Talk:Mixed-member proportional representation

message: 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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
thread_title: Specific Overhang Examples

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't see this as an important distinction, since the results will be the same. FYI, the German system explicitly addresses the possibility of overhang seats. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have (I thought) clarified the opening words of this section. As originally worded, it suggested that "overhang seats" occur whenever a party wins more seats than it would be entitled to, on a strictly proportional basis. I have clarified that, in the way the term is initially used in this article, and in the article on overhang seats, they are a possible response to this, not the seats which cause the disproportionality. There does still, however, seem to be a fundamental ambiguity (both here and in the article Overhang seat) as to what phenomenon the term "overhang seat" actually describes. In the second paragraph of this section, the phrase "won 5 constituency seats, leaving an overhang of 2 seats" is referring to the initial disproportionality, not the response to it. Is anyone able to point to a consensus of authoritative authors here, as to whether the term refers (a) to the initial disproportionality which can occur in most MMPR systems (it could, for example, occur in the Scottish Parliament, and has occurred in Senedd Cymru) or (b) to the response to that which is made in the German and NZ systems. Perhaps it properly refers to both: in that case it needs to be clear in what sense the term "overhang seat" is being used at any point.Ntmr (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhang 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Do not merge articles! I suggest that "Additional Member System (AMS)" shall be retained as an article on the specific UK approach, and thus be ripped of other countries' examples, while "mixed-member proportional representation" should become/remain the more general article about such election systems. Also take care of redundancies with mixed-member systemMeerwind7 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you now, my opinion has changed somewhat in the last 2.5 years. AMS is essentially a variant of MMP, but combining the two articles confuses things, because AMS has additional restrictions that MMP systems don't have. —ajf (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger (with Additional Member System) in 2015/2016 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why I love the wiki 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know about other places, but the proposed system in Ontario will force the parties to make their list available to the              public as well as providing details on how the list was created well before the election takes place. So since most parties will want to elect their list by some democratic process, won't this somewhat resolve the problem of the 'list maker' having a lot of undeserved power? --emd 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's correct. The South African system is not MMP. It's just PR conducted at two different levels. I don't know why they bother, since it makes no difference to the outcome. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct that South Africa uses PR for national parliament, and provincial legislature, but it uses MMPR for Local and Metro Councils. Source:   Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 08:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's not used for all state elections (e.g. Saarland uses pure prop. rep.) and I doubt it's generally (if at all) used for district- and community-elections. Thus I would prefer the original wording of the article. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Then your knowledge is incomplete, as I said in my above post (Saarland doesn't use it, neither does Bremen AFAIK). And your interpretation of the Basic Law is vastly incorrect: it would allow both a pure proportional representation and probably also a plurality voting system (as was discussed in the 1960s). In fact, the current MMP voting system for the Bundestag has been judged unconstitutional by the German Supreme Court (because of "negatives Stimmgewicht"). MMP is not the only democratic system... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: The threshold is not a necessary part of the Mixed member proportional representation (= Personalized Proportional Representation). --MBelzer (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but this is already said in the article.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threshold 

message: Overhang seats are not a necessary part of the Personalized Proportional Voting System.--MBelzer (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are. The MMP system always leads to overhang seats for some (sufficiently "bad") election results, AFAIK. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhang seats 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AMS vs MMP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hungary: election system is mixed-member majoritan! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Specify method used 

message: 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?
:Indeed.  It could be a ranked ballot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOyHLwYq6Nk -- jlam (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be, but it would be an increased challenge to explain the difference.  I think Ukraine uses a combination of single and multi member districts. -- jlam (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does MMP always have to go with FPTP? 

message: I think my earlier merge proposal was a mistake and I undid the merge. - AJF (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmerged 

message: 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)." 
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)." 
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)
replies: text: I'm not User:Ajfweb, but I can't seem to find any sources that specify AMS and MMP as separate systems. (The only one I could fine was just a copy of text from the Wikipedia page.) I've also seen the German system been described as AMS (e.g http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/76052/1/cesifo_wp650.pdfhttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7615624&fileId=S0043887100006651, Based on this I think it would make sense to merge the two articles. However, let's discuss the details before doing anything drastic. If there happen to be sources making a distinction between the terms, that should be noted in the article, but I don't see having a whole separate article for it makes sense. Øln (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed-Member Proportional is also known as the Additional Member System (in the United Kingdom) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another possible use - South African local government elections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AMS v MMP 2 

message: "Mixed member proportional representation" hindi very is not available. 
Please translate this page in hindi language Shakilsayed (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please translate this page in hindi language 

message: The new electoral system in South Africa is called MMP on the page, but the source here doesn't call it this way, and the system described isn't MMP. With MMP, there's one vote for a fixed number of consistuency seats, and a second vote for proportional, which is used to add as many seats as needed to correct the results in seats to achieve a proportional repartition of the total seats by parties as close as possible to the repartition of the second votes. Here in SA, the system described is two proportional system acting independently to get a fixed total of seats which then add up to each other. That's Parallel voting, not MMP. Cf Talk:2024 South African general election Aréat (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "any seats as needed to correct the results in seats to achieve a proportional repartition of the total seats by parties as close as possible" - that's not independent, therefore definitely not parallel voting, it is described as compensatory. Currently I don't see this page as listing it as MMP (the national one). Since the lower tier is also proportional, I don't think it qualifies as MMP or even a mixed system, since it's not even that the two subsystems are different, both are close list except one allows independents. But it is compensatory multi-tier like many proportional systems. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa