Talk:Proportional representation/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Dispute - BalCoder/Ontario

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder

I asked Ontario to do a small edit so things can be more easily discussed. While the latest edit isn't small enough, lets go with it. I want discussion only about the addition Ontario did to the "==PR systems in the broader family of voting systems==" section. I've put page protection on the article why discussion is ongoing.

1. BalCoder, please say what you don't agree with. Please say why and give refs.
2. Ontario, please respond to BalCoder's comments.
3. I'll then read what you two have said, probably ask questions and then give what I think. Remember, I'm an admin... I'm not too smart, so please keep things so a dummy would understand.
4. Then we see what is next, hopefully to another section.

Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Bgwhite: I am surprised that Ontario's "Reverted to a neutral version" edit (of course, it is neither a reversion nor neutral) was seemingly at your request. If I had known I would have asked you to revert it instead of doing so myself (Dec.6), which has now brought me an accusation by Drcrazy on ANI of "edit-warring". My first priority is to get Ontario banned/blocked and the current forum for that is the ANI incident. Until that is finished I do not intend to spend time elsewhere, most especially because I don't want to give anyone on ANI an excuse to say "OK, they are discussing on the TP so there is no more need for this ANI, we can close it". I am also surprised that you fell for Ontario's spiel on your TP and choose the "PR in the broader family" section. The question posed in the two DRNs and the ANI ("basic dispute") would seem to be a more obvious topic, one that Ontario is intent on avoiding until I drop. Having said all that I will point out that I have already criticized Ontario's table, on Sep.23 here. --BalCoder (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BalCoder Sorry, but you are edit warring as is Ontario. Your priority of getting Ontario blocked is misguided as the priority should be the article. There has been copious amounts of discussion all over the place and about everything. But, it very confusing. I'm trying to start small and work on one paragraph at a time.

Making accusations about me is not helping your cause. I wanted to choose just a paragraph and that is the one I choose. I specifically asked Ontario to write something small and they sort of did. I wanted it up so we can discuss, not be reverted. The ball is in your court. Bgwhite (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite,

On 05 Dec 15, I reverted to a version which included none of my, and none of BalCoder's edits. That is why I described it as neutral. I subsequently added only minor edits such as the addition of wikilinks, subtitles, and a table. The decision to start with minor edits only, was made based on your request to start small.

The aforementioned table is not only sourced, but it is a graphical representation of information which already existed in the article, using a source which also already existed in the article. The existing information I am referring to is the three families of voting systems: PR voting systems, Mixed Member voting systems, and Plurality/Majoritarian voting systems. Does this table accurately represent the information in the source? If not, how so?

BalCoder is against including "mixed" as an electoral system, but has not provided any sourced rational as to why. Furthermore, this user has refused to provide a single source to justify any of his/her edits/reversions. Contrarily, I have provided approximately 50 sources on the talk page alone substantiating my edits/reversions. This user has previously stated, "Apart from hitting the undo button from time to time, I do not intend to spend any more time on User Ontario" (15 Sep 15). Therefore, I believe this user is engaging in bad faith by refusing to provide sources to discuss the content, engaging in ad hominem attacks, and mass reverting content. Thank you for your time,Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop it you two. Don't talk about who did what or the past. I don't care what has gone on the past unless you keep repeating it. I only want to talk about the one paragraph and keep it to the one paragraph. Ontario sort-of did what I asked (should have been smaller). The ball is in Balcoder's court. Balcoder, make sure you add refs to your arguments. Ontario, please don't respond until Balcoder has a chance. If Balcoder doesn't respond, I'll have to decide based on what Ontario has given me. Remember, I'm an admin, so you will have to dumb it down for me. I will probably be asking questions.

User:Bgwhite: OK, but I do this under protest. The following concerns Ontario's changes to the "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems" section, I compare the current, Ontario, version (Dec.7) with the Bgwhite version from Nov.7 (diff). To understand all this you don't need any more than is explained in the lead. This stuff is not difficult.

