Talk:Additional-member system

message: I've deleted this text: and in New Zealand the other parties get compensatory seats to obtain the proportionality.
It's simply a big lie... uh... mistake. I've read the Electoral Act before (it's online if you want to check it) and the Electoral Commission website confirms my understanding . In New Zealand, you just keep your overhang seats, no compensation for the other parties. I'd love to know where that idea came from though.
There is another quirk in the New Zealand system, the number of seats that are allocated proportionally can be less than 120, if some of the constituency seats have been won by people who were independent or effectively independent (their party didn't stand a list). Say there were 5 independents, then 115 seats would be allocated to parties proportionally. This means that independents do not cause an overhang. You only get overhang if a real party wins more constituency seats that it would have been otherwise entitled to.
This is all academic (so far) because we have never had an independent elected, and never had an overhang, although it's conceivable that the Maori Party may overhang at the election next year.
Another piece of speculation just occurred to me. There's a grubby piece of legislation called the Electoral Integrity Act, whereby a rebellious MP can be kicked out of parliament if they "interfere with the proportionality of Parliament" (or wording to that effect). The idea is if you leave your party you have to continue to vote along with your party or they can have you expelled. Constitutionally dubious, but the drafters of the bill must have known that, because they build a sunset clause into it. Anyway... if a party was in overhang, presumably their rebels would be free to leave, because their party had too many MPs anyway.
Sorry this is way off-topic, I got carried away.
Ben Arnold 14:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: if that's true, the examples in the "how to deal with" list in the overhang seat-article has to be changed. --Braunbaer 19:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: It is known as an underhang, and probably deserves its own page, indeed I'll start one up at underhang seat.  --Gregstephens 08:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment of Overhang in NZ 

message: I cut out most of "It needs be considered that this problem has never occurred in most countries using AMS, where the candidates must generally be part of a readily identifiable party. In theory, it would be possible by setting up two separate parties, one to run a list and one to run in electorates, but as these parties would have to be incorporated separately, there is strong potential that divisions between the two parties could prevent any fruitful cooperation. Alternatively, the electorates could be run by indepedent candidates, 'appointed' by the party with the list, however yet again the party will have no control over the indepedent electoral candidates. Both concepts also risk alienating voters." and replaced it with "Decoy lists are not used in most countries using AMS, where most voters vote for candidates from parties with long-standing names."  The rest is in my view a POV apologetic analysis.  If there is evidence of an attempt to do this elsewhere which went wrong then it should be included.  Other speculation as what might happen if ... is unencyclopedic. One maight as well say that only Italian voters are clever enough to respond to decoy lists.  What is interesting is that the Italian version of AMS required the list candidates to be defeated constituency candidates with the same party label - i.e. a protection against decoy lists, but it did not work. --Henrygb 00:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find most or all of that section to be unintelligible. I went to the 2001 Italian election article in hopes to understand better. It let me down. I read the campaign segment of that article and it mentioned nothing of decoy lists. Could you provide some good context as to how the decoy list mechanism works? I mean, I don't understand how it pays off to vote for a decoy to benefit who you really want to be representing you (or, on the flip side, I don't understand how it pays off to set up a decoy to benefit your party by gaining more seats). D. F. Schmidt (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Decoy lists

message: I just fixed the capitalization in section headings of phrases that were not capitalized when use in the sections themselves, thereby conforming to Wikipedia:Manual of Style.  My inclination is to move this page to additional-member system, with lower-case initial letters.  On Wikipedia, on does not normally use capitals merely because a word is in an article title.  Comments? Michael Hardy 30 June 2005 21:29 (UTC)
There should also be consideration to moving it to Additional Member Systems (systems instead of system).  This article is really describing two rather different electoral systems.  One is proportional representation, the other is semi-proportional.  The difference is quite substantial in how it affects the outcome of elections even though the difference in how they operate is quite small.  --LeftyG 09:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving this article?

message: If AMS is restricted to cases where "the aim is for the party's total number of representatives, including constituency representatives, to be proportional to its percentage of the party vote" then the UK needs to be removed from the list of places using AMS. The article states:
:On the district or national level (i.e. above the constituency level), the total number of seats in the assembly are allocated to parties proportionally to the number of votes the party received in the party portion of the ballot. Subtracted from each party's allocation is the number of constituency seats that party won. The number of seats remaining allocated to that party are filled using the party's list.
That is not AMS in the UK, which reverses the counts and is more like:
:On the constituency level seat are elected on a single winner basis.  On the district or national level (i.e. above the constituency level), the additional seats in the assembly are allocated to parties proportionally to the number of votes the party received in the party portion of the ballot, taking into account the seats already won in the constituencies; for example a highest averages method is used in the proportional part, the sries of divisors starts at a higher point.
The second of these is actually closer the the word "additional", and means that overhang seats are no longer a meaningful issue - a party which wins "too many" constituencies simply wins no proportional seats, and so cannot be taking away seats from anyone else.  Part of the philosophical difference is shown in the reversal of UK and NZ ballot papers.  --Henrygb 16:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to count AMS 

message: Can someone rewrite the subject lists segment to make more sense to us idiots out here reading it. Thankz
:We could try, but you need to explain the problem more clearly --Henrygb 09:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decoy Lists? 

message: It is discussed (inconclusively) above but I have to bring this subject up again. I've been reading about electoral systems for many years and have never heard AMS defined as anything other than another name for 'mixed member proportional'. In fact IMHO, with the exception of New Zealand, AMS is the more commonly used name than MMP. Reading the comments above the current definition used in this article seems to be based solely on a mistake made by some Wikipedians on the table of votings systems articles and an overly literal reading of the name AMS. As Pm67nz says, many electoral systems are poorly named. I think this article should redirect to Mixed member proportional representation and any unique material be merged with that article and parallel voting.
Iota 19:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not make the move splitting AMS from MMP, but (to repeat my comments above) I think it was probably the right thing to do --Henrygb 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My sense is that MMP is far more common in the literature as the English-language term for the Bundestag-style system than AMS, and that Scotland/Wales are the exceptions rather than the rule. The Tom 21:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: (to repeat my comments above) I think it was probably the right thing to do
I've read those comments and have been trying to respond to them. Correct me if I'm missing something, but the current definition seems to have been justified on only two grounds:
#The fact that some Wikipedians used the term in a certain way on the voting systems table, from which it has been inferred that the current definition is part of common use.
#One possible interpretation of the literal meaning of "Additional Member System".
The acid test, surely, is not what some Wikipedians have done, or the personal interpretation that Wikipedians give the literal meaning of a term, but what the literature says. So has anyone ever read anything that uses the same definition that this article does? I'm not asking for specific citations at this point, I'd just like to know, in a general way, if other peoples' actual experiences of the use of this term contradict my own. Iota 14:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of AMS

message: The proposed merger (which has had the tag for quite a while) should not occur.  The term "Additional Member System" can be used (and is) to refer to both MMP and SM.  They are both related electoral systems, and are related as they both have some form of additional members.  This page servers as a useful disamb and explains the differences between the two.  If there is no comment within the next few days, I will remove the tag. --Midnighttonight 10:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 24 hours is not exactly "the next few days". I don't think anyone has yet responded to my points above in any kind of substantive way. In particular let me pose one question again: has anyone ever actually read anything in the literature that uses the same definition that this article currently does? Iota 15:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After review literature, here is my proposal: rename this page "Mixed Electoral Systems" and have Additional Member System redirect here.  I have come across AMS for both MMP and SM, but not the name as a over-riding description of the two.  But "Mixed Electoral Systems" is used as an over-arching description of the two. --Midnighttonight 23:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Iota could regard any quote as an example of an error. Take for example the UK parliament, which says AMS is used in Japan .  So too does the Hutchinson Encyclopedia .   These are not just errors: the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation uses "AMS"  exclusively for parallel voting as in Russia and Japan, and sees MMP as something different (see d and e at the end of part one of ). --Henrygb 00:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a terminology problem in this area, hence this page is a glorified disamb page to point people to which of the two AMS they use.  The problem is, the term AMS is not used as an over-riding term for both, but exclusively for one or the other.  So, my proposal is for AMS to redirect to Mixed Electoral Systems (which is used for to refer to both). --Midnighttonight 00:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Iota - what are your thoughts at the moment on the above? --Midnighttonight 07:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is now gone. --210.86.120.120 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed merger 

message: begin by changing the first sentence of "Criticisms" to its opposite.  It would help to clarify further if the passage would say a larger/smaller number of seats than what.  —Tamfang (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilfred Day's clarifications 

