Talk:Proportional representation

Introduction Districts (third paragraph)

I like this wording (replaced in Jan 2023) Pro-rep systems require either a general pooling of votes or multiple-member voting districts. Pooling may be either at-large (as in most party-list systems) or in multi-district regions (as in Additional Member Systems). Some MMP systems use at-large pooling in conjunction with single-member districts (New Zealand); others use at-large pooling in conjunction with multi-member districts (Denmark). Multiple-member voting districts are used whenever Single transferable voting or Single non-transferable voting is used.

the thing is: there are multi-member districts and there is wider pooling. I would not call an at-large pooling an MMD, although it elects multiple members - I don't see it as a district, especially if the country is also divided into single-member districts as in NZ's MMP.

As well, there are single-member districts (in MMP)

There are also multi-district regions as in Scotland's Additional Member System.

to say that MMDs are pooling of votes does not quite cover the matter. to say "multi-member regions (as in most party-list systems)" raises questions. do we know that most PR systems use regions? I would think most use at-large pooling. only AMS uses regions as far as I know.

if we are saying that MMDS are pooling, then I will change the following "Pooling may be either at-large (countrywide) or in several multi-member regions (as in most party-list systems)." to show that. 68.150.222.51 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the way it was in the introduction it was very confusing and too detailed, but agree that it should be made clear that PR systems have to pool votes to elect multiple candidates at once. I don't know if the introduction is the best place to elaborate on this, but as far as I know the general idea is these kinds of PR are typical:

-pooling at large, ie single district for country (list PR) -pooling in MMDs (STV, list PR) -pooling in MMDs + at large (list PR with leveling seats) -SMDs + pooling in MMDs or at large (MMP)

Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

yes i agree pacing is important. But i don't actually see where you took out reference to STV in the introduction, a few times ago. the introduction seems just as long as it was two weeks ago. But perhaps i am wrong.

you list "SMDs + pooling in MMDs or at large (MMP)"

the pooling in MMDs does not make sense to me

I see

- pooling at large, ie single country-wide district (list PR)

- pooling in MMDs (STV, list PR (where subdivisions of the country are used))

-pooling in MMDs (list PR) + pooling at large (list PR leveling seats) Denmark

-SMDs + pooling at large (NZ MMP)

-SMDs + pooling in multi-district multi-member regions (Scottish AMS)

A multi-district multi-member region used in Scottish AMS is not a MMD to my mind. as it itself is a grouping of districts.

right now text ends with "or in."

I will put in "regions electing multiple members (list PR leveling seats)" to be grammatically correct. 174.3.203.119 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

this seems correct (I referred to groupings of SMDs/MMDs as MMDs as well, since they technically are also multi-member districts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankedchoicevoter (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to emphasize that the districts and regions are different tiers, as, it seems, is mentioned in "How party-list PR works" - unless I mis-understand the use of the word region there. Tom 68.150.222.51 (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Understand, I tried to make my latest polishing edit with this in mind (districts, regions I think these terms are used if different ways in different jurisdictions and papers best not to go into it in detail in the intro, but tried to make the wording consistent with this: lower tier is either SMD or MMD, while upper tier is regional or at-large, which are technically also MMDs/"districts" and but to avoid confusion, not referred to as such) Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

votes actually used to elect someone

Introduction, the article reads: 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 ...

Effective has two different meanings - actually and having the effect of. It is unclear that "actually" is what is meant.

PR is such that all votes cast - or almost all votes cast - contribute to the result and are actually used to help elect someone. 68.150.222.51 (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Coalitions

the table does not match the text nearby

Countries with PR do not appear to have more elections.

the table says Italy is PR list while the text says it is parallel voting and definitely not PR. 68.150.222.51 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Minimum number of constituency seats no longer exists in Germany.

"In Germany and New Zealand (both MMP), the threshold is 5% of the national vote but the threshold is not applied to parties that win a minimum number of constituency seats (three in Germany, one in New Zealand)."

This is no longer true. The so called "Minimum mandate clause" (Grundmandatsklausel), which was responsible for this, no longer exist.

(German) Electoral law reform adopted to reduce the size of the Bundestag

The direct mandate has been weakened and the decision has been made to go to a more purely proportional voting method, so I am not sure, if calling it MMPR is even appropriate anymore.

Unfortunately, I could not find the English version of the document. Sorry.

I already made the edit 09:46, 1 July 2024‎, but to clarify why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dueldu (talk • contribs)

the grahic showing seat distribution under MMP and parallel majortarian

graphics show more than four parties (six parties shown?) but parties A, B, C, D took 100 percent of the votes in the number charts that accompany the graphics. 2604:3D09:8880:11E0:E56B:939A:8576:6A7B (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, the shading indicates how many seats are FPTP seats vs top-up (compensatory) seats. Take the total composition of the MMP assembly as an example:

The color are brown/dark red, red/orange, dark blue, blue, green, dark purple, and purple.

That doesn't mean that there are seven parties, just that the red party got some FPTP seats (colored dark red) as well as some top-up seats (colored red/orange). Similarly, the blue party got FPTP seats (dark blue) and top-up seats (blue), the green party only got top-up seats, and the purple party got both kinds, but only a few FPTP seats. Wotwotwoot (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)