What is Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)?

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) is an electoral system that combines local winner-take-all elections with a compensatory tier using party lists. Its primary goal is to achieve proportional representation overall, meaning the total number of seats a party wins in the legislature closely reflects its share of the national vote.

How does a typical MMP system allocate seats?

In a typical MMP system, voters cast two votes: one for a candidate in their local constituency and one for a political party. Seats are first allocated to the winners of the constituency elections. Then, additional seats are allocated to parties based on their national or regional party vote share, compensating for any disproportionality from the constituency results.

What is the main difference between MMP and Mixed-Member Majoritarian (MMM) or parallel voting systems?

The key difference lies in how the compensatory tier is used. In MMP, the additional seats are allocated to achieve overall proportionality across all seats, ensuring parties get a share of seats reflecting their vote share. In contrast, MMM or parallel voting systems allocate the additional seats independently of the constituency results, often leading to less proportional outcomes.

What are the two types of votes a voter typically casts in an MMP system?

Voters typically cast two votes: one for a candidate in their single-seat constituency, and another for a political party's list. This dual-vote system allows voters to support a local candidate they prefer, even if that candidate is from a different party than their preferred national party.

How are constituency representatives usually elected in MMP systems?

Constituency representatives are usually elected using a first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting method, where the candidate who receives the most votes (a plurality) wins the seat. This is the same method used in many other electoral systems, like those in the United States and the United Kingdom for their national legislatures.

What is the role of party lists in MMP?

Party lists are used to elect the non-constituency members, often called list MPs. These lists are typically published in advance by the political parties, and seats are allocated to candidates on these lists based on the party's overall performance in the party-list vote, serving as a compensatory mechanism.

What are "overhang seats" in the context of MMP?

Overhang seats occur when a political party wins more constituency seats than it would be entitled to based on its proportional share of the party-list vote. These surplus seats can potentially reduce the overall proportionality of the election outcome.

How are overhang seats typically managed in MMP systems?

Most MMP systems allow parties to keep their overhang seats. To maintain proportionality, additional "leveling seats" are often added to the legislature to compensate for these overhangs, ensuring that the final seat distribution more accurately reflects the party vote percentages.

What are "leveling seats"?

Leveling seats, also known as compensatory seats, are additional seats allocated in the legislature specifically to counteract disproportionalities caused by overhang seats. Their purpose is to bring the overall seat distribution closer to the parties' respective vote shares.

Can MMP systems guarantee perfect proportionality?

While MMP aims for proportionality, perfect proportionality is not always achieved. Factors like electoral thresholds, the number of overhang seats, and the specific apportionment methods used can influence the final seat distribution. Some systems may provide semi-proportional representation rather than full proportionality.

What is the "personalized proportional representation" (PPR) system used in Germany?

Germany's system, originally termed "personalized proportional representation" (PPR), is a form of MMP that emphasizes the individual candidate's link to a constituency. While it aims for proportionality, its specific implementation, including recent changes to eliminate overhang seats, has led some to view it as a localized version of proportional representation rather than a purely mixed system.

How does the Additional Member System (AMS) used in the UK differ from typical MMP?

The Additional Member System (AMS) used in Scotland and the London Assembly is a variant of MMP. While it aims for proportionality, its specific calculation method for allocating regional list seats can prevent overhang seats, and it is sometimes considered less proportional than other MMP implementations.

What is "dual candidacy" in MMP systems?

Dual candidacy refers to the practice where candidates can stand for election in both a constituency and on a party list simultaneously. If such a candidate wins a constituency seat, they typically do not also take a list seat; instead, they are removed from the party list, and the party seat goes to the next eligible candidate on that party's list.

What is a common apportionment method used in MMP systems to allocate compensatory seats?

Common apportionment methods used to allocate compensatory seats in MMP systems include the D'Hondt method and the Sainte-Laguë method. These mathematical formulas help distribute the remaining seats proportionally based on the parties' vote totals after constituency seats have been accounted for.

What is an "electoral threshold" in the context of MMP?

An electoral threshold is a minimum percentage of the party vote that a party must achieve to be eligible for any seats allocated via the party list. This mechanism is designed to prevent excessive fragmentation of the legislature by excluding very small parties.

How can a party become eligible for list seats even if it doesn't meet the general electoral threshold?

In some MMP systems, a party can still qualify for list seats if it wins a certain number of constituency seats, even if its overall party vote percentage falls below the threshold. This provides a pathway for smaller parties with strong local support to gain representation.

