Enter a player name to begin or load your saved progress.
The fundamental objective of Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) is to ensure that a political party's allocation of seats within the legislature accurately reflects its overall share of the national popular vote.
Answer: True
Explanation: This principle of proportionality is the defining characteristic of MMP, distinguishing it from purely majoritarian systems. By combining constituency seats with compensatory party-list seats, MMP seeks to achieve a legislative composition that closely mirrors the electorate's preferences as expressed through party votes.
MMP systems are designed to guarantee perfect proportionality in all election outcomes.
Answer: False
Explanation: While MMP aims for high proportionality, perfect proportionality is not always achieved due to factors such as electoral thresholds, the number of overhang seats, and the specific mathematical methods used for seat allocation. The goal is significant proportionality, not absolute perfection.
The primary goal of MMP is to ensure that the number of seats a party wins is independent of its share of the national vote.
Answer: False
Explanation: The primary goal of MMP is the opposite: to ensure that the number of seats a party wins is *dependent* on, and closely mirrors, its share of the national vote, thereby achieving proportional representation.
MMP systems combine elements of winner-take-all constituency elections with proportional party-list representation.
Answer: True
Explanation: This accurately captures the hybrid nature of MMP, integrating single-member district elections (often winner-take-all) with a compensatory party-list system designed to achieve overall proportionality.
What is the fundamental goal of Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)?
Answer: To ensure the final seat distribution in the legislature closely reflects the parties' share of the national vote.
Explanation: The primary objective of MMP is to achieve proportionality, meaning the legislative composition should mirror the electorate's overall party preferences as expressed through the party-list vote.
In a typical dual-vote MMP system, voters cast only one ballot, which is used for both the local constituency candidate and the party's proportional representation.
Answer: False
Explanation: Most standard MMP systems employ a dual-vote system where voters cast two distinct ballots: one for their preferred constituency candidate and another for their preferred political party. The single-vote variant exists but is not the typical configuration.
In MMP systems, constituency representatives are typically elected via a proportional representation method.
Answer: False
Explanation: Constituency representatives in most MMP systems are elected using a first-past-the-post (FPTP) or plurality system, where the candidate with the most votes wins the single seat. The proportional aspect is achieved through the party-list seats.
Dual candidacy in MMP systems means a candidate can only run in either a constituency or on a party list, but not both.
Answer: False
Explanation: Dual candidacy is a common feature in MMP, allowing candidates to stand for election in both a constituency and on a party list simultaneously. If they win a constituency seat, they typically forfeit any list seat they might have won.
In MMP, if a candidate wins a constituency seat, they are typically removed from the party list to avoid holding two seats.
Answer: True
Explanation: This practice, related to dual candidacy, ensures that a single candidate does not occupy both a constituency seat and a list seat. If a candidate wins their constituency, they relinquish any claim to a list seat, allowing the next eligible candidate on the party list to be seated.
Vote linkage in mixed systems means a single vote determines both the constituency winner and the party's proportional share.
Answer: True
Explanation: This describes the 'mixed single vote' system, a variant of MMP where one ballot serves both purposes. This contrasts with the more common dual-vote system where voters cast separate votes for constituency candidates and parties.
In MMP, the party-list vote is primarily used to determine the winners of the local constituency seats.
Answer: False
Explanation: The party-list vote in MMP is primarily used to determine the allocation of compensatory seats to achieve overall proportionality. Constituency seats are typically determined by local, winner-take-all elections.
In a typical dual-vote MMP system, how many votes does a voter cast?
Answer: Two votes: one for a local candidate and one for a party list.
Explanation: Most standard MMP systems employ a dual-vote mechanism, where voters cast one ballot for their constituency representative and a second ballot for their preferred political party.
Which voting method is typically used for electing constituency representatives in MMP?
Answer: First-Past-the-Post (FPTP)
Explanation: Constituency seats in MMP systems are predominantly filled using the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) method, where the candidate securing the most votes wins the seat, irrespective of whether they achieve a majority.
What does 'dual candidacy' refer to in MMP?
Answer: A candidate standing for election in both a constituency and on a party list at the same time.
Explanation: Dual candidacy allows individuals to compete for election in both a local constituency and on a party's list. Typically, if they win the constituency seat, they relinquish any list seat they might have earned.
