Dual-member mixed proportional

Last updated

DMP uses one vote, cast for a pair of candidates (or a single candidate), making it a seat linkage MMP system using a mixed single vote. In contrast to other versions of MMP, all seats are assigned in the two-member districts. Dual member mixed proportional.png
DMP uses one vote, cast for a pair of candidates (or a single candidate), making it a seat linkage MMP system using a mixed single vote. In contrast to other versions of MMP, all seats are assigned in the two-member districts.

The dual-member mixed proportional (DMP) [1] [2] [3] voting method is a mixed electoral system using a localized list rule to elect two representatives in each district. [4] It is similar to other forms of mixed-member proportional representation but differs in that all representatives are elected locally in small districts, rather than requiring separate list seats to be filled in large regional or nationwide districts. In the first step, one seat in each district is awarded to the candidate with the most votes, as with first-past-the-post voting rules. In the second step, underrepresented parties are assigned secondary seats in the districts in which they won the most votes, which creates an overall proportional result.

Contents

DMP was invented in 2013 by a University of Alberta mathematics student named Sean Graham. [5] The system was intended as a possible replacement for single-member plurality (SMP) in Canadian national and provincial elections. After campaigns to adopt mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) or the single transferable vote (STV) had been defeated in a number of Canadian provinces (see 2005 British Columbia referendum, 2005 Prince Edward Island referendum, 2007 Ontario referendum, 2009 British Columbia referendum), the intent behind DMP was to gain broader acceptance by retaining the key features of SMP. These features include a one-vote ballot, small districts (unlike with STV), and a single tier consisting only of local representatives (in contrast to MMP). [6]

Voting

Possible layout of a ballot under DMP DMP ballot.png
Possible layout of a ballot under DMP

Voting under DMP is similar to the standard first-past-the-post voting. Each voter is given a ballot and marks a single preferred candidate or a pair of candidates (closed list). [7] : 9  This is called a mixed single vote because when voters cast a vote for their preferred (primary) candidate, they also express support for the list of that party. Independents can run as they do normally, with an independent winning if they have the most votes in a given district. [7] : 32 

Step 1: Allocate seats to parties

Each party is allocated a certain number of seats in proportion to their share of the popular vote in the region.

The definitive report on DMP recommends that the seat allocation be calculated using the largest remainder method with a Hare quota and a total number of seats equal to twice the number of districts. [7] : 23  Only votes cast for party-affiliated candidates are included in this calculation. The number of seats allocated must be adjusted if independents are elected (as this takes seats away from the parties), or if a party wins more than its proportional share of the seats based on plurality (see Step 2).

Step 2: Award seats based on plurality, and transfer votes

At least half the seats in the region are awarded based on a form of plurality. Most notably, the first seat in every district is awarded to the primary candidate with the greatest number of votes.

If the winning primary candidate is from a party that has also listed a secondary candidate on the ballot, then the votes are transferred at half weight to the secondary candidate. For example, if a party has won a district with 48% of the votes, their primary candidate is elected and the secondary candidate is treated as having a 24% vote share. After the vote transfer, if the remaining candidate with the highest vote share in any district is an independent, he or she is elected. All other independent candidates are eliminated.

Step 3: Award remaining allocated seats

At this point, most (if not all) districts in the region will have one unassigned seat. Each of these unfilled seats must be awarded to one of the remaining party-affiliated candidates. Each party's remaining candidates in the region are sorted from most popular to least popular according to the percentage of votes they received in their districts. Seats are then tentatively assigned to the most popular candidates in each party. The number of seats assigned in this manner is the number of seats initially allocated to each party in Step 1, minus the seats each party received in Step 2.

After the allocated seats are tentatively assigned, it may be necessary to resolve conflicts. A conflict is a situation where more than one candidate has been assigned a district's second seat. In such cases, the candidate with the highest percentage of votes retains his or her assigned seat, while the other candidates are eliminated. If a candidate is eliminated in this fashion, the seat that was tentatively assigned to him or her is re-assigned to the party's most popular candidate still awaiting a seat. The re-assignment may produce another conflict, which must itself be resolved. The process continues until no conflicts remain. At that point, any candidate with an assigned seat is elected. The order in which conflicts are resolved has no bearing on which candidates ultimately obtain seats.