What is "split ticket voting" or "vote splitting" in MMP?

Split ticket voting occurs when a voter casts their constituency vote for one party's candidate and their party-list vote for a different party. This can happen intentionally for strategic reasons, such as ensuring a minor party crosses the electoral threshold or to express a preference for a local candidate independent of party affiliation.

What are "decoy lists" and how do they affect MMP systems?

Decoy lists are created by major parties, often under a different name, to contest the party-list seats. This tactic is used to circumvent the compensatory mechanisms of MMP, effectively allowing a party to win more seats than its proportional share would normally dictate, potentially turning MMP into a de facto parallel voting system.

Which countries currently use MMP or a very similar system?

Countries that currently use MMP or closely related systems include Bolivia, Germany (for state parliaments), Lesotho, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (specifically Scotland and the London Assembly).

What is the historical origin of the MMP system?

The compensatory mixed-member system, often referred to as MMP, originated in Germany. It was later adopted with modifications in New Zealand.

How did New Zealand adopt its MMP system?

New Zealand adopted its MMP system following a significant electoral reform process that began in 1985 with the Royal Commission on the Electoral System and concluded with a 1993 referendum. The system was first used in the 1996 general election and was reaffirmed by a referendum in 2011.

What is the "single vote" variant of MMP?

The single vote variant of MMP, originally used in Germany, means voters cast only one ballot. This vote determines both the constituency representative and the party's proportional representation, linking the two aspects more directly and reducing opportunities for strategic vote splitting.

What is the "mixed single vote" system in the context of MMP?

The "mixed single vote" system is a variant where voters cast only one vote, which serves for both the constituency election and the proportional allocation of seats. This approach is considered more robust against tactical manipulation than dual-vote systems.

How did Germany's federal election system change regarding overhang seats?

Germany's federal election system has undergone modifications, notably to eliminate overhang seats entirely. This means that constituency winners may not always keep their seats if they exceed the party's proportional allocation, and these seats are reallocated to ensure proportionality.

What is the "spoiler effect" in electoral systems, and how might it relate to MMP?

The spoiler effect occurs when a vote for a minor party draws votes away from a major party with similar policies, potentially causing the major party to lose to an even less preferred candidate. In MMP, this can manifest if voters strategically vote for a minor party in the constituency to help it win, or tactically vote for a minor party on the list to help it cross a threshold, potentially impacting the overall proportionality.

What is the "Independence of Clones" paradox in relation to electoral systems?

The Independence of Clones paradox, also known as the cloning paradox, is a situation where adding or removing identical candidates (clones) from a ballot can change the election outcome. This paradox highlights potential vulnerabilities in certain voting methods within mixed systems.

What is the "No-show paradox" in voting systems?

The No-show paradox is a voting system anomaly where a voter's decision not to participate in an election can alter the outcome, potentially in favor of a candidate the non-voting individual might have opposed. This paradox highlights potential vulnerabilities in certain voting methods.

What is "strategic voting" in the context of MMP?

Strategic voting in MMP refers to voters casting their ballots not based on their true preferences, but to achieve a more desirable outcome. This can involve voting for a less-preferred candidate or party to prevent a worse outcome, or to maximize a party's chances of gaining seats or crossing thresholds.

How did the electoral system in Lesotho change regarding MMP?

Lesotho initially used a two-vote MMP system but changed to a single-vote system in 2012. This adjustment was made to limit the effectiveness of "decoy lists," a tactic used by major parties to manipulate the compensatory mechanisms of the MMP system.

What is the "index of disproportionality" and how is it used to evaluate electoral systems?

The index of disproportionality, such as the Gallagher index, is a statistical measure used to quantify how closely the percentage of seats a party wins in a legislature matches its percentage of the total votes cast. Lower scores indicate higher proportionality, which is a key goal of MMP systems.

What is the Gallagher index used for in electoral system analysis?

The Gallagher index is a measure of disproportionality in electoral systems. It quantifies the difference between a party's vote share and its seat share, with lower values indicating a more proportional outcome.

What is the difference between "seat linkage" and "vote linkage" in mixed electoral systems?

Seat linkage connects the allocation of list seats to the results of constituency elections to achieve proportionality, as seen in MMP. Vote linkage, on the other hand, directly ties the voter's single ballot to both the constituency and party representation, as in single-vote MMP systems.

What is the "spoiler effect" in relation to electoral thresholds?