"..into 3 general categories": the original says 4, and Ontario is using the same source, ref 20, [1] (what is meant is [2]). Ontario is wrong. (The changes to the categories themselves are, I think, from anon.and I ignore).

Concerning the other refs: Ref 6, p.22, does not list these categories, it lists the 3 PR systems which Ontario insists are only 2 (p.20 which would be a more sensible ref also does not support Ontario). Ref 7, Forder, an anti-PR academic, does not discuss categories - Ontario has simply copied these 2 refs from the lead, presumably to bulk up the list. Ref 21 (twice): ERS "Voting systems made simple" is the source for the table and supports Ontario's 3 categories. Ref 22, ACE, concerns only mixed systems. Ref 23, O'Neal, only mixed systems again. Ref 24, IFES, says there are 4: plurality, majority, PR, and mixed. It then discusses 3, combining plurality and majority, so I'll give it half a point; it is a very superficial piece, a poor ref. Ref 25, MacLeans, is about MMP only. Ref 26, Martinelli, does list the same 3 categories in the Abstract. So 2.5 out of 9. Poor.

The classification table. Ontario copied it from ERS, where it is copyright. I have little against the table as such - I cited it in the lead (ref 5) - except that it is "made simple" and misses out rather obvious systems like parallel voting (aka MMM). (With "In Britain today there are several voting systems..." the ERS may be saying the table is limited to systems in use/consideration in Britain). It is unnecessary because the Template:electoral systems already provides a classification. In any case, there is the elementary point that a classification like this, which basically just helps us bring some order into the discussion, does not necessarily have any bearing on the election results produced. Ontario has copied the table here because it is the hook on which Ontario hangs the whole "MMP is not PR" story (which refs 6,7,8, in the lead demonstrate is wrong - ref 6 is discussed more below). Ontario has also copied the table to several other electoral systems articles where it is just as superfluous.

"Discussions about PR...": Ontario has added "comparisons between PR and mixed systems" which is original research (i.e.Ontario's own invention intended to underline that MMP (a "mixed" system) is not PR). Consequently "or among different types of PR and mixed member systems" (also original research but not Ontario's) has been changed to "and among different types of PR systems" - pointless. "Party list PR and STV are usually considered PR systems" has been changed to "are considered to be the only two PR systems" which is wrong as the lead has demonstrated (again: lead refs 6,7,8).

"The extent to which mixed ...": Ontario has removed "highly" from "MMP has the potential to be highly proportional". This is wrong, see ref 6, Law Commission of Canada, p.24: "The overall results in these systems are highly proportional". In any case, the proportionality of MMP is determined by the party list vote (also LCoC, p.24), which is a closed party list vote using a single nationwide electoral district (IDEA - ref 2 in the article - p.95, para.133). Such a vote produces "highly" proportional representation of parties (IDEA, p.82, para.116), therefore MMP will also be "highly" proportional. The correct (if weak) statement: "and some categorizations include it as a PR system", which echoes the lead, has been replaced by "[seats are distributed] like other a mixed systems". Ignoring the careless 'a', this is right only if "other mixed systems" refers only to AV Plus, which has never been used in an election (ERS [3]), but wrong if it refers to the more prominent and widely used parallel voting - see IDEA, p.104. Unlike MMP, parallel voting does not compensate for single seat disproportionalities so it is not considered a PR system (IDEA p.112, and LCoC, p.24).

