Part of the Politics and Economics series |
Electoral systems |
---|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
The majority jackpot system (MJS), also known as majority-minority apportionment is a mixed-member majoritarian voting method. It provides for semi-proportional representation by giving a certain number (usually more than a majority) of seats in a legislature to a certain party or alliance, with the aim of providing government stability. The majority jackpot is typically classified a mixed electoral system, as it combines the proportional and winner-take-all system by a principle called fusion [1] . This is different from parallel voting (superposition) and coexistence. A majority jackpot can also be considered a supermixed system, since it usually has a conditional and corrective element. This differentiated in from the similar majority bonus system.
It is currently used in Armenia, San Marino, French Polynesia and formerly in Italy from 2006 to 2013.[ citation needed ]
Benito Mussolini was the first politician to enact a law to give automatic seats to the winning party and ensured his victory in the 1924 Italian general election. A modified version of the system was reintroduced for the 1953 Italian general election, in which any parliamentary coalition winning an absolute majority of votes would be awarded two-thirds of the seats in Parliament. The Christian Democracy-led coalition fell narrowly short of this majority in the election, and the system was abolished before the 1958 election. The majority bonus system was used in Italian local elections in the 1950s and was reintroduced for local elections in 1993 and national ones in 2006 to replace the scorporo mixed system. In the 2013 Italian general election, the Democratic Party won 292 seats in the House using its 8,644,523 votes and so needed 29,604 preferences to obtain a seat. Its major opponent, The People of Freedom, won 97 seats with 7,332,972 votes and so needed 75,597 votes for a single seat. Effectively, the system in use in Italy from 2006 until 2013, which assigned the jackpot regardless of the percentage of vote achieved by the largest party, was judged as unconstitutional by the Italian Constitutional Court. [2] [3] After a proposed modification involving a run-off vote (between the top two alliances) was also struck down by the court, parallel voting was adopted for the 2018 Italian general election. [4]
The jackpot system ensures the winning party or alliance ends up with at least a certain fixed number of seats in total, by granting it however many additional seats are needed. In the Sanmarinese Parliament, the majority alliance is given 35 out of 60 seats. [5] A majority jackpot system can be seen as a variant on the (compensatory) additional member system, where a set of seats are assigned by the plurality principle (but in case of the jackpot system, in a multi-member district), while the rest of the seats are assigned with the proportionality principle, taking into account the seats already distributed. This means if the majority jackpot is set at 55%, and the largest party/coalition receives 35% of the vote, they will be entitled to the additional 20% to reach 55%, but no more. The rest of the seats are distributed among the other parties, unlike the majority bonus system, which would not take them into account (like parallel voting). If the largest party would receive 60% of the vote, they would be entitled to the additional 5% of seats above the majority jackpot, unless there is also a minority jackpot. The size of a jackpot is typically above 50%, to provide for a clear majority, but may also provide for a certain size of supermajority.
Size of jackpot (%) | Vote share of the largest party (%) | Vote share of the 2nd largest party (%) | Appr. seat share of the largest party (%) | Appr. seat share of the 2nd largest party (%) | Effective bonus for largest party (%) | Effective bonus for second largest party (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
50% | 35% | 25% | 50% | 19% | 15% | -6% |
55% | 35% | 25% | 55% | 17% | 20% | -8% |
60% | 35% | 25% | 60% | 15% | 25% | -10% |
50% | 45% | 25% | 50% | 23% | 5% | -2% |
55% | 45% | 25% | 55% | 20% | 10% | -5% |
60% | 45% | 25% | 60% | 18% | 15% | -7% |
50% | 55% | 25% | 55% | 25% | 0% | 0% |
55% | 55% | 25% | 55% | 25% | 0% | 0% |
60% | 55% | 25% | 60% | 22% | 5% | -3% |
The table below shows the difference between the jackpot and bonus rules.