The spoiler effect related to electoral thresholds occurs when voters, fearing a minor party might fall below the threshold and waste their vote, strategically vote for a larger party. This can inadvertently help the larger party win or prevent the minor party from gaining representation, even if it meets the threshold.

How did the Epsom electorate in New Zealand illustrate tactical voting in an MMP system?

In the Epsom electorate, voters from the National Party strategically voted for the ACT Party candidate. This was done to help ACT cross the 5% threshold for list seats, as ACT's candidate was the local MP for Epsom, thereby bypassing the threshold issue for that party.

What was the outcome of the 2016 Prince Edward Island electoral reform referendum regarding MMP?

In a non-binding plebiscite, Prince Edward Island voters favored MMP over FPTP. However, the provincial government deemed the voter turnout too low to implement the change, and a subsequent referendum in 2019 rejected MMP.

What is the "center squeeze" paradox in voting theory?

The center squeeze paradox describes a situation where a centrist candidate, who might be preferred by a majority over any other single candidate, can be defeated due to strategic voting, as voters may opt for a more viable candidate to prevent a less desirable outcome.

What is the "best-is-worst paradox" in voting systems?

The best-is-worst paradox describes a scenario where a voter's preferred candidate can be harmed if that candidate performs better than expected, potentially leading to a worse overall outcome for the voter. This paradox relates to strategic voting and the complexities of preference aggregation.

What is the "perverse response" in voting systems?

A perverse response occurs when a voter's strategic action, such as voting for a less-preferred candidate to block a worse outcome, inadvertently leads to an even less desirable result for that voter. This highlights the challenges of strategic voting in complex electoral systems.

What is the "single vote MMP" system, and where is it used?

Single vote MMP is a variant where voters cast only one ballot, which counts for both their local constituency candidate and their party's proportional representation. Lesotho is an example of a country that uses this system.

What is the "Additional Member System" (AMS) and where is it primarily used?

The Additional Member System (AMS) is a type of mixed-member proportional representation system, most notably used in the United Kingdom for elections to the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly. It aims for proportionality but differs in its specific calculation methods.

What is the primary goal of Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)?

The primary goal of MMP is to achieve proportional representation in the legislature, ensuring that the distribution of seats among political parties closely reflects the share of votes each party received from the electorate.

What is the "compensatory tier" in an MMP system?

The compensatory tier in MMP refers to the allocation of party-list seats. These seats are used to "top up" a party's representation, compensating for any disproportionality that may have arisen from the constituency-based elections.

How do MMP systems typically handle candidates who win both a constituency seat and are high on a party list?

In cases of dual candidacy, if a candidate wins a constituency seat, they are typically removed from the party list. The list seat they would have occupied is then awarded to the next eligible candidate on that party's list, ensuring that no single candidate holds two seats.

What is the "mixed-member majoritarian" (MMM) system?

The mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) system is another type of mixed electoral system that combines single-winner constituencies with party lists. However, unlike MMP, it does not use the party list seats to compensate for disproportionality, resulting in less proportional outcomes.

What is the "threshold" in an electoral system?

An electoral threshold is a minimum percentage of votes a party must receive to be eligible for seats allocated through the party list. This is a common feature in proportional representation systems, including MMP, to prevent excessive fragmentation of the legislature.

What is the "spoiler effect" in electoral systems?

The spoiler effect occurs when a candidate or party, particularly a smaller one, draws votes away from a major party with similar policies, potentially causing the major party to lose to a less preferred candidate or outcome.

What is the "multiple districts paradox" in voting theory?

The multiple districts paradox describes a situation where a voting system's outcome can change depending on how electoral districts are drawn or combined. This paradox is relevant to evaluating the fairness and stability of electoral systems, including mixed systems.

What is the "center squeeze" phenomenon in voting systems?

The center squeeze phenomenon occurs when a centrist candidate, who might be the Condorcet winner (preferred by a majority over any other single candidate), can be defeated by strategic voting if voters anticipate that the centrist candidate is unlikely to win and instead vote for a more viable, albeit less preferred, candidate.

What is the "no-show paradox" in voting systems?

The no-show paradox is a voting system anomaly where a voter's decision not to participate in an election can alter the outcome, potentially in favor of a candidate the non-voting individual might have opposed. This paradox highlights potential vulnerabilities in certain voting methods.

What is the "best-is-worst paradox" in voting systems?

The best-is-worst paradox describes a scenario where a voter's preferred candidate can be harmed if that candidate performs better than expected, potentially leading to a worse overall outcome for the voter. This paradox relates to strategic voting and the complexities of preference aggregation.