"However, the ratio of FPTP seats to PR seats, the quantify of overhang seats, and the threshold needed to acquire PR seats are contributing factors as to ..." All these points and how they affect proportionality are discussed in the article, in the sections "Mixed member proportional representation" and "Minimum threshold". Like any parameters in any electoral system, they are weighed against practicalities/aims when the system is introduced. Chile is mentioned in the article as an example of an open party list system (not MMP but straight party list) that is not proportional, but no-one concludes from this that party list PR generally is not proportional. Plenty of people say STV is not proportional and this too is mentioned in the article. So to say flat that "MMP produces semi-proportional results" is wilfully misleading, as the 13 refs "supporting" it show:

Ref 22, ACE, contradicts Ontario. Ref 23, O'Neil, nothing at all. Ref 6, LCoC, see p.24 ("highly proportional") above, and further on on p.24: "The distinguishing feature that separates these [MMP] from semi-PR..", so it contradicts Ontario comprehensively. Ref 7, Forder, says nothing about semi-proportionality. Ref 27, a very poor ref, nothing. Ref 28, Kassem, nothing (363 pages and Ontario doesn't provide a page no., are you kidding?). Ref 29, Geometric Voting, some systems "deliberately allocate relatively few wide-area seats so that outcomes are semi-proportional". But we are not talking about "deliberately" hobbled MMP systems but MMP generally. Ref 30, Mexico, is in Spanish, seems to be a kind of forum, and requires a registration. No thanks. Ref 31, Prensa Latina, couldn't find the article (why use Spanish articles?). Ref 32, 404 not found. Ref 33, Guardian and Hungary. The Hungary 2014 election is already discussed in the article as an example of gerrymandering "and other tricks", with sources, and this has survived a TP attack [4]. And Ontario presents it as an example of how "MMP produces semi-proportional results", suppressing the fact that this was due to gerrymandering and other tricks - outrageously deceitful (the same here too). Ref 34, Nepal, nothing, just a table of results. Ref 35, Encyclopedia Britannica, I don't have access. So 0 out of 13.

BalCoder (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Bgwhite,

Firstly, I must point out that the Nov 7th version includes several problematic changes made by BalCoder. Specifically: BalCoder renamed the voting system “Plurality/Majority” to “Single Member Systems” despite the fact that the latter terms is not used in any of the sources. Moreover, BalCoder inserted POV language favouring PR by claiming it is used in most nations (PR is actually only used in 36% of the world’s nations), while disfavouring Plurality/Majority by claiming it is only used in Canada, the USA, and the UK (which is used in 76 nations). This unsourced POV language is unnecessary, and inaccurate, which is why it was removed. Simply put, the Nov 7th version is BalCoder’s version, not the ‘original version’, nor is it your (User:Bgwhite ‘s) version as BalCoder has suggested.

Secondly, I am relieved that BalCoder has announced "I have little against the table". This table is based on numerous sources, it is not an uploaded graphic, and is therefore not subject to copyright. Hopefully we can put this matter to rest and leave the table in place.

In terms of the sources:

1. The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Proportional Representation”, “Mixed Systems”, and “Majoritarian Systems”. The ERS lists AMS (the UK term for MMP) as a “Mixed System”.

2. The Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project classifies electoral systems into 4 groups: “Plurality/majority”, “mixed”, “proportional representation”, and “other”. The ACE Project lists MMP as “Mixed”.

3. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Plurality and Majority Systems”, “Proportional Representation Systems”, and “Mixed Electoral Systems”. The IFES lists MMP as a “Mixed Electoral System”.

4. The Parliament of Canada classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Proportional Representation”, and “Mixed Systems”. It lists a variant of MMP (D’Hondt system), which is used in Germany, as a “Mixed System”.

5. Claudio Martinelli, Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law from the University of Milano-Bicoccaand author of “Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective” classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Proportional”, and “Mixed” P.3-4. Martinelli lists two variants of MMP: the Hare e D’Hondt system used in Italy from 1995 to 2005, and the D’Hondt system used in Germany as “Mixed Systems” {P.9-10).

6. Pippa Norris, Harvard Professor and author of “Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems” classifies electoral systems into 4 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Semi-proportional Systems”, “Proportional Representation”, and “Mixed Systems”. Norris groups AMS (the UK term for MMP) as a “Mixed System” (P.1-2).