In MMP, if a candidate wins their constituency seat, what typically happens if they are also on their party's list?
Answer: They are removed from the party list, and the list seat goes to the next eligible candidate.
Explanation: This practice, known as preventing dual occupancy, ensures that a candidate does not hold both a constituency seat and a list seat. Winning the constituency typically means forfeiting any list seat entitlement.
What does 'vote linkage' mean in the context of mixed electoral systems?
Answer: A system where a voter's single ballot determines both constituency and party representation.
Explanation: Vote linkage refers to systems, particularly the 'mixed single vote' variant, where a single ballot cast by the voter serves to determine both their constituency representative and their party's proportional representation.
Party lists in MMP are utilized to allocate seats to candidates based on the party's performance in the party-list vote, functioning as a compensatory mechanism to achieve overall proportionality.
Answer: True
Explanation: This accurately describes the function of the compensatory tier. List seats are awarded to parties to ensure their total seat count aligns with their proportion of the party-list vote, thereby correcting any disproportionality introduced by the constituency elections.
The D'Hondt method is a mathematical formula sometimes employed in MMP systems to allocate compensatory seats.
Answer: True
Explanation: The D'Hondt method, along with the Sainte-Laguë method, is one of the common mathematical apportionment formulas used in proportional representation systems, including MMP, to distribute party-list seats.
An electoral threshold requires parties to win at least one constituency seat to be eligible for any list seats.
Answer: False
Explanation: An electoral threshold is typically a minimum percentage of the *party vote* required for a party to gain list seats, not a requirement to win a constituency seat. Some systems may have exceptions or alternative pathways, but this statement misrepresents the primary definition of a threshold.
Seat linkage in MMP ensures that list seats are allocated independently of constituency results.
Answer: False
Explanation: Seat linkage in MMP is precisely the opposite; it connects the allocation of list seats directly to constituency results to achieve overall proportionality. The list seats serve to compensate for disproportionality arising from the constituency elections.
The compensatory tier in MMP refers to the seats won by candidates in local constituency elections.
Answer: False
Explanation: The compensatory tier in MMP refers to the allocation of party-list seats, which are used to compensate for disproportionality arising from the constituency elections. Constituency seats are part of the first tier, not the compensatory tier.
An electoral threshold is a mechanism designed to prevent the legislature from becoming overly fragmented by very small parties.
Answer: True
Explanation: Electoral thresholds set a minimum vote percentage required for a party to qualify for list seats. This mechanism aims to ensure that only parties with a significant level of support gain representation, thereby reducing legislative fragmentation.
In MMP, the compensatory tier (party list seats) is used to correct disproportionality arising from the constituency elections.
Answer: True
Explanation: This is the core function of the compensatory tier in MMP. By allocating party-list seats based on the overall party vote share, the system aims to ensure that the final legislative composition accurately reflects the electorate's preferences, mitigating the disproportionality often inherent in single-member district elections.
What is the function of the 'compensatory tier' in MMP?
Answer: To allocate party-list seats to ensure the overall seat distribution matches the party vote share.
Explanation: The compensatory tier, comprising party-list seats, is specifically designed to adjust the final seat allocation, ensuring that a party's total representation in the legislature accurately reflects its proportion of the national party-list vote.
What is the purpose of an 'electoral threshold' in MMP systems?
Answer: To prevent excessive fragmentation of the legislature by excluding parties below a minimum vote percentage.
Explanation: Electoral thresholds are minimum vote percentages required for parties to qualify for list seats, serving to limit the number of parties in the legislature and prevent excessive fragmentation.
What is the main function of party lists in the MMP system?
Answer: To provide a compensatory mechanism for achieving proportional representation.
Explanation: Party lists are integral to the compensatory tier of MMP, used to allocate seats that balance out any disproportionality resulting from the constituency elections, thereby ensuring overall representation aligns with vote share.
Which mathematical methods are mentioned as common for allocating compensatory seats in MMP?
Answer: D'Hondt method and Sainte-Laguë method
Explanation: The D'Hondt method and the Sainte-Laguë method are standard mathematical formulas used in proportional representation systems, including MMP, for the equitable allocation of compensatory seats.
