Majority jackpot system

Last updated
The majority jackpot system (right) is a supermixed system: by default, it not only mixes a winner take all and PR formulas in the same district and tier (fusion), it also has a conditional and compensatory element as well. (bonus system to the left) Bonus vs jackpot mixed.png
The majority jackpot system (right) is a supermixed system: by default, it not only mixes a winner take all and PR formulas in the same district and tier (fusion), it also has a conditional and compensatory element as well. (bonus system to the left)

The majorityjackpot system (MJS), also known as a majority-minority apportionment, is a mixed-member majoritarian and conditional voting rule. [1] It produces subproportional representation by fixing the final apportionment for a party or alliance that wins a majority of the vote at some level (e.g. 55% of the seats). It differs from the similar majority bonus system in that the total number of seats is fixed, whereas the majority bonus assigns a fixed number of "bonus" seats to the majority party.

Contents

It is currently used in Armenia and San Marino, and was previously used in Italy from 2006 to 2013.[ citation needed ]

History

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. 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.[ citation needed ]

A similar plurality jackpot system, which awarded 55% of seats to the largest party, was introduced for local elections in 1993 and national ones in 2006 (replacing scorporo).[ citation needed ] 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. The system in use in Italy from 2006 until 2013, which assigned the jackpot to the plurality party (even if they lacked a majority), was judged unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Italy. [2] [3] After a proposed modification involving a run-off vote (between the top two alliances) was also struck down, parallel voting was adopted for the 2018 Italian general election. [4]

Jackpot vs. bonus

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 systemJackpot 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.

Minority jackpot

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.

Use

CountryType of electionType of systemSize of jackpotNotes
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 jackpot80%Used in multi-member district.
Italy provincial electionsconditional 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 inhabitantsconditional 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%

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">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.

At a national level, Greece holds elections for its legislature, the Hellenic Parliament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elections in Armenia</span>

Armenia has a multi-party system. After the 2015 Armenian constitutional referendum, only a legislature is elected on the national level.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Majority bonus system</span> Semi-proportional representation system

A plurality or majority bonus system (MBS) (also called minority friendly majoritarian electoral system) is a mixed-member, partly-proportional electoral system that gives extra seats in a legislature to the party with a plurality or majority of seats. Typically, this is done with the aim of providing government stability, particularly in parliamentary systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1994 Italian general election</span>

The 1994 Italian general election was held on 27 and 28 March 1994 to elect members of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Republic for the 12th legislature. Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right coalition won a large majority in the Chamber of Deputies but just missed winning a majority in the Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Italian general election</span>

A snap election was held in Italy on 13–14 April 2008. The election came after President Giorgio Napolitano dissolved the Italian Parliament on 6 February 2008, following the defeat of the government of Prime Minister Romano Prodi in a January 2008 Senate vote of confidence and the unsuccessful tentative appointment of Franco Marini with the aim to change the current electoral law. Under Italian law, elections must be held within 70 days of the dissolution. The voting determined the leader of Italy's 62nd government since the end of World War II. The coalition led by ex-Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi from The People of Freedom party defeated that of former Mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni of the Democratic Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1995 Lombard regional election</span>

The 1995 Lombard regional election took place on 23 April 1995. The 6th term of the Regional Council was chosen.

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Semi-proportional representation</span> Family of electoral systems

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.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Winner-take-all system</span> System favoring larger parties over smaller ones

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Italian electoral law of 2015</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 Sardinian regional election</span>

The Sardinian regional election of 2014 in Italy took place on 16 February 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 San Marino general election</span>

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.

<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.

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.

The law no. 270 of 21 December 2005 was a proportional electoral law with a majority prize and blocked lists that regulated the election of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate in Italy in 2006, 2008 and 2013.

<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.

References

  1. Massicotte & Blais (1999). "Mixed electoral systems: a conceptual and empirical survey". Electoral Studies. 18 (3): 341–366. doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(98)00063-8.
  2. Unconstitutionality sentence by the Italian Constitutional Court
  3. The ruling awaited in Palace of Consulta after the public hearing on 3 December 2013 could cause an earthquake the Italian public scene, changing some of coordinates that determine the behavior of politicians and the electorate: Buonomo, Giampiero (2013). "La legge elettorale alla prova di costituzionalità". L'Ago e Il Filo Edizione Online. Archived from the original on 2012-08-01. Retrieved 2016-04-10.
  4. Marco Bertacche (March 2, 2018). "How Italy's New Electoral System Works". Bloomberg Politics .
  5. REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO EARLY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 11 November 2012
  6. 1 2 "Italy - Politics, Regions, Constitution | Britannica". www.britannica.com. 2024-08-09. Retrieved 2024-08-11.

Caciagli, Mario; Alan S. Zuckerman; Istituto Carlo Cattaneo (2001). Italian Politics: Emerging Themes and Institutional Responses. Berghahn Books. pp. 87–89.