7. “Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Best of Both Worlds?” by Professors Matthew Søberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg from the University of California, classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Proportional Systems”, “Majoritarian Systems”, and “Mixed-member Systems”. Shugart and Wattenberg group MMP as a “Mixed-member System” (P.1-2).

We agreed to discuss one issue at a time. The first issue is: does this table generally reflect the classification of electoral systems already present in the article, and listed in the sources? If not, how can this table be improved? As a follow-up, are scholarly and reliable sources used? Once we have agreed to leave the generally accepted classification system (which was not created by me) as well as the table in place, we can focus on BalCoder’s second issue: Does MMP always yield fully-proportional results, or does it often yield semi-proportional results? We can then provide sources and examples to answer this second question.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder: Thank you both for your replies. Give me a couple days to go over this. I try to take weekends off from Wikipedia and spend Monday's usually catching up. I'm trying to mini-steps... For example, I won't go over all the refs at once, but just a few at a time. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder: Sorry for the delay. I've been fighting with WMF and gotten discourage (see my talk page). I will look at it tomorrow. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and BalCoder: This is going to get messy.

1. Table is not copyrighted. It's too general and same idea (ie graph) is in other refs.
2. We have competing "tables". 3 columns[5] vs 4 columns[6]. In effect, both are right. There are 3 general categories, but what about the "other" thrown in?
   1. It comes down on how to classify Limited Vote, Borda Count and Single Non-Transferable Vote. Are these "other" or "Majoritarian systems"?
   2. [7] (p.24) and [8] calls Single Non-Transferable Vote a PR or semi-PR system not part of the 3 general categories.
   3. Borda is semi-majoritarian and semi-consensus
   4. A ref that neither used.
   5. One ref said, "Three systems do not fit neatly under any one of the above-mentioned categories." I think this sums it up in that they don't fall into the 3 main categories.
3. I'd dump the table and go back to the list of Nov 7.
   1. Say three general categories as there are only three
   2. Mention there are "other" that are hybrids, that don't completely fall into the categories. Do a separate listing.
   3. Expand on the main listing. Add wikilinks and give a couple of example systems and countries that use it. Add refs. I don't think a listing of every system should be included (such as in the table). This is supposed to be general overview and the wikilinks take people to more specific info.
   4. "majority of democratic countries" on the Nov. 7 page, along with the countries ("only in Canada, UK and USA") are not referenced. As they don't have refs, I can't tell if these are true or not. Ontario does give a ref where 62 countries use Plurality (FPTP). However, Plurality FPTP is defined as using PR and Plurality/Majoritarian systems,[9] so Ontario's statements isn't entirely correct.
   5. I think this will add a better understanding for the reader. Giving a table of voting systems causes me to go blank. Giving me info and an example country helps me associate the two better.
4. "Discussions about PR..." paragraph
   1. Remove the "Discussions about PR often include comparisons between PR and Plurality/Majoritarian systems, ..." sentence. There are whole books about comparing systems. It isn't needed and it is a "given" that people will compare systems. The other two sentences in the paragraph would be folded above into the listing?
   2. "Party list PR and STV are considered to be the only two PR systems." This needs a tweek. Add maybe, "only two fully PR systems". MMP is hybrid as it has a component of PR, so its partially PR.
5. Mixed member proportional representation (MMP) paragraph
   1. "highly" can be debatable. The word "potential" before it causes the problem. Yes, it can be highly proportional, but also not. Sentence gives why it can be, introduce why it can't be too. Why it can't is in the Nov 7, but is in Ontario's version. An example ref is [10].
   2. "... are contributing factors as to why MMP produces semi-proportional results". I didn't see this in a ref that was given, but I could have missed it. Ontario, you did throw up "ref spam". Keep to the point and only a few refs. Makes it confusing.
6. Lede
   1. "a hybrid method that uses party list PR as its proportional component, is also usually considered a distinct PR method." The first part is true. Second isn't. Some refs say yes. Some refs say no. Keep the first half in, not the second. Add the second half into the "Discussions about PR..." paragraph. Mention some people consider this a distinct PR method while others do not, thus it is in the mixed member systems category.
7. Could you respond directed at me. What did I did or didn't screw up? What needs tweaking?