Size of bonus (%) | Size of jackpot (%) | Vote share of the largest party (%) | Appr. seat share of the largest party (%) | Effective bonus | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bonus system | Jackpot system | ||||
10% | 45% | 51% | 6% | ||
25% | 45% | 59% | 14% | ||
50% | 45% | 73% | 28% | ||
50% | 45% | 50% | 5% | ||
55% | 45% | 55% | 10% | ||
60% | 45% | 60% | 15% | ||
10% | 55% | 60% | 5% | ||
25% | 55% | 66% | 11% | ||
50% | 55% | 78% | 23% | ||
50% | 55% | 55% | 0% | ||
55% | 55% | 55% | 0% | ||
60% | 55% | 60% | 5% |
The jackpot system essentially gives the size of the jackpot or the vote share (whichever is higher, making it a conditional system and an effectively flexible "bonus"), while the bonus system gives a fixed bonus (in terms of seat numbers, which mean slightly variable effective bonus in terms of percentages) and a proportional share of the rest of the seats. The jackpot only modifies the seat share when the largest party's proportional seats count based on its vote share is below the size of the jackpot. A jackpot system may also be have further conditional elements: it may provide for a supermajority jackpot only for a party which received an absolute majority of vote.
A variant on the majority jackpot is the minority jackpot, which ensures a certain amount of minimum representation for political or minorities. A variation of the minority jackpot is lower threshold for certain minority lists or reach their first seat.
The majority bonus system was adopted by other European countries, especially San Marino at the national level.
Country | Type of election | Type of system | Size of jackpot | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Armenia | national elections (legislative) | conditional majority jackpot (two rounds) | 54% | Second round is held if no party reaches 54% of seats and no coalition government can be formed If a party would receives more than 2/3 of seats, their share is capped at 2/3, all minority parties must have at least 1/3 of seats in total. |
minority jackpot (compensatory) | 33% | |||
Djibouti | national elections (legislative) | majority jackpot | 80% | |
Italy | provincial elections | conditional majority jackpot (two rounds) | 60% | Using a double simultaneous vote with the presidency. If no list wins more than 50% of the vote, a runoff is held with a majority jackpot of 60%. [6] |
municipal elections above 15 000 inhabitants | conditional majority jackpot (two rounds) | 67% | With 2 votes cast, the second vote is for the jackpot and also functions as a double simultaneous vote with the mayoral race. Split ticket is allowed. [6] | |
San Marino | national elections (legislative) | conditional majority jackpot (two rounds) | 55% |
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. Further, a PR system is one that produces mixed and balanced representation, reflecting how votes are cast.
The additional-member system (AMS) or is a mixed electoral system under which most representatives are elected in single-member districts (SMDs), and a fixed number of other "additional members" are elected to make the seat distribution in the chamber more proportional to the way votes are cast for party lists. It is distinct from parallel voting in that the "additional member" seats are awarded to parties taking into account seats won in SMDs, which is not done under parallel voting.
The D'Hondt method, also called the Jefferson method or the greatest divisors method, is an apportionment method for allocating seats in parliaments among federal states, or in proportional representation among political parties. It belongs to the class of highest-averages methods. Compared to ideal proportional representation, the D'Hondt method reduces somewhat the political fragmentation for smaller electoral district sizes, where it favors larger political parties over small parties.
In political science, parallelvoting 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.
At a national level, Greece holds elections for its legislature, the Hellenic Parliament.
The general ticket, also known as party block voting (PBV) or ticket voting, is a type of block voting in which voters opt for a party, or a team's set list of candidates, and the highest-polling party/team becomes the winner. Unless specifically altered, this electoral system results in the victorious political party receiving 100% of the seats. Rarely used today, the general ticket is usually applied in more than one multi-member district, which theoretically allows regionally strong minority parties to win some seats, but the strongest party nationally still typically wins with a landslide.
The majority bonus system (MBS), sometimes referred to as the reinforced proportionality electoral system is a semi-proportional method of election multiple representatives. The majority bonus is typically classified a mixed electoral system, as it integrates both the proportionality and winner-take-all principles to provide mixed-member majoritarian representation. An academic term for such a hybrid system is fusion, which means an independent combination of two systems in which the two formulas are mixed within the same district (the district in question may be a single, nationwide constituency). This makes it distinct from other mixed systems such as parallel voting (superposition) and coexistence. A majority bonus may also be one of the properties of a supermixed system.
