Semi-proportional representation

Last updated

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. [1] Semi-proportional voting systems are generally used as a compromise between complex and expensive but more-proportional systems (like the single transferable vote) and simple winner-take-all systems. [2] [3] Examples of semi-proportional systems include the single non-transferable vote, limited voting, and parallel voting.

Contents

Semi-proportional systems

Most proportional representation systems will not yield precisely proportional outcomes due to the use of election thresholds, small electoral regions, or other implementation details that vary from one elected body to another. However, systems that yield results close to the ideal are generally considered fully-proportional.

The choice to use a semi-proportional electoral system may be a deliberate attempt to find a balance between single-party rule and proportional representation. Semi-proportional systems can allow for fairer representation of those parties that have difficulty gaining even a single seat while retaining the possibility of one party gaining an overall majority of seats even if it receives less than a majority of the votes; they can ensure that the two or three largest parties all have their due share of seats or more while not producing representation for the smallest parties.

Because there are many measures of proportionality, [4] [5] and because there is no objective threshold, opinions may differ on what constitutes a semi-proportional system as opposed to a non-proportional one or a fully proportional system.

Single-vote systems

Election systems in which a party can achieve its due share of seats (proportionality) only by coordinating its voters are usually considered to be semi-proportional. [6] They are not non-proportional or majoritarian, since in the perfect case the outcome will be proportional, but they are not proportional either, since the perfect case is not guaranteed without coordination. Such systems include the single non-transferable vote and cumulative voting, both of which are commonly used to achieve approximately-proportional outcomes while maintaining simplicity and reducing the cost of election administration. Under these systems, parties often coordinate voters by limiting the size of the party slate, or by using complex vote management schemes where voters are asked to randomize which candidate(s) they support.

This group of non-partisan systems is non-partisan. Certainly, a group of candidates can coordinate their campaigns, and politically present themselves as party members, but there is no obligation for electors to respect those party links, and forms of panachage are usually possible.

Single transferable vote

Many writers consider the single transferable vote to be a semi-proportional system because of its substantial favoritism towards major parties, generally caused by a combination of the Droop quota in small districts, as well as the substantial degree of vote management involved when there are exhausted ballots. [7] On the other hand, some authors describe it as a proportional system, on the grounds that it is theoretically weakly proportional in the limit of infinitely-large constituencies. [8] However, it is worth noting that STV is only proportional for solid coalitions, i.e. if voters rank candidates first by party and only then by candidate. As such, the proportionality of STV breaks down if voters are split across party lines or choose to support candidates of different parties.

A major complication with proportionality under STV is the need for constituencies; small constituencies are strongly disproportional, but large constituencies make it difficult or impossible for voters to rank large numbers of candidates, turning the election into a de facto party list system, where voters lack any meaningful information about the candidates on their ballot.

The degree of proportionality of the results in a district (and when combined with other district results, the proportionality of results across a country) depends on the number of seats elected in the district. In the 2011 Irish general election, Fine Gael received 45.2% of the seats with just 36.1% of the first preference votes. In the 2020 Irish general election, the Labour Party received 50% more votes than the Social Democrats, but both parties won the same number of seats. Ireland uses districts of 3-7 members.

Similarly, the 1998 Northern Ireland elections resulted in the Ulster Unionists winning more seats than the Social Democratic and Labour Party with a smaller share of the vote.

The proportionality of STV can be controversial, especially in close elections like the 1981 election in Malta. In this election, the Maltese Labour party won a majority of seats despite the Nationalist Party winning a majority of first preference votes. This caused a constitutional crisis, leading to a provision to provide bonus seats in case of disproportional results. These bonus seats were needed in 1987, 1996, and 2008 to prevent further electoral inversions.