Bgwhite (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bgwhite,

Thank you for your time and consideration.

1. The lead: I have updated the lead with the language you have recommended.
2. The table: It appears we have reached a consensus on the classification of voting systems. The issue then becomes the location of the table, as it has been pointed out that there already is a table in the top right corner which includes a classification of voting system. Perhaps it would be a better compromise to update the existing table (in the top right corner), rather than creating a new redundant one.
3. have therefore updated the existing table with the sourced classification method we have discussed. The information I replaced on Template talk:Electoral systems did not have any sources at all substantiating it, and had numerous users disagreeing with its former format. Are we in agreement that this is a better location for this table, and that the changes in categories reflect the sources?
4. MMP paragraph: I am opposed to framing semi-proportional MMP (used in countries like Hungary [Current] or Italy [from 1994-2006]) as "deliberately hobbled", as this creates a bias in favour of PR, and Wikipedia articles must maintain neutrality. The Italian MMP, for instance, had 75% of the seats as FPTP, and only 25% as PR. Likewise, in the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007, the proposed Legislature would have 129 seats consisting of 90 local members (70% of the Legislature) and 39 list members (30% of the Legislature). There were no compensatory seats to make up for Overhang seats. Simply put, the vast majority of nations/regions using MMP, do not have fully-proportional MMP. New Zealand is the only exception. Are we in agreement that MMP can be semi-proportional, and that semi-proportional MMP is more common than fully proportional MMP?

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, I believe you may be mistaken in your comments about MMP above. In terms of the way the issue has been discussed in New Zealand, only a system that is generally proportional would be considered MMP. Thus, the Italian system, with 75% of seats being single-member constituencies, would not count as MMP. Rather, it would be a supplementary member system, which was considered in New Zealand as an (only semi-proportional) alternative to MMP. Perhaps different sources would define the Italian system as MMP, but that would never be how it was presented in New Zealand. See Parallel_voting#Proposal_for_New_Zealand. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello FreeKnowledgeCreator,

The AMS you are referring to is the UK term for MMP. "Additional Member System (AMS) can also be known as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)"

Colin Bature, author of "Political Indaba Resource", lists Italy as a nation using MMP (although it now uses Party List-PR). "By 2003, there were seven countries using MMP: Italy, Mexico, Venezuela, Hungary, Germany, Bolivia and New Zealand". In the Italian version of MMP, 75% of the seats were FPTP, and 25% were list-PR. Professor Ben Reilly from Murdoch University and Associate Professor of Political Science Andrew Reynolds at the University of North Carolina, and coauthors of "Electoral Systems and Conflict in Divided Societies", also list the former Italian electoral system as MMP. In Lesotho, the ratio is of FPTP to party-list seats is 67:33, in Mexico it is 60:40, and in Venezuela it is 68:32 (compare this to the 50:50 ratio used in Germany).

The proposed version of MMP in the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007 also had a similar FPTP seat-to list-PR seat ratio (70:30). The exact wording of the referendum question was:

Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature? / Quel système électoral l’Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour élire les députés provinciaux à l’Assemblée législative?

• The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post) / L’actuel système électoral (système de la majorité relative)
• The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional) / L’autre système électoral proposé par l’Assemblée des citoyens (système de représentation proportionnelle mixte)

As you can see, the term MMP, and not AMS, was used to describe this proposed semi-proportional voting system.