The German federal election system regulates the election of the members of the national parliament, called the Bundestag. According to the principles governing the elections laws, set down in Art. 38 of the German Basic Law, elections are to be universal, direct, free, equal, and secret. Furthermore, the German Basic Law stipulates that Bundestag elections are to take place every four years and that one can vote, and be elected, upon reaching the age of 18. All other stipulations for the federal elections are regulated by the Federal Electoral Act. Elections always take place on a Sunday. Mail votes are possible upon application.
Electoral reform is a change in electoral systems which alters how public desires are expressed in election results.
Semi-proportional representation characterizes multi-winner electoral systems which allow representation of minorities, but are not intended to reflect the strength of the competing political forces in close proportion to the votes they receive. Semi-proportional voting systems are generally used as a compromise between complex and expensive but more-proportional systems and simple winner-take-all systems. Examples of semi-proportional systems include the single non-transferable vote, limited voting, and parallel voting.
An electoral or voting system is a set of rules that determine how elections and referendums are conducted and how their results are determined. 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 winner-take-all electoral system is one where a voting bloc can win all seats in a legislature or electoral district, denying representation to any political minorities. Such systems are used in many major democracies. Such systems are sometimes called "majoritarian representation", though this term is a misnomer, as most such systems do not always elect majority preferred candidates and do not always produce winners who received majority of votes cast in the district, and they allow parties to take a majority of seats in the chamber with just a minority of the vote.
Scorporo is a partially compensatory, mixed-member majoritarian electoral system, sometimes referred to as a negative vote transfer system (NVT) whereby a portion of members are elected in single-member districts (SMDs) and a portion are elected from a list. It may be fully defined as a parallel voting system which excludes a portion of the SMD winners' votes in electing the proportional tier, to result in a more proportional outcome. The exclusion of a portion of the SMD winners' votes is what makes scorporo fundamentally different from parallel voting and somewhat closer to mixed-member proportional representation in theory. However, the design proved susceptible to the decoy list strategy, and as a result by 2001 had devolved into a de facto parallel voting system. The method is only known to have been used in Italy and for a portion of the compensatory tier of the National Assembly of Hungary.
The Italian electoral law of 2015, also known as Italicum, was an Italian electoral law passed in 2015. The law, which came into force on 1 July 2016, regulated only the election of the Chamber of Deputies, replacing the Italian electoral law of 2005, which had been ruled partly unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Italy in December 2013. It provided for a two-round system based on party-list proportional representation, including a majority bonus and a 3% election threshold. Candidates would have run in 100 multi-member constituencies using open lists. The largest party which won over 40% of the vote would automatically win a majority of seats; if no party won 40% of seats, a second round of voting would be held between the two largest parties, with the winner of the second round winning a majority of seats. The name "Italicum" was coined in 2014 by Democratic Party secretary and later Prime Minister of Italy, Matteo Renzi, who was one of the legislation's main proponent.
General elections were held in San Marino on 20 November 2016 and 4 December 2016. The San Marino First alliance received a plurality of the popular vote, but fell short of a majority in the Grand and General Council, initially being allocated 25 seats. As no single bloc had won a majority of seats, a runoff was held on 4 December 2016 between the top two coalitions, San Marino First and Adesso.sm, to determine the winner of the majority prize. The second round saw Adesso.sm win with 58% of the vote, resulting in seats being reallocated and the winning alliance receiving 35 seats.
A mixed electoral system or mixed-member electoral system combines methods of majoritarian and proportional representation (PR). The majoritarian component is usually first-past-the-post voting (FPTP/SMP), whereas the proportional component is most often based on party-list PR. 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.
The Italian electoral law of 2017, colloquially known by the nickname Rosatellum after Ettore Rosato, the Democratic Party (PD) leader in the Chamber of Deputies who first proposed the new law, is a parallel voting system, which acts as a mixed electoral system, with 37% of seats allocated using a first-past-the-post electoral system and 63% using a proportional method, with one round of voting. The Chamber and Senate of the Republic did not differ in the way they allocated the proportional seats, both using the largest remainder method of allocating seats.
General elections were held in San Marino on 8 December 2019.
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.
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.
Caciagli, Mario; Alan S. Zuckerman; Istituto Carlo Cattaneo (2001). Italian Politics: Emerging Themes and Institutional Responses. Berghahn Books. pp. 87–89.