It is possible for a party to run out of qualified candidates, in which case they may forfeit one or more of their allocated seats. This situation can occur only if the party nominates fewer than two candidates in at least one district, or if one or more of their candidates fails to meet the district threshold. All forfeited seats are re-allocated on a proportional basis by applying the calculation in Step 1 to the parties still eligible for seats. These re-allocated seats are then awarded by performing Step 3 an extra time.

Thresholds

The DMP algorithm can be slightly modified to include either a standard (nationwide) electoral threshold or a local threshold, where a party must win a certain number of votes to win. [7] : 33  Either one of these modifications breaks the proportionality mechanism of DMP, creates a discontinuity in the results, and wastes votes, as any threshold does (regardless of the proportional representation rule).


History

Proposals to consider DMP were submitted to the Government of Canada, [2] [8] Alberta, [9] Prince Edward Island (PEI), [10] and British Columbia (BC). [11] In April 2016, the PEI Special Committee on Democratic Renewal officially recommended that DMP appear as one of five options on the 2016 PEI plebiscite, with the winning voting system determined by instant-runoff voting. [3] [12] [13] [14] The plebiscite took place from October 29 to November 7, 2016. [15] [16] [17] DMP was eliminated in the third round, and after its votes were redistributed, MMP was declared the winner (ahead of FPTP). [18] [19] The referendum was non-binding and the government of the time ignored the result. In May 2018, DMP was one of three proportional systems selected to appear on the 2018 BC referendum. [20] [21] [22] The referendum involved a two-question mail-in ballot to be returned by the extended deadline of December 7, 2018. [23] On the first question, a 61% majority of voters chose to retain the current FPTP voting system instead of switching to proportional representation. On the second question, which would have decided the specific proportional system, MMP enjoyed the most support, with DMP collecting slightly more first-choice preferences than rural–urban proportional representation. [24]

Comparison with mixed-member proportional representation

Dual-member mixed proportional is a variant of mixed-member proportional representation. [7] One set of seats is awarded based on plurality, while the remaining seats are allocated to underrepresented parties in a compensatory manner. From a mathematical standpoint, the compensatory seats in any MMP are analogous to the second district seats in DMP. Both DMP and conventional MMP can be considered mixed electoral systems, meaning that two types of calculation methods are combined. Both are seat linkage based compensatory systems as opposed to less common vote linkage systems.

Of the various forms of MMP, DMP has most in common with the "best near-winner" system (second mandate, Zweitmandat) used in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. [25] Whereas most implementations of MMP provide electors with two votes, both DMP and the Baden-Württemberg system employ a one-vote ballot. The number of votes candidates receive determines their eligibility for both the first set of seats (based on plurality) and the second set of seats (based in part on the popular vote).

Although MMP and DMP are both mixed systems, the main difference is that the original MMP features two tiers of representatives whereas DMP has only a single tier. [7] : 3  Under conventional MMP, the first set of elected candidates serve a district whereas the other representatives serve the entire region. Under DMP, every elected candidate serves the district that they contested. Thus while the DMP calculation is comparable to that of MMP, the resulting form of governance is similar to that of the single transferable vote and other systems based on multi-seat districts.

Advantages of DMP

Disadvantages of DMP

Comparison with other methods

One main feature of DMP is that it is designed to have districts of equal size and at the same time achieve proportional representation not within districts but over all seats. This makes it related to the concept of biproportional apportionment, which uses a unified algorithm for determining how many seats represent each region and to achieve party proportionality on the whole based on the votes cast. [27] However, DMP is a mixed system and does not apportion seats between districts based on votes (under biproportional apportionment, each region's share of seats is proportional to its total votes). [7]

Dual-member mixed proportional is not to be confused with the "proportional" system using dual-member districts known as the binomial system, which divides seats "proportionally" in two-member districts. [28] Another difference is that the binomial system uses open lists, while under DMP, a voter can vote for pairs of candidates (with a pre-nominated primary and secondary) on their ballot, functioning as a closed list locally but as a variant of the best loser system for compensation. [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proportional representation</span> Voting system that makes outcomes proportional to vote totals