What is the "perverse response" in voting systems?

A perverse response occurs when a voter's strategic action, such as voting for a less-preferred candidate to block a worse outcome, inadvertently leads to an even less desirable result for that voter. This highlights the challenges of strategic voting in complex electoral systems.

Mixed-member Proportional Representation Wiki: The Mechanics of Representation: Understanding Mixed-Member Proportionality

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Core Concept

Defining MMP

Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) representation is a category of mixed electoral systems designed to achieve overall proportional representation. It achieves this by combining local, winner-take-all elections with a compensatory tier utilizing party lists. While the goal is proportionality, variations in implementation can lead to semi-proportional outcomes.

Balancing Representation

MMP systems typically grant voters two votes: one for a constituency representative (often using First-Past-The-Post) and another for a political party. The party list seats are then allocated to compensate for any disproportionality arising from the constituency results, ensuring that a party's seat share closely mirrors its share of the party vote.

Distinction from Majoritarian Systems

Unlike Mixed-Member Majoritarian (MMM) systems, which often use parallel voting (where the two vote types operate independently), MMP's compensatory mechanism ensures that the total number of seats allocated aims for overall proportionality. Even if one party wins more constituency seats than its vote share warrants, the system seeks to balance this across all seats.

Alternative Designations

German Origins

The foundational MMP system originated in Germany, where it is known as "personalized proportional representation" (personalisiertes Verhältniswahlrecht). This system emphasizes the link between constituents and their representatives while maintaining overall party proportionality.

New Zealand's MMP

New Zealand adopted a modified MMP system following extensive electoral reform. It is a prominent example of how MMP can be implemented, though specific rules regarding overhang seats and compensation can vary.

Additional Member System (AMS)

In the United Kingdom, particularly for devolved assemblies like the Scottish Parliament, a similar system is termed the "Additional Member System" (AMS). While sharing MMP principles, AMS can sometimes result in less proportionality compared to other MMP variants.

Canadian Variations

In Canada, MMP models have been studied and proposed, sometimes referred to as "compensatory mixed-member" systems, reflecting the core compensatory principle.

Operational Mechanics

The Dual-Vote System

Most MMP systems employ a two-vote system. The first vote selects a local candidate in a single-member constituency, typically using a plurality (First-Past-The-Post) method. The second vote is cast for a political party, determining the overall proportional allocation of seats.

This separation allows voters to support a local candidate from one party while endorsing another party's platform with their second vote, a phenomenon known as "split-ticket voting." The effectiveness of this system relies on the compensatory allocation of list seats.

List Allocation and Compensation

Following the constituency elections, party list seats are allocated. The goal is to ensure that each party's total number of seats (constituency + list) reflects its share of the second (party) vote. Apportionment methods like D'Hondt or Sainte-Laguë are commonly used for this calculation.

Apportionment methods determine how the available list seats are distributed among parties based on their vote totals. The number of constituency seats already won by a party is subtracted from its proportional entitlement, with the remaining seats filled from party lists.

Single-Vote Variants

Some MMP systems utilize a single vote, where the vote for a constituency candidate also counts as the party vote. This approach simplifies the ballot and can reduce opportunities for tactical manipulation, though it may offer less voter choice.

Comparative Analysis

System Differences

The following table illustrates how different electoral system designs, particularly variations of mixed systems, impact proportionality and seat allocation. MMP systems, especially those with leveling seats, generally achieve higher proportionality.

