Talk:Mixed member proportional representation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Voter Understanding 2 Overhang 3 Decoy Lists 4 Proposed merger 5 Extra seats going to the most popular runners-up?

[edit] Voter Understanding

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Overhang

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

[edit] Decoy Lists

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

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

[edit] Proposed merger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Extra seats going to the most popular runners-up?

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

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