The degree of proportionality nationwide is strongly related to the number of seats to be filled in each constituency. In a three-seat constituency using the Droop quota, a full quarter of the vote is wasted. In a nine-seat constituency, only a tenth of the vote is wasted, and a party needs only 10% of the vote to win a seat. Consequently, the best proportionality is achieved when there are a large number of representatives per constituency. The Hare quota is theoretically unbiased, allowing some of the errors in apportionment to cancel out if voters across the whole country. However, it also increases the vulnerability of STV to vote management by large parties, allowing them to win the same number of seats they would have won under Droop.

Partisan systems

Other forms of semi-proportional representation are based on, or at least use, party lists to work. Looking to the electoral systems effectively in use around the world, there are three general methods to reinforce the majoritarian principle of representation (but not necessarily majoritarianism or majority rule, see electoral inversion and plurality) starting from basic PR mechanisms: parallel voting, the majority bonus system (MBS), and extremely reduced constituency magnitude.

In additional member systems (AMS), the number of additional members may not be sufficient to balance the disproportionality of the original system, thereby producing less than proportional results. When this imbalance is created intentionally, the result could be described as a semi-proportional system — for example, in the National Assembly for Wales, where only 33.3% of members are compensatory. The electoral system commonly referred to in Britain as the "additional member system" is also used for the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly, with generally proportional results. Similarly, in vote transfer based mixed single vote systems, the number of compensatory seats may be too low (or too high) to achieve proportionality. [9] Such a system is used in Hungary in local elections. [10] The "scorporo" system used for the Parliament of Italy from 1993 to 2005 and the electoral system for the National Assembly of Hungary since 1990 are also special cases, based on parallel voting, but also including compensatory mechanisms – which however are insufficient for providing proportional results.

A majority bonus system takes an otherwise proportional system based on multi-member constituencies, and introduces disproportionality by granting additional seats to the first party or alliance. Majority bonuses help produce landslide victories similar to those which occur in elections under plurality systems. The majority bonus system was first introduced by Benito Mussolini to win the election of 1924. It has remained in use in Italy, as well as seeing some use in San Marino, Greece, and France.[ citation needed ]

The simplest mechanism to reinforce major parties in PR system is to severely restrict the number of seats per electoral district, which increases the Droop quota (the number of votes needed to be guaranteed a seat).

The last main group usually considered semi-proportional consists of parallel voting models. The system used for the Chamber of Deputies of Mexico since 1996 is considered a parallel voting system, modified by a list-seat ceiling (8%) for over-representation of parties.

Usage

CountryLegislative bodyLatest election (year)Type of majoritarian system(Seats per

constituency)

Electoral systemTotal seatsGovernmental systemNotes
Andorra General Council 2018 Mixed-member majoritarian2 (local districts) / 14 (nationwide constituency)Parallel voting / superposition (MMM):

Party block voting (PBV) locally + list PR nationwide

28 Parliamentary system
Democratic Republic of the Congo National Assembly 2018 Mixed-member majoritarian1–17 Coexistence mixed majoritarian (MMM):

First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in single-member districts and List PR in multi-member districts (Largest remainder)

500
Djibouti National Assembly 2018 Mixed-member majoritarian3–28Fusion / majority jackpot (MBS):

80% of seats (rounded to the nearest integer) in each constituency are awarded to the party receiving the most votes (party block voting), remaining seats are allocated proportionally to other parties receiving over 10% (closed list, D'Hondt method)

65 Presidential system
France French Polynesia Assembly 2018 Mixed-member majoritarian4–17Two-round majority bonus system (MBS) in multi-member constituencies57
Georgia Parliament 2020 Mixed-member majoritarian1 (local districts),

120 (national constituency)

Parallel voting / superposition (MMM):

Party-list PR (closed list) + First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)

150 Parliamentary system
Greece Mixed-member majoritarianMajority bonus system (MBS)
Guinea National Assembly 2020 Mixed-member majoritarian1 (local districts),

76 (national constituency)

Parallel voting / superposition (MMM):

Party-list PR (Hare quota) + First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)