Academics and governments from around the world use the term MMP to describe a mixed electoral system (combining FPTP and List-PR) where the list-PR seats are distributed in a proportional way, as opposed to MMM also known as Parallel voting where there is no correlation between list-PR seats and FPTP seats. The results of MMP fluctuate dramatically depending on several factors such as: the ratio of FPTP seats to list-PR seats, whether or not compensatory seats are used to make up for overhang seats, as well as whether or not a minimum threshold is used.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd I reverted the changes you made. I'd like to hear from BalCoder first. Will keep what changes both of you agree upon. I'd like to see you both agreeing. Neither of you have to agree with me, just with each other. However, it was also good you wrote something up as it gives BalCoder a good idea. I didn't say "deliberately hobbled", BalCoder did. Please address the comments I made. I said MMP has a PR component. I said MMP can be highly proportional, but it can be somewhere at the other end of proportional. A ref was given why it can in the Nov 7 version, but there needs to be a ref for the opposite end. This way there isn't a bias. This paragraph gives a general overview. I'll wait for BalCoder before I respond any further. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Nothing in Ontario Teacher BFA BEd's comment above is a meaningful response to my previous post. The question this user had previously asked was, "Are we in agreement that MMP can be semi-proportional, and that semi-proportional MMP is more common than fully proportional MMP?" The point of my reply was that, no, we are not in agreement that this is the case. Presumably you can see why? MMP as used in New Zealand referred only to a proportional system, not to any kind of semi-proportional system. "MMP" stands for "mixed member proportional", and if you stop to think about it perhaps you'll realize it doesn't make sense to use it to describe systems such as that formerly used in Italy, which was not generally proportional in its results. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Bgwhite, to your points of Dec.7: Your instruction was to discuss only "the addition Ontario did to the '==PR systems in the broader family of voting systems==' section" and I was careful to do just that. So I ignore your reference to the lede - that is the central point of this saga and needs separate discussion.

2: Competing tables. You seem to overlook my point that the section is merely one "classification" among many. In this article we are not interested in the many ways people classify voting systems, only in ways of achieving a proportionally representative "elected body" (two of the five ways mentioned in the lead are not voting systems). Single non-tranferable vote, Borda, limited vote, etc.: these are not PR systems so are not of interest in this article - there are other articles where they are discussed. I have already said, here, that the whole section is unnecessary so should be removed: the various PR methods are introduced in the lead, now let's get on with what is good and bad about PR and discuss the methods in more detail.

3: "Dump the table". Good. It just adds confusion and clutter. 3.4: not Ontario's change, nonetheless wrong and unsourced. "Plurality FPTP is defined as using PR.." - no, you have misunderstood something here. How many countries use FPTP is not of interest to this article; FPTP is contrasted with PR repeatedly throughout the article, that is enough. Because FPTP is only one of many single member district systems (or SMD as the literature often has it) it is more accurate to contrast PR with that than with FPTP specifically, plurality or majority is irrelevant to the contrast with PR.

4.1: "Remove the 'Discussions about PR often...'". Of course. "Other two sentences..." - just as unnecessary.

4.2: "Party list PR and STV" are not considered to be the only two PR systems, refs 6, 7 & 8 say different and they are better sources than anything Ontario has produced. Your tweek is already in the lead ("There are two PR voting types") so it doesn't need to be repeated here. MMP is not as you say "partially PR", that repeats an Ontario error and misunderstands how MMP works: the proportionality comes entirely from the PR component, as I described, with sources, in my para "The extent to which mixed..". If the system is not intentionally "hobbled" it will be as proportional as it is possible to get with any voting system. Read that sentence again slowly. MMP is "mixed" simply in order to incorporate single-member districts, which many think desirable.

5.1: ...so "highly" is perfectly justified, and of course sourced. Your ACE reference says MMP "generally results in proportional outcomes". The mixed system where proportionality "falls somewhere between that of a plurality/majority and that of a PR system" is Parallel voting which is not MMP. That all proportional systems can be compromised is discussed throughout the article.