Proportional representation (PR) refers to any type of electoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. The concept applies mainly to political divisions among voters. The essence of such systems is that all votes cast – or almost all votes cast – contribute to the result and are effectively used to help elect someone. Under other election systems, a bare plurality or a scant majority are all that are used to elect candidates. PR systems provide balanced representation to different factions, reflecting how votes are cast.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Additional-member system</span> Electoral system used in the United Kingdom

The additional-member system (AMS) is a two-vote seat-linkage-based mixed electoral system used in the United Kingdom in which most representatives are elected in single-member districts (SMDs), and a fixed number of other "additional members" are elected from a closed list to make the seat distribution in the chamber more proportional to the votes cast for party lists. It is distinct from using parallel voting for the list seats in that the "additional member" seats are awarded to parties taking into account seats won in SMDs – these are ignored under parallel voting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mixed-member proportional representation</span> Type of mixed electoral system

Mixed-member proportional representation is a type of representation provided by some mixed electoral systems which combine local winner-take-all elections with a compensatory tier with party lists, in a way that produces proportional representation overall. Like proportional representation, MMP is not a single system, but a principle and goal of several similar systems. Some systems designed to achieve proportionality are still called mixed-member proportional, even if they generally fall short of full proportionality. In this case, they provide semi-proportional representation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electoral reform in New Zealand</span>

Electoral reform in New Zealand has been a political issue in the past as major changes have been made to both parliamentary and local government electoral systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parallel voting</span> Mixed electoral system

In political science, parallel voting or superposition refers to the use of two or more electoral systems to elect different members of a legislature. More precisely, an electoral system is a superposition if it is a mixture of at least two tiers, which do not interact with each other in any way; one part of a legislature is elected using one method, while another part is elected using a different method, with all voters participating in both. Thus, the final results can be found by calculating the results for each system separately based on the votes alone, then adding them together. A system is called fusion or majority bonus, another independent mixture of two system but without two tiers. Superposition is also not the same as "coexistence", which when different districts in the same election use different systems. Superposition, fusion and coexistence are distinct from dependent mixed electoral systems like compensatory (corrective) and conditional systems.

Canada holds elections for legislatures or governments in several jurisdictions: for the federal (national) government, provincial and territorial governments, and municipal governments. Elections are also held for self-governing First Nations and for many other public and private organizations including corporations and trade unions. Municipal elections can also be held for both upper-tier and lower-tier governments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 Ontario electoral reform referendum</span> Canadian provincial referendum on establishing mixed member proportional representation

A referendum was held on October 10, 2007, on the question of whether to establish a mixed member proportional representation (MMP) system for elections to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The vote was strongly in favour of the existing plurality voting or first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.

A referendum was held in the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island on November 28, 2005, to determine whether to adopt the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system as recommended by the Prince Edward Island Electoral Reform Commission in 2003.

Electoral reform is a change in electoral systems which alters how public desires are expressed in election results.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electoral system</span> Method by which voters make a choice between options

An electoral or voting system is a set of rules used to determine the results of an election. Electoral systems are used in politics to elect governments, while non-political elections may take place in business, non-profit organisations and informal organisations. These rules govern all aspects of the voting process: when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who can stand as a candidate, how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted, how votes translate into the election outcome, limits on campaign spending, and other factors that can affect the result. Political electoral systems are defined by constitutions and electoral laws, are typically conducted by election commissions, and can use multiple types of elections for different offices.

A non-binding referendum on electoral reform was held in the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island between 27 October – 7 November 2016. This was the second electoral reform referendum to be held in Prince Edward Island, following a vote to maintain the status quo in 2005. The referendum asked which of five voting systems residents would prefer to use in electing members to the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island. The referendum involved four counts under Instant-runoff voting rules and at the end, mixed member proportional representation was the majority choice with 55.03% support on the final ballot, with support of 52.42% of votes cast.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mixed electoral system</span> Family of voting systems