message: I think things would be clearer if this page was renamed something along the lines of Mixed member systems. Then Additional Member System could either redirect here or go to a disambiguation page that notes AMS could either mean any Mixed member system or, in the UK, specifically MMP. Thoughts? Mattlore (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While AMS is similar to MMP, it's not quite the same due to the fixed number of top-up seats. —ajf (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Oh what the hell? Since I last looked at it, someone's been making Mixed-member proportional representation into a frankenstein page that simultaneously considers AMS to not be MMP and also be MMP. Ugh. I'm going to clean it up. —ajf (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Or maybe not. I'm too conflicted and can't be bothered. I think it's cleaner to keep MMP and AMS separate though, so you avoid explaining how AMS differs every single time you talk about the UK. —ajf (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Move

message: See Talk:Mixed-member proportional representation#AMS vs MMP. Nil Einne (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMS vs MMP 

message: So I came here to learn about AMS as it's being proposed as an alternative to STV in a debate I'm involved in and I hadn't heard of it. This page doesn't have a section on "How AMS works" as in how do you vote and what does each vote mean. It probably should describe its topic. SPACKlick (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right actually. It covers the calculation methodology, but not how to actually vote. I'll add a section for it. —ajf (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I added a section on how voting works. It certainly needs improvement, but it's a start. —ajf (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article doesn't actually say what AMS is or how it works 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Additional Member System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109132651/http://www.assemblywales.org/abthome/abt-nafw/abt-assembly-elections-2/abt-nafw-how-assembly-elected.htm to http://www.assemblywales.org/abthome/abt-nafw/abt-assembly-elections-2/abt-nafw-how-assembly-elected.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Additional Member System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151031082741/http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Commission-on-Electoral-Reform-1976.pdf to http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Commission-on-Electoral-Reform-1976.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129054933/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/Education/16285.aspx to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/Education/16285.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is this the most poorly written sentence ever to appear in the Wikipedia? --
:It was the way that compensatory seats were allocated that made their report the origin of the additional member system, the term which the report also invented, which was then applied along with the much older "mixed system" by English-speaking writers on voting systems to West Germany's system and similar models until mixed member proportional (MMP) was invented for the adoption of the German system proposed for New Zealand in a royal commission report in 1986, which would explain why AMS and MMP have been used as synonyms.
I'll see if I can make sense of it later, but right now I need a lie-down! -- Picapica (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headache-inducing writing 

message: The article states that "The system was implemented for the Scottish Parliament in order to make it difficult for one party to win an outright majority", however the reference given does not say that - it merely says that majorities are unlikely, not that that is a desirable feature or that it was chosen because of it. This sentence appears to either be simply wrong, or is a lie written by someone who doesn't like AMS. https://web.archive.org/web/20141129054933/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/Education/16285.aspx 
Worth rewording, or does someone have a reference to support the statement?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.7.47 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland 

message: The article would benefit from a clear explanation of the differences between it and MMP 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: The phrase "the candidate with the most votes (not necessarily a majority of the electorate) wins" is confusing for two reasons.  (1) In English usage, a candidate with the most votes by definition has a majority; in American usage, it would be a plurality, while a vote of more than 50% of those voting would be required to say that they had a majority - in English this would be referred to as an absolute majority.  (2) It is a majority of those voting, not of the electorate, which counts.  Where voting is not compulsory, turn-out is often quite low, and often the candidates or parties which win a majority of votes cast, do not have the support of the majority of the electorate.  Andy Denis 13:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of 'majority' 

message: Please excuse me if this is misplaced.
There are some important differences between New Zealand MMP and UK AMS.
NZ uses closed party lists, not sure about AMS.  Closed lists make voting paper simpler.
AMS uses a modified dHondt system that avoids overhangs, by taking seats instead from smaller parties.
This particularly suits dominant parties like SNP.
AMS is often used for small numbers of seats, so there is an effective threshold.
MMP in NZ uses StLague system and allows overhangs, but seldom has them. 
NZ has two thresholds.  Parties must either win 5% of votes or gain an electorate seat, in order to be allocated seats.
The threshold is equivalent to 6 seats.  The 4.99%/5.00% difference can be important.
The threshold puts small parties in a difficult position, because they often divert and waste votes that might otherwise go to natural allies.
I am proposing that voters have a second choice of party vote, to eliminate those issues.  Hope it is ok to link to my website here onthethreshold.nz
Noticeable from 2021 Scotland election coverage:
The dominance of SNP makes overhangs more likely.
Media coverage often does not give list vote counts, despite their central importance.
Coverage is very FPTP centric.
By comparison NZ party vote percentages are published on the evening of the election, evolve during the counting, and are central to analysing the results
FreKea (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMS and NZ MMP have significant differences