. Ward candidate is chosen FPTP, party votes are used for a proportional system (I'm only familiar with metro-municipalities, it seems like district municipalities might have a different system). See question 3 here (municipalities come in 3 types - local, which are under a district municipality, district (several local municipalities) and metro, where no district municipalities are involved) MoHaG ( talk) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The article would benefit from a clear explanation of the differences between MMP and AMS and seat-allocation example. At present there is nothing in the article that would support the claim that AMS is so different from MMP that it warrants a separate article. The fact that the system is called AMS in the UK and MMP elsewhere by itself is not a significant difference. 90.253.29.22 ( talk) 12:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone (add a section to) explain the difference between MMP and Party-list proportional representation? I tried to read both articles, and I couldn't see any major differences. The later system has been used much longer than since 1945. At least I know Denmark has been using it since 1915.
"Mixed member proportional representation" hindi very is not available. Please translate this page in hindi language Shakilsayed ( talk) 17:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)