A mixed electoral system is one that uses different electoral systems to elect different seats in a legislature. Most often, this involves a winner-take-all component combined with a proportional component. The results of the combination may be mixed-member proportional (MMP), where the overall results of the elections are proportional, or mixed-member majoritarian, in which case the overall results are semi-proportional, retaining disproportionalities from the majoritarian component. Systems that use multiple types of combinations are sometimes called supermixed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 British Columbia electoral reform referendum</span> Referendum on British Columbias voting system

A referendum on electoral reform took place by mail-in ballot between October 22 and December 7, 2018, in the Canadian province of British Columbia. 61.3 percent of voters supported maintaining the first-past-the-post voting system rather than switching to a proportional representation voting system, which was supported by 38.7 percent of voters. This was British Columbia's third referendum on electoral reform, following ones in 2005 and 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rural–urban proportional representation</span> Canadian hybrid proportional electoral system

Rural–urban proportional representation (RUP), also called flexible district PR, is a supermixed electoral system which combines the use of single- and multi-member constituencies in a lower tier and top-up seats in an upper tier to meet the different needs of both rural and urban areas, while protecting the objective of proportionality. The term was coined by Fair Vote Canada, which devised a rural–urban system with the intention of meeting the special challenges of Canada's geography, which includes wide-flung, sparsely populated areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2019 Prince Edward Island electoral reform referendum</span> Canadian provincial referendum

A referendum on electoral reform was held on April 23, 2019, in the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island – simultaneously with the 2019 provincial election – to determine if the province should adopt a mixed-member proportional representation voting system (MMP). A narrow majority voted to keep the existing first-past-the-post system. However, the referendum was not binding, as neither the yes or no side received majority support in 60% or more of the province's 27 electoral districts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mixed single vote</span>

A mixed single vote (MSV) is a type of ballot in mixed-member electoral systems, where voters cast a single vote in an election, which used both for electing a local candidate and as a vote for a party affiliated with that candidate according to the rules of the electoral system. Unlike most mixed proportional and mixed majoritarian systems where voters cast two votes, split-ticket voting is not possible under MSV. This significantly reduces the possibility of manipulating compensatory mixed systems, at the price of reducing voter choice. An alternative based on the mixed single vote that still allows for indicating different preferences on different levels is the mixed ballot, which functions as a preferential (mixed) single vote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mixed ballot transferable vote</span>

The mixed ballot transferable vote (MBTV) refers to a type of vote linkage-based mixed-member electoral system where a group of members are elected on local (lower) tier, for example in single-member districts (SMDs). Other members are elected on a compensatory national (upper) tier from a list and voters cast a single ballot where they may indicate their preferences separately.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mixed-member majoritarian representation</span> Type of mixed electoral system

Mixed-member majoritarian representation (MMM) is type of a mixed electoral system combining winner-take-all and proportional methods, where the disproportional results of the winner-take-all part are dominant over the proportional component. Mixed member majoritarian systems are therefore categorized under semi-proportional representation, and are usually contrasted with mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) which aims to provide proportional representation compensation ("top-up") seats.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Compensation (electoral systems)</span> Correction method used in some voting systems

Compensation or correction is an optional mechanism of electoral systems, which corrects the results of one part of the system based on some criterion to achieve a certain result, usually to make it more proportional. There are in general two forms of compensation: vote linkage and seat linkage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vote linkage</span> Partially compensatory electoral system

The vote linkage or (multi-tier) vote transfer system is type of compensatory mixed electoral system, where votes may be transferred across multiple tiers of an electoral system, in order to avoid wasted votes - in contrast to the more common seat linkage compensatory system. It often presupposes and is related to the concept of the mixed single vote, which means that the same vote can be used in multiple tiers of an electoral system and that a vote for a local candidate may automatically count as a vote for the candidate's party or the other way around. Voters usually cast their single vote for a local candidate in a single-member district (SMD) and then all the wasted votes from this lower tier are added to distribute seats between upper tier candidates, typically national party lists.

