Talk:Parallel voting/Archive 1

Archive 1

D'Hondt

Err, I don't think this is used in Croatian elections. Rather, the D'Hondt method is used. I don't think that the description in this article matched that method... does it? --Shallot 15:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not so, (I have no idea about Croatia), but... The D'Hondt method is one of many methods to allocate seats within proportional systems. The D'Hondt formula can be used to decide who gets what seat and so forth under proportional representation. Am I making sense (probably not). But they are not mutually exclusive. --LeftyG 07:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Good governance

Good governance requires both strong governments and reasonably strong oppositions

Seems awfully POV to me... 24.218.58.113 18:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strong government

Since plurality voting in single member constituencies is likely to lead to clear majorities, and thus "strong government"[citation needed], the extra seats that the big parties are likely to win as well are unnecessary for strong government. The opposition, which may only win seats in the SM part of the election, may be too weak to ensure that the government is accountable, leading to less than good government.[citation needed]

Is "Strong government" defined somehow, (eg. Large majority of seats?) or is this POV? "Less than good government" seems to be very subjective... Who is to say what is "good" government... A rewording may be be beneficial here, I am not entirely sure what point the paragraph is making, though there does seem like there might be a legitimate one somewhere in there! :) In it's current form, I am afraid I can't see what the paragraph adds... FleckerMan (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The map is wrong

The map has the blue shade on the country Niger, yet that country's name is not listed on the countries' list below. Something must be wrong, that either the map is incorrect or that country's name is mistakently left out. Soomaali 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there were also mistakes in the list, so I corrected those. No idea how to change the map though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.148.58 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone or a group of people, need to do result into this page and others, and set the record straight on who uses what system, and if the map is wrong, a no one can correct it, delete it. Better to have correct info in a list without a map than to have a mix of a correct list but a false map.--184.77.10.72 (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please delete 'commonly referred to as the Russian System'

This was called "Parallel voting" for decades before Russia tried it. Google lists only 4,790 hits for voting 'Russian System'. It lists 36,600 for 'Parallel voting'. Less than 2,000 of those mention Russia. Robert Loring 10:17, 8 August 25, 2009 (EST)

Question assertion MMP 'leadership has to run in the local seats'.

Have there been any MMP elections in which a major party won no list seats? Rod Donald co-lead the NZ campaign to adopt MMP. He says 1 reason they wanted it was to give list seats to experts who didn't campaign well, i.e. some cabinet members. Robert Loring 11:31, 16 November, 2009 (EST)

Sentence is unintelligible

Could someone correct this sentence?

The proportion of list seats compared to total seats ranges widely; for example, 18.7% in South Korea, 37.5% in Japan, and 68.7% in Armenia 90.4%.

It seems that it used to say:

The proportion of list seats compared to total seats ranges widely, from 37.5% in Japan to 18.7% in South Korea to 68.7% in Armenia and 90.4% in Timor Leste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.136.29 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Andorra

I think Andorra should be added, according to elections in Andorra and Andorran parliamentary election, 2011. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 23:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Question, edit?, and Secondary Mandate?

Is Parallel Voting a difference system to addisonal member system, mixed member proportional repesentation, and Alternative Vote + (and it various forms)? If they are just difference types of PV, I recamend we admend the elections methods table in a way that reflex this, like so: Parallel Voting (Addiosonal Member System, Alternative Vote +, Mixed Meember Majority) without Mixed Member PR as that is a full PR voting system, not semi PR.

Also, shouldn't Secondary Mandate, a proposed refrom of the UK House of Lords, be inculded on the table?

Just like another opinion before making any changes.--Kanga-Kucha (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Kanga-Kucha, considering the descriptions in the current articles, I don't think, that the mentioned systems are the same or special cases of each other. For example, an essential aspect of "parallel voting" is that "the results in one election have little or no impact on the results of the other". The standard example would be "10 seats are elected (by plurality) in 10 district, 10 other seats are (completely independently) elected by proportional representation." So, you have 20 seats, for the first 10 you only have to look at the plurality results to determine the allocation of these 10 seats. For the other 10 seats you only have to look at the proportional results to determine the allocation of those 10 seats. If the results for the first 10 seats would be completely different, there would be no change for the last 10 seats - and vice versa.
• In "additional member system", there is no such partitioning of seats. In fact, the results of both parts are closely interconnected. First, all district winners get a seat. After that, the seats not allocated yet, are allocated considering both, the results from the proportional ballots AND the already allocated district seats.
• "Mixed member proportional representation" (as used in the German Bundestag until now) has a close interconnection between the two vote types, too. First, the "standard size" of seats are allocated by the proportional votes. Now, it is checked if the parties got enough seats so that all their district winners have already a seat. If this is not the case, they get additional seats until all district winners have a seat.
• I don't know av+ other than the article on wikipedia and I can't undoubtfully diagnose, if it - in principle - matches one of the three models above. The only thing, that is obvious is, that av+ uses instant runoff voting instead of plurality in the district component.

So, "parallel voting" has a definite number of seats and a definite number of seats allocated only by the (plurality) district votes and a definite number of seats allocated only by the proportional votes, without relation between them.

"Additional member system" has also a definite number of seats, but although there is a definite number of seats allocated by the district votes, these seats are considered while allocating the remaining seats, so the proportional votes are evaluated over all seats, i.e. also the district seats.

"Mixed member proportional representation" don't have a definite number of seats. The number of seats is obtained at the end of the interconnected allocation computation out of both, the proportional and district votes.

So, I think, they are different types of voting systems and their articles should not be integrated into each others. --Arno Nymus (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not compensatory

Additional/Mixed Member Systems are compensatory ie the 'top up' element is to ensure overall proportionality. The more seats you win in the first-past-the-post section section the fewer in the top up list section. Under Parallel voting the proportional section isn't a top up - and parties are awarded seats in proportion to their votes cast for that section - and do not consider votes or seats from the first past the post section.

A comparison of New Zealand elections under the more proportional MMS and semi-proportional SM MMS Vs SM (Coachtripfan (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Explanation of SM voting

Here is an explanation of Paralllel Voting/SM voting, including youtube video Supplementary Vote explained(Coachtripfan (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

two aspects to improve the article

This article's factual accuracy is disputed, we can provide more information in each country’s section, for example, provide some examples and numbers to prove how parallel voting happened in each country. The tone sometimes is not encyclopedic tone, and lack of citations, for example in Kazakhstan sections, there are no citations in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson8003 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sentence missing second half?

In the Procedure section, a paragraph ends with the sentence, "Any supplementary seats won by a party are usually filled from an ordered list of nominated candidates, but open list". That's not a full sentence, it's missing the second half. I'm not knowledgable enough on the topic to complete the thought there, but could someone else with more information on the subject fix that to be comprehendable? Mous3kteer (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)