114
Hungary National Assembly (Országgyűlés) 2018 Mixed-member majoritarian1 (local districts), 93 (national constituency)Supermixed / Mixed-member majoritarian (MMM):

First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) + national list-PR for 93 seats (combination of parallel voting and positive vote transfer)

199 Parliamentary system Before the 2014, a different mixed system was used with a two-round system in single-member districts
Iraq Single non-transferable vote (SNTV)
Italy Chamber of Deputies 2018 Mixed-member majoritarian1 (local districts), 12 (Italians abroad constituency), ?-? (multi-member districts)[ citation needed ]Superposition / Mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) using a single vote

List PR + First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)

630 Parliamentary system
Senate 2018 Mixed-member majoritarian1 (local districts), 6 (Italians abroad constituency), ?-? (multi-member districts)[ citation needed ]Superposition / Mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) using a single vote

List PR + First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)

315 Parliamentary system
Republic of Korea (South Korea) National Assembly 2020 Mixed-member majoritarian1 (local districts), 17 supplementary seats (parallel voting), 30 additional seats (AMS),Supermixed / Mixed-member majoritarian (MMM):

First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) and List PR (hybrid of parallel voting and AMS)

300 Presidential system
Kuwait Single non-transferable vote (SNTV)
Kyrgyzstan Supreme Council 2021 Mixed-member majoritarian1 (local districts), 54 (nationwide constituency)Parallel voting / superposition (MMM):

Party-list PR (open list) + First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)

90 Presidential system
Lithuania Seimas 2020 Mixed-member majoritarian1 (local districts), 70 (nationwide constituency)Parallel voting / superposition (MMM):

Two-round system (TRS) for 71 seats + List PR (Largest remainder) for 70 seats

141 Semi-presidential system
Madagascar National Assembly 2019 Mixed-member majoritarian1–2 Coexistence: First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in 87 single-member districts, party-list PR (Closed list, highest averages method) in 32 two-member districts (64 seats in binomial system)151 Semi-presidential system
Mauritania National Assembly 2018 Mixed-member majoritarian1–3 (local districts), 40 (nationwide constituency)Coexistence+superposition (parallel) supermixed/hybrid:

Two-round system (TRS) in single-member districts, two-round block voting (BV) in dual-member districts, and List PR (simple quota largest remainder; closed-list) in larger districts + twice 20 nationally List PR (one set of 20 reserved for women)

157 Semi-presidential system
Monaco National Council 2018 Mixed-member majoritarian24 (nationwide constituency)Superposition / Mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) using a single (panachage) ballot:

Plurality block voting (BV) in single nationwide constituency for 16 seats; D'Hondt method (8 seats)

24 Parliamentary system [ citation needed ]
Palestine Legislative Council 2006 Mixed-member majoritarian1–9 (local districts), 66 (nationwide constituency)Parallel voting / superposition (MMM):

First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in single-member districts and Plurality block voting (BV) in two-seat districts for 66 seats in total (some reserved for Christians) + List PR for 66 seats

132 Semi-presidential system In the 1996 elections, 88 PLC members were chosen from several multi-member constituencies via block voting
Panama National Assembly 2019 Mixed-member majoritarian Coexistence mixed majoritarian (MMM):

First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in single-member districts, Saripolo or Sartori method (Largest remainder, but remainders only for those with no seats) in multi-member districts

71 Presidential system
Philippines House of Representatives 2019 Mixed-member majoritarian1 (local districts), 61 (nationwide constituency)Parallel voting / superposition (MMM):

First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in single-member districts (243 in 2019) + List PR (closed lists; modified Hare quota with 3-seat cap and no remainders) (61 in 2019)

304 Presidential system
Russian Federation State Duma 2021 Mixed-member majoritarian[ citation needed ]Parallel voting / superposition (MMM):