References

  1. ↑ Graham, Sean (April 4, 2016). Dual-Member Mixed Proportional: A New Electoral System for Canada (Report). University of Alberta. doi:10.7939/r3-qppp-b676.
  2. 1 2 Thomson, Stuart (September 30, 2016). "Electoral system born in Alberta on the ballot in PEI". Edmonton Journal .
  3. 1 2 Wright, Teresa (April 15, 2016). "Electoral reform plebiscite question will be a multi-option ballot". The Guardian .
  4. ↑ PEI Special Committee on Democratic Renewal (November 27, 2015). "Recommendations in Response to the White Paper on Democratic Renewal" (PDF). Prince Edward Island Legislative Assembly.
  5. ↑ Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform (September 29, 2016). "Meeting No. 33 Evidence".
  6. ↑ The Guardian (October 29, 2016). "EDITORIAL: We endorse DMP option in plebiscite". The Guardian.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Graham, Sean (April 4, 2016). Dual-Member Mixed Proportional: A New Electoral System for Canada (Report). University of Alberta. doi:10.7939/r3-qppp-b676.
  8. ↑ Graham, Sean (September 18, 2016). "Dual Member Proportional: An Electoral System for Canada" (PDF).
  9. ↑ Graham, Sean. "Reforming the Electoral System in Alberta: The Case for Dual-Member Mixed Proportional" (PDF).
  10. ↑ Graham, Sean. "Reforming the Electoral Formula in PEI: The Case for Dual-Member Mixed Proportional" (PDF).
  11. ↑ Graham, Sean. "How Dual Member Proportional Could Work in British Columbia" (PDF).
  12. ↑ PEI Special Committee on Democratic Renewal (April 15, 2016). Recommendations in Response to the White Paper on Democratic Renewal - A Plebiscite Question (Report). Prince Edward Island Legislative Assembly.
  13. ↑ Campbell, Kerry (April 15, 2016). "PEI electoral reform committee proposes ranked ballot". CBC News .
  14. ↑ Lithwick, Dara; Virgint, Erin (June 1, 2016). "Something in the Soil: Electoral Reform in Prince Edward Island". Library of Parliament. Archived from the original on March 5, 2017. Retrieved June 12, 2016.
  15. ↑ Yarr, Kevin (July 7, 2016). "Dates set for PEI electoral reform vote". CBC News .
  16. ↑ "PEI sets voting-reform plebiscite for fall". CTV News . The Canadian Press. July 7, 2016.
  17. ↑ Campbell, Kerry (October 22, 2016). "Voting options: The 5 choices in the electoral reform plebiscite". CBC News .
  18. ↑ "Plebiscite Results". Elections Prince Edward Island. November 7, 2016. Archived from the original on November 8, 2016. Retrieved September 18, 2018.
  19. ↑ Bradley, Susan (November 7, 2016). "PEI plebiscite favours mixed member proportional representation". CBC News .
  20. ↑ Eby, David (May 30, 2018). "How We Vote: 2018 Electoral Reform Referendum Report and Recommendations of the Attorney General" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 31, 2018. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
  21. ↑ McElroy, Justin (June 2, 2018). "Know your voting systems: three types of electoral reform on B.C.'s ballot". CBC News .
  22. ↑ Zussman, Richard (June 7, 2018). "B.C. cabinet confirms format of electoral reform referendum". Global News .
  23. ↑ Saltman, Jennifer (November 23, 2018). "Deadline to return referendum ballots to Elections B.C. extended until Dec. 7". Vancouver Sun .
  24. ↑ "2018 Referendum on Electoral Reform: Voting Results Available". Elections BC. December 20, 2018. Retrieved November 1, 2020.
  25. 1 2 Hodgson, Antony (January 21, 2016). "Why a referendum on electoral reform would be undemocratic". The Tyee .
  26. ↑ Trefs, Matthias (2003). "Voter confusion in German federal elections: the Baden-Württemberg electoral system as a possible alternative". German Politics. 12 (3): 82–106. doi:10.1080/0964400032000242707. S2CID   154839987.
  27. ↑ Gaffke, Norbert; Pukelsheim, Friedrich (September 1, 2008). "Divisor methods for proportional representation systems: An optimization approach to vector and matrix apportionment problems". Mathematical Social Sciences. 56 (2): 166–184. doi:10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2008.01.004. ISSN   0165-4896.
  28. ↑ "Electoral reform in Chile: Tie breaker". The Economist. February 14, 2015. Retrieved March 17, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.