Overhang seats arise when a party wins fewer constituency seats than its proportional share of the party-list vote would entitle it to.
Answer: False
Explanation: Overhang seats occur when a party wins *more* constituency seats than its proportional entitlement based on the party-list vote. This situation can lead to a decrease in overall proportionality if not adequately compensated.
Leveling seats are introduced into the legislature to compensate for overhang seats, thereby enhancing the overall proportionality of the electoral outcome.
Answer: True
Explanation: Leveling seats, also known as compensatory seats, are specifically designed to counteract the disproportionality caused by overhang seats, bringing the final seat distribution closer to the parties' vote shares.
Split ticket voting in MMP occurs when a voter chooses the same party for both their constituency and party-list votes.
Answer: False
Explanation: Split ticket voting, or vote splitting, in MMP refers to a voter casting their constituency vote for one party's candidate and their party-list vote for a *different* party. Voting for the same party in both instances is known as 'straight-lining' or 'linked voting'.
Decoy lists are used by minor parties to confuse voters about their proportional representation eligibility.
Answer: False
Explanation: Decoy lists are typically employed by *major* parties to circumvent the compensatory mechanisms of MMP, often by running additional lists under different names to gain more seats than their primary list vote would warrant. Minor parties generally aim to gain representation, not confuse voters about eligibility.
In Germany's federal elections, overhang seats are always retained by the winning parties to maintain proportionality.
Answer: False
Explanation: Germany's federal electoral system has undergone reforms, notably to eliminate overhang seats. The principle is to ensure proportionality, and overhang seats, which inherently reduce proportionality, are typically not retained without compensatory measures or are eliminated entirely.
The spoiler effect is a phenomenon where a minor party's success prevents a major party from winning, even if the minor party is less preferred.
Answer: True
Explanation: This accurately describes the spoiler effect. In electoral systems, particularly plurality systems, votes for smaller parties perceived as similar to larger ones can draw support away from the larger party, potentially leading to its defeat by an even less preferred candidate or party.
The Independence of Clones paradox suggests that adding identical candidates can never change an election outcome in MMP.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Independence of Clones paradox, also known as the cloning paradox, posits that in certain voting systems, the addition or removal of identical candidates (clones) *can* alter the election outcome, highlighting potential vulnerabilities in preference aggregation.
The No-show paradox means that if a voter abstains, the election outcome will always shift in favor of their least preferred candidate.
Answer: False
Explanation: The No-show paradox describes a situation where a voter's abstention *can* alter the election outcome, but not necessarily in favor of their least preferred candidate. The direction and nature of the shift depend on the specific voting system and the distribution of preferences among other voters.
Strategic voting involves casting a ballot based on genuine preference rather than tactical considerations.
Answer: False
Explanation: Strategic voting is precisely the opposite: it involves casting a ballot based on tactical considerations to achieve a more desirable outcome, rather than voting for one's most preferred candidate or party if that choice is perceived as unlikely to succeed or potentially detrimental.
The center squeeze paradox occurs when a centrist candidate wins easily due to a lack of strategic voting.
Answer: False
Explanation: The center squeeze paradox describes a situation where a centrist candidate, potentially preferred by a majority, is defeated due to strategic voting. Voters may abandon the centrist candidate if they perceive them as unable to win, opting instead for a more viable candidate to prevent a less desirable outcome.
The best-is-worst paradox suggests that a voter's preferred candidate might be harmed if they perform better than anticipated.
Answer: True
Explanation: This paradox describes a scenario where a voter's preferred candidate performing better than expected can paradoxically lead to a worse outcome for the voter, often due to strategic calculations and the aggregation of preferences in complex voting systems.
A perverse response in voting systems means a voter's action leads to a more desirable outcome than they initially expected.
Answer: False
Explanation: A perverse response occurs when a voter's strategic action, intended to achieve a better outcome, inadvertently results in an even less desirable outcome than they originally feared or expected. It signifies an unintended negative consequence of strategic voting.
The spoiler effect is less likely to occur in MMP systems compared to purely majoritarian systems.