First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) and List PR

450 Semi-presidential system
San Marino Majority bonus system (MBS)
Senegal 2017Mixed-member majoritarianParallel165 Presidential system
Seychelles 2020Mixed-member majoritarianParallel35 Presidential system
Singapore 2020Mixed-member majoritarian First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) and party block voting (PBV)104 (93 directly elected)
Sudan 2015Mixed-member majoritarianParallel450
Switzerland Council of States

Only in:

  • names of cantons
2 Single non-transferable vote (SNTV)46
Taiwan 2020Mixed-member majoritarianParallel113
Tajikistan 2020Mixed-member majoritarianParallel63
Thailand 2019 (using MMP)Mixed-member majoritarianParallel500The next election is scheduled to be held under parallel voting again, after one election (2019) held using a single vote MMP system
British Overseas Territories (United Kingdom) Gibraltar Limited voting (LV)
Pitcairn Islands Single non-transferable vote (SNTV)
Vanuatu Single non-transferable vote (SNTV)
Venezuela National Assembly 2020Mixed-member majoritarianParallel voting (MMM):

First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) and list PR

280 (277 directly elected) Presidential system
Zimbabwe National Assembly 2018 Mixed-member majoritarian1 (local districts),

10 (proportional constituencies)

Mixed-member majoritarian (MMM):

210 seats by first-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) in local districts

60 seats reserved for women by list PR

270 Presidential system Voters cast a single vote

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 – not just a bare plurality or (exclusively) the majority – and that the system produces mixed, balanced representation reflecting how votes are cast.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Party-list proportional representation</span> Family of voting systems

Party-list proportional representation (list-PR) is a subset of proportional representation electoral systems in which multiple candidates are elected through their position on an electoral list. They can also be used as part of mixed-member electoral systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Single transferable vote</span> Multi-winner electoral system

The single transferable vote (STV), sometimes known as proportional ranked choice voting (P-RCV), is a multi-winner electoral system in which each voter casts a single vote in the form of a ranked-choice ballot. Voters have the option to rank candidates, and their vote may be transferred according to alternate preferences if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with surplus votes, so that their vote is used to elect someone they prefer over others in the running. STV aims to approach proportional representation based on votes cast in the district where it is used, so that each vote is worth about the same as another.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Additional-member system</span> Mixed electoral system with compensation

The additional-member system (AMS) is a mixed electoral system under which most representatives are elected in single-member districts (SMDs), and the 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.

In the study of electoral systems, the Droop quota is the minimum number of votes needed for a party or candidate to guarantee they will win at least one seat in a legislature.

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

Mixed-member proportional representation is a mixed electoral system which combines local majoritarian elections with a compensatory tier of party list votes, which are used to allocate additional members in a way that aims to produce proportional representation overall. In most MMP systems, voters get two votes: one to decide the representative for their single-seat constituency, and one for a political party. Some countries use single vote variants of MMP, although this article focuses primarily on dual vote versions of MMP.

Parallel voting is a type of mixed electoral system in which representatives are voted into a single chamber using two or more different systems, most often first-past-the-post voting (FPTP) with party-list proportional representation (PR). It is the most common form of mixed member majoritarian representation (MMM), which is why these terms are often used synonymously with each other. In some countries, parallel voting is known as the supplementary member (SM) system, while in academic literature it is sometimes called the superposition method within mixed systems.

An electoral district, also known as an election district, legislative district, voting district, constituency, riding, ward, division, electorate, or (election) precinct, is a subdivision of a larger state created to provide its population with representation in the larger state's constituency. That body, or the state's constitution or a body established for that purpose, determines each district's boundaries and whether each will be represented by a single member or multiple members. Generally, only voters (constituents) who reside within the district are permitted to vote in an election held there. District representatives may be elected by a first-past-the-post system, a proportional representative system, or another voting method. They may be selected by a direct election under universal suffrage, an indirect election, or another form of suffrage.

The Imperiali quota or pseudoquota is an inadmissible electoral quota used to calculate the number of votes needed to earn a seat in single transferable vote or largest remainder elections. It is named after Belgian senator Pierre Imperiali.