Compensatory mixed systems			Broadly mixed-member proportional type of system (MMP)
	single vote systems (MSV)	dual vote systems	Additional member system (AMS)		Overhang seats re-added		True MMP (with leveling seats)
Seat linkage	Mixed single vote, top-up versions single vote MMP (Lesotho)	Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP)	Additional member system (AMS)		Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP)		True MMP (with leveling seats)
		Alternative vote plus (AV+)	Hybrids: e.g. parallel voting+AMS (South Korea)		New Zealand, Germany (until 2009)		Germany (2013, 2017)
		Vote linkage	Mixed single vote (PVT/MSV) Hungarian (local elections)	Hybrids: Parallel voting+PVT (Hungary) Negative vote transfer/scorporo (Italy, 1993–2005)	Others systems:
			Dual-member proportional (DMP)	Mixed ballot transferable vote (MBTV)
Party		Popular vote (%)	Constituencies won	Seats	Share (%)	Seats	Share (%)	Seats	Share (%)	Seats	Share (%)
	Party A	43%	54	67 (54+13)	67%	54 (54+0)	54%	54 (54+0+0)	48%	71 (54+0+17)	43%
	Party B	41%	11	24 (11+13)	24%	34 (11+23)	34%	41 (11+23+7)	36%	68 (11+23+34)	41%
	Party C	13%	0	3 (0+3)	3%	7 (0+7)	7%	13 (0+7+6)	12%	21 (0+7+14)	13%
	Party D	3%	5	5 (5+0)	5%	5 (5+0)	5%	5 (5+0+0)	4%	5 (5+0+0)	3%
	TOTAL	100%	70	100 (70+30)	100%	100 (70+30)	100%	113 (70+30+13)	100%	165 (70+30+65)	100%
Index of disproportionality (Gallagher)				22.01 (disproportional)		10.25 (moderately disproportional)		4.97 (considered proportional)		0.25 (highly proportional)
Method used				Independent PR tier		Fixed number of compensatory seats		Number of (extra) leveling seats = number of overhang seats		As many leveling seats as needed
This type of system used in				Russia, among others		Scotland, among others		New Zealand, Germany (until 2009)		Germany (2013, 2017)

Managing Overhang Seats

The Overhang Dilemma

Overhang seats occur when a party wins more constituency seats than its proportional vote share would entitle it to. These surplus seats can reduce the overall proportionality of the system.

In most MMP systems, parties are allowed to keep these overhang seats. However, this can lead to situations where a party's seat share does not accurately reflect its vote share, potentially requiring compensatory measures.

Leveling Seats

To counteract the disproportionality caused by overhang seats, many MMP systems introduce "leveling seats" (or "compensatory seats"). These additional seats are allocated to other parties to restore overall proportionality.

The number of leveling seats added ensures that the final seat distribution accurately reflects the party vote percentages, even if some parties have won more constituency seats than their vote share would normally allow. Germany's system, for example, has evolved to incorporate leveling seats to maintain high proportionality.

Avoiding Overhangs

Some systems aim to prevent overhang seats altogether. For instance, recent German electoral law modifications (as of 2023) may prevent constituency winners from taking their seats if their party has already achieved its proportional allocation. Romania's system previously prevented overhangs by requiring candidates to win an absolute majority in their district to secure a direct mandate.

Electoral Thresholds

Purpose of Thresholds

Similar to other proportional representation systems, MMP often includes an electoral threshold. This is a minimum percentage of the party vote a party must achieve to be eligible for list seats. Thresholds aim to prevent excessive fragmentation of the legislature by discouraging very small parties.

Impact on Strategy

Thresholds can influence voter behavior, potentially encouraging tactical voting. Voters might support a minor party predicted to poll near the threshold to maximize their preferred political camp's representation, fearing their vote might be wasted if the party falls short.

Thresholds in Practice

Examples include Germany's 5% threshold (or winning three constituency seats) and New Zealand's 5% threshold (or winning a constituency seat). Scotland, however, has no formal threshold, relying instead on the "district magnitude" (number of seats per electoral region) to impose an effective threshold.

Strategic Maneuvers

Decoy Lists

A significant challenge in MMP systems, particularly those with dual votes, is the potential for "decoy lists." Parties may create subsidiary or allied parties (decoy lists) to contest list seats, aiming to capture more seats than they would under a direct party vote, thereby distorting proportionality.

This tactic was notably observed in Albania, Lesotho, South Korea, and Venezuela. It effectively turns the compensatory mechanism into a parallel system if widely adopted, undermining the core principle of MMP.

Vote Linkage

To mitigate issues like decoy lists and tactical voting, systems can employ "vote linkage." This ensures that the constituency and party votes are more closely tied, reducing the incentive or ability for parties to manipulate the system through separate list strategies.

Solutions Explored

Potential solutions include abolishing the dual-vote system in favor of a mixed single-vote approach, or modifying the seat linkage mechanism. Adjusting the number of compensatory seats or eliminating the constituency seat advantage for parties below the threshold are also considered measures.

Global Implementation

Current MMP Users

Several countries currently utilize MMP or closely related systems. These implementations vary in their specific rules regarding vote types, compensation mechanisms, and thresholds.

Bolivia: Uses a two-vote system with a double simultaneous vote, achieving relatively proportional results.
Germany: Utilizes MMP at the federal level and in most state parliaments, with variations in list types (closed vs. open) and compensation rules.
Lesotho: Transitioned from a two-vote to a single-vote system to curb tactical manipulation.
New Zealand: A prominent example, adopted after extensive reform, with a two-vote system and a review mechanism.
United Kingdom: Employs the Additional Member System (AMS) in Scotland and London, a variant of MMP.