Answer: False
Explanation: The spoiler effect can still occur in MMP systems, particularly in constituency races. While the compensatory list seats aim to mitigate overall disproportionality, strategic voting and vote splitting in individual constituencies can still lead to outcomes where a less preferred candidate wins due to votes being 'spoiled' among similar candidates.
The "perverse response" paradox highlights how a voter's attempt to achieve a better outcome through strategic voting might paradoxically lead to a worse result.
Answer: True
Explanation: This accurately defines the perverse response paradox, where strategic voting, intended to improve electoral outcomes, can inadvertently lead to a less desirable result for the voter due to the complex dynamics of preference aggregation and strategic interactions.
Leveling seats are primarily used in majoritarian systems to ensure local winners gain extra representation.
Answer: False
Explanation: Leveling seats are a feature of *proportional* representation systems, specifically MMP, used to compensate for overhang seats and enhance overall proportionality. Majoritarian systems do not typically employ leveling seats.
The spoiler effect can occur when voters fear their vote for a minor party might be wasted if it falls below the electoral threshold.
Answer: True
Explanation: This fear of a vote being 'wasted' if it does not contribute to electing a candidate or helping a party cross the electoral threshold is a primary driver of the spoiler effect, leading voters to strategically support larger parties.
The center squeeze phenomenon can lead to the defeat of a centrist candidate preferred by a majority.
Answer: True
Explanation: The center squeeze paradox describes a situation where strategic voting by opponents of a centrist candidate, or by voters who perceive the centrist candidate as unelectable, can result in their defeat, even if they might be the preferred choice of a majority.
The best-is-worst paradox occurs when a candidate performs worse than expected, leading to a better outcome for their supporters.
Answer: False
Explanation: The best-is-worst paradox describes the opposite: a voter's preferred candidate performing *better* than anticipated can paradoxically lead to a worse outcome for the voter. This arises from strategic calculations and preference aggregation within the electoral system.
Overhang seats can potentially decrease the overall proportionality achieved by an MMP system.
Answer: True
Explanation: When a party wins more constituency seats than its proportional entitlement, these 'overhang seats' can disrupt the intended proportionality of the system. Measures like leveling seats are often employed to counteract this effect.
When does the phenomenon of 'overhang seats' occur in MMP?
Answer: When a party wins more constituency seats than its proportional entitlement based on the party-list vote.
Explanation: Overhang seats arise when a party secures more constituency seats than it would be allocated based on its overall party-list vote share, potentially impacting the system's proportionality.
The 'spoiler effect' in electoral systems can occur when:
Answer: A minor party draws votes away from a major party with similar policies, potentially causing the major party to lose.
Explanation: The spoiler effect describes how votes cast for a minor party can inadvertently benefit a less preferred major party by drawing support away from a similar major party, potentially leading to its defeat.
What is 'strategic voting' in the context of MMP?
Answer: Voting based on calculations to achieve a more desirable outcome, not necessarily reflecting true preference.
Explanation: Strategic voting involves casting a ballot not based on genuine preference, but rather on tactical considerations aimed at influencing the election outcome to achieve a preferred result, often by voting for a less-preferred but more viable candidate or party.
What paradox describes a situation where a voter's non-participation can alter the election outcome?
Answer: The No-show paradox
Explanation: The No-show paradox is an anomaly where a voter's decision not to vote can change the election result, potentially in a way contrary to their preferences.
What is a potential consequence of 'decoy lists' in MMP systems?
Answer: Major parties winning more seats than their proportional share would normally allow.
Explanation: Decoy lists are a tactic used by major parties to circumvent the compensatory nature of MMP, allowing them to win additional seats beyond their proportional entitlement and potentially undermining the system's proportionality.
Which of the following is NOT a factor mentioned that can prevent perfect proportionality in MMP?
Answer: The popularity of independent candidates
Explanation: While electoral thresholds, overhang seats, and apportionment methods are recognized factors influencing proportionality in MMP, the popularity of independent candidates is not typically cited as a direct impediment to achieving proportionality within the MMP framework itself.
What is the 'center squeeze' paradox?
Answer: When a centrist candidate is defeated due to strategic voting by opponents.
Explanation: The center squeeze paradox describes a situation where strategic voting dynamics can lead to the defeat of a centrist candidate, even if they might be the preferred choice of a majority, due to voters anticipating their potential lack of viability.