In the study of apportionment, the Harequota is the number of voters represented by each legislator under a system of proportional representation. In these voting systems, the quota is the number of votes that guarantees a candidate, or a party in some cases, captures a seat. The Hare quota is the total number of votes divided by the number of seats to be filled.

There are a number of complications and issues surrounding the application and use of single transferable vote proportional representation that form the basis of discussions between its advocates and detractors.

Schulze STV is a draft single transferable vote (STV) ranked voting system designed to achieve proportional representation. It was invented by Markus Schulze, who developed the Schulze method for resolving ties using a Condorcet method. Schulze STV is similar to CPO-STV in that it compares possible winning candidate pairs and selects the Condorcet winner. It is not used in parliamentary elections.

In elections that use the single transferable vote (STV) method, quotas are used (a) for the determination of candidates considered elected; and (b) for the calculation of surplus votes to be redistributed. Two quotas in common use are the Hare quota and the Droop quota. The largest remainder method of party-list proportional representation can also use Hare quotas or Droop quotas.

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

An electoral system 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 block can win all seats in a legislature or electoral district, denying representation to any political minorities. When applied using multiple electoral districts to elect an assembly, winner-take-all system provide non-proportional results that us: these systems often allow for electoral inversions, and they do not require candidates to win an (absolute) majority of the vote to be elected. A less-common but more accurate term is majorizing or majorized representation.

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, and thereby between the two in terms of proportionality. The system is only known to have been used in Italy and for a portion of the compensatory tier of the National Assembly of Hungary.

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

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.

Apportionment in the Hellenic Parliament refers to those provisions of the Greek electoral law relating to the distribution of Greece's 300 parliamentary seats to the parliamentary constituencies, as well as to the method of seat allocation in Greek legislative elections for the various political parties. The electoral law was codified for the first time through a 2012 Presidential Decree. Articles 1, 2, and 3 deal with how the parliamentary seats are allocated to the various constituencies, while articles 99 and 100 legislate the method of parliamentary apportionment for political parties in an election. In both cases, Greece uses the largest remainder method.

The mixed single vote (MSV) or positive vote transfer system (PVT) is a mixed-member electoral system, 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 the more widespread mixed proportional and mixed majoritarian systems where voters cast two votes, split-ticket voting is not possible in MSV.

Mixed member majoritarian representation (MMM) is type of a mixed electoral system combining majoritarian and proportional methods, where the disproportional results of district contests using a plurality voting system or other, usually first-past-the-post voting, are completely separate from the proportional component. Mixed member majoritarian systems are therefore described as semi-proportional representation, and are usually contrasted with mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) which aims to provide proportional representation via additional compensation ("top-up") seats.

References

  1. Douglas J. Amy. "Semiproportional voting systems" . Retrieved 19 June 2011.
  2. Giovanni Sartori (2005). Parties and Party Systems. A framework for analysis. European Consortium for Political Research. ISBN   9780954796617.
  3. Douglas J. Amy (2000). Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen's Guide to Voting Systems. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN   9780275965860.
  4. P. Kestelman (June 2005). "Apportionment and Proportionality: A Measured View" (PDF). Retrieved 19 June 2011.
  5. Barry R. Weingast; Donald A. Wittman (19 October 2006). The Oxford handbook of political economy. Oxford University Press. pp. 105–. ISBN   978-0-19-927222-8 . Retrieved 19 June 2011.
  6. "Semi-Proportional Electoral Methods" . Retrieved 19 June 2011.
  7. Norris, Pippa (1997). "Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems" (PDF). Harvard University.
  8. David M. Farrell Electoral Systems (2011)
  9. Golosov, G. V. (2013). "The Case for Mixed Single Vote Electoral Systems". The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies.
  10. "2010. évi L. törvény a helyi önkormányzati képviselők és polgármesterek választásáról" [Act L. of 2010. on the election of local government representatives and mayors] (in Hungarian).