Historical and Proposed Use

MMP has been proposed or used historically in various other countries, though often with modifications or issues related to proportionality.

Albania (formerly): Used a two-vote system manipulated by decoy lists.
Canada: MMP proposed by the Law Commission; debated in several provinces (PEI, Ontario, BC, Quebec) but not widely adopted.
Hungary (formerly): Used a mixed majoritarian system, sometimes inaccurately referred to as MMP.
Romania (formerly): Employed a single-vote system that failed to achieve MMP.
South Korea (formerly): Used a hybrid system with compensatory seats, but decoy lists limited proportionality.
Thailand (formerly): Utilized a single-vote seat linkage system.
Venezuela (formerly): Introduced MMP but reverted to parallel voting due to system gaming.
Costa Rica, Hungary, South Africa, Sri Lanka: Have seen proposals or debates regarding MMP adoption or reform.

Related Concepts

Electoral Mechanics

Explore related electoral systems and concepts that influence representation and proportionality.

Additional Member System
Mixed-Member Majoritarian Representation
Parallel Voting
Leveling Seat
Decoy List
Mixed Single Vote
Mixed Ballot Transferable Vote
Dual-Member Proportional
Biproportional Apportionment

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Mixed-member Proportional Representation" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about mixed-member_proportional_representation while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

veneralia

dallas observer

sapienza university of rome

trois morceaux en forme de poire

borscht

gazprom

upper tanana language

damien rice

university of al-qarawiyyin

larry mcreynolds

References

Mayorga 1997; Mayorga 2001, p. 194.

Gallagher 2011, p. 185; Gallagher 2014, p. 18.

Stuart Stevens' ... Past Clients| Penn Bullock| 29 October 2012| tnr.com| accessed 29.10.2012

A full list of references for this article are available at the Mixed-member proportional representation Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer

Important Considerations

This content was generated by an AI model and is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It is based on data from Wikipedia and aims to provide a comprehensive overview of Mixed-Member Proportional Representation.

This is not political or legal advice. The information presented should not substitute consultation with electoral system experts, political scientists, or legal professionals. Electoral laws and their implementation can be complex and vary significantly between jurisdictions. Always refer to official sources and expert analysis for specific applications.

The creators of this page are not liable for any errors, omissions, or actions taken based on the information provided herein. Understanding electoral systems requires careful study of specific contexts and legal frameworks.

Mixed-Member Proportionality

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

Core Concept ⚖️

📊 Defining MMP

🤝 Balancing Representation

💡 Distinction from Majoritarian Systems

Alternative Designations 🏷️

🇩🇪 German Origins

🇳🇿 New Zealand's MMP

🇬🇧 Additional Member System (AMS)

🇨🇦 Canadian Variations

Operational Mechanics ⚙️

🗳️ The Dual-Vote System

📜 List Allocation and Compensation

🔄 Single-Vote Variants

Comparative Analysis 📊

📈 System Differences

Managing Overhang Seats 🔄

⚠️ The Overhang Dilemma

➕ Leveling Seats

🚫 Avoiding Overhangs

Electoral Thresholds 🚪

📊 Purpose of Thresholds

🤔 Impact on Strategy

⚖️ Thresholds in Practice

Strategic Maneuvers ♟️

🎭 Decoy Lists

🔗 Vote Linkage

💡 Solutions Explored

Global Implementation 🌍

📜 Current MMP Users

⏳ Historical and Proposed Use

Related Concepts 🔗

📚 Electoral Mechanics

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Considerations

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Core Concept

Defining MMP

Balancing Representation

Distinction from Majoritarian Systems

Alternative Designations

German Origins

New Zealand's MMP

Additional Member System (AMS)

Canadian Variations

Operational Mechanics

The Dual-Vote System

List Allocation and Compensation

Single-Vote Variants

Comparative Analysis

System Differences

Managing Overhang Seats

The Overhang Dilemma

Leveling Seats

Avoiding Overhangs

Electoral Thresholds

Purpose of Thresholds

Impact on Strategy

Thresholds in Practice

Strategic Maneuvers

Decoy Lists

Vote Linkage

Solutions Explored

Global Implementation

Current MMP Users

Historical and Proposed Use

Related Concepts

Electoral Mechanics

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Academic Disclaimer

Important Considerations