The 'best-is-worst paradox' relates to how:
Answer: A voter's preferred candidate performing better than expected can lead to a worse outcome for the voter.
Explanation: This paradox highlights how a candidate's unexpectedly strong performance can paradoxically result in a less favorable outcome for their supporters due to complex strategic calculations and preference aggregation within the electoral system.
New Zealand uses a system that is not MMP.
Answer: False
Explanation: New Zealand is a prominent example of a country that uses a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system, having adopted it following a referendum in the early 1990s.
The MMP system originated in New Zealand and was subsequently adopted by Germany.
Answer: False
Explanation: The compensatory mixed-member system (MMP) originated in Germany. New Zealand was one of the first countries to adopt a similar system later on.
New Zealand adopted its MMP system following a referendum held in 1993.
Answer: True
Explanation: New Zealand's transition to MMP was a significant electoral reform, culminating in a referendum in 1993 that approved the system, which was first implemented in the 1996 general election.
Lesotho uses a single-vote MMP system designed to prevent major parties from manipulating the system with decoy lists.
Answer: True
Explanation: Lesotho transitioned to a single-vote MMP system partly to mitigate the effectiveness of 'decoy lists,' a tactic used by major parties to gain disproportionate representation by running multiple party lists.
The Epsom electorate incident in New Zealand illustrated how MMP can lead voters to strategically support candidates from different parties for their constituency and list votes.
Answer: True
Explanation: The Epsom case is a notable example of strategic voting within New Zealand's MMP system, where voters strategically cast their constituency vote for a minor party candidate to help that party gain list seats, demonstrating complex voter behavior.
Prince Edward Island successfully implemented MMP following a referendum.
Answer: False
Explanation: While Prince Edward Island held referendums on electoral reform, including MMP, the system was not successfully implemented. Voter turnout concerns and subsequent decisions led to the rejection or abandonment of MMP adoption.
The Epsom electorate example in New Zealand demonstrates how MMP can lead to outcomes where voters strategically support candidates from different parties for their constituency and list votes.
Answer: True
Explanation: The Epsom case is a classic illustration of strategic voting within MMP, where voters may cast their constituency vote for a minor party candidate to help that party gain list seats, demonstrating complex voter behavior.
Which country is cited as the origin of the compensatory mixed-member system (MMP)?
Answer: Germany
Explanation: The compensatory mixed-member system, the precursor to modern MMP, originated in Germany.
Which of the following countries uses MMP or a closely related system, according to the source?
Answer: New Zealand
Explanation: New Zealand is explicitly mentioned as a country that employs an MMP system, alongside others like Germany and the UK (for devolved assemblies).
How did Germany modify its federal election system regarding overhang seats?
Answer: They eliminated overhang seats entirely.
Explanation: Recent reforms to Germany's federal electoral system have focused on eliminating overhang seats to ensure greater proportionality, marking a significant change from previous practices.
The Prince Edward Island referendum on electoral reform ultimately resulted in:
Answer: The rejection of MMP after initial support.
Explanation: Although initial referendums showed support for MMP in Prince Edward Island, subsequent government decisions based on factors like voter turnout ultimately led to the rejection or non-implementation of the system.
The Gallagher index is used to measure how proportional an electoral system's outcomes are.
Answer: True
Explanation: The Gallagher index is a widely recognized statistical measure designed to quantify the degree of disproportionality between a party's vote share and its seat share in an election, thereby evaluating the proportionality of the electoral system.
The Gallagher index measures the degree of strategic voting in an election.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Gallagher index is a measure of *disproportionality* between vote share and seat share, not strategic voting. It quantifies how closely an electoral system's outcome reflects the popular vote.
The Gallagher index quantifies the proportionality of seat allocation relative to vote share.
Answer: True
Explanation: This is the precise function of the Gallagher index. It provides a quantitative measure of the disproportionality between the percentage of votes a party receives and the percentage of seats it obtains in the legislature.
What is the 'Gallagher index' used to measure?
Answer: The degree of proportionality in an electoral system
Explanation: The Gallagher index is a statistical measure specifically designed to quantify the disproportionality between vote shares and seat allocations in an electoral system.