5.2, "why MMP produces semi-proportional results": the refs are "spam": let's not beat about the bush, they are a deception, a con trick. I have been waiting for a reliable source for MMP being semi-proportional since Sep.21. As I said then, this source doesn't exist.

I think that disposes of all Ontario changes in this section.

BTW, did you see that after you wrote "dump the table" Ontario immediately changed Template:Electoral systems to reflect the "dumped table", and has been busily revising other electoral system articles, including renaming "Semi-proportional representation" to "Mixed member systems" - odd, since most semi-PR systems aren't mixed. "Chaos", as I once described an Ontario edit, is again the appropriate word. I say again, this user needs to be banned. Your comment from Dec.9, that my "priority of getting Ontario blocked is misguided as the priority should be the article" is facile: of course I am thinking of the article, and not just of this one, but of the other electoral system articles that Ontario has mutilated. BalCoder (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Bgwhite,

1. The previous classification system had zero sources! I replaced it with one that includes 7 reliable sources, including scholarly journals published by professors from reputable institutions like Harvard. A scholarly journal from a Harvard professor can hardly be considered spam. The table was moved, as a compromise, to reflect the problem of redundancy. The content of the table itself is perfectly in line with these scholarly sources.

Does the classification of electoral systems reflect those listed in the sources? Yes. Are these sources reliable? Yes. Are these sources international? Yes. Is the table copyrighted? No. Did the previous classification system have any sources? No. Is the top right corner a better location for a table? Yes. Is this sourced, neat, and easy-to-understand classification system, which is widely used by academics, governments, and advocacy groups from around the world 'chaotic' or 'mutilated'? Of course not!

2. "The Additional Member System (AMS, or Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) as it is known in much of the world) has been used since 1999 in elections for the devolved Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales. But AMS is not used in identical form in the two nations. The division between constituency and list members in the two institutions is as follows:

Scottish Parliament: 73 constituency MSPs, 56 regional list MSPs

National Assembly for Wales: 40 constituency AMs, 20 regional list AMs

Not only is the total number of elected representatives much greater in Scotland than Wales; so also is the proportion elected from the regional list (43.4% against 33.4%). This difference is more than just an arithmetical detail. With a smaller explicitly proportional element the Welsh variant of AMS is far more likely to produce disproportional results... The system deployed in Wales can more accurately be described as semi-proportional representation. What would be needed for similar levels of proportionality in Wales as in Scotland? A 70-member Assembly, with 10 additional regional AMs, would produce a situation where List members comprised almost the same proportion (42.8% of the total) as they do in Scotland."

This long quote by Roger Scully, a Professor of Political Science from Cardiff University, proves what I have been saying all along; the proportionality of MMP varies from country to country, and it can be either proportional or semi-proportional depending on a number of factors such as the ratio of FPTP seats to List-PR seats.

3. User:BalCoder has gone around deleting the terms "Mixed", "Mixed Member", and "Mixed Member Systems" from several articles, and now insists that Mixed Member Systems should not have its own WP page. This is extremely unusual behaviour. What is the political motivation behind this exclusion? Does this user believe that by polarizing electoral systems into only two groups (PR and Plurality/Majoritarian) that this will force voters into choosing one of the extremes? Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd

BalCoder's response
Numbering system I use is the same way I ordered and Balcoder responded. Balcoder, the sentence in the lede is tied to this paragraph, that is why I mentioned it.
2. Section was in there before Ontario started editing. Before that, it was in the lede. (Yes, Reallavergne and Ontario look suspiciously like socks). Personally, I think it is a good idea to briefly mention PR's place among other systems. Not only would it help the reader understand there are other ways, but also be able to click on the wikilinks to read the other ways. It also tells how PR is in other systems. As to comments about, "Single non-tranferable vote, Borda, limited vote, etc.: these are not PR ..." Note what I said in section 3, "I don't think a listing of every system should be included"
3. Dump the table and go to the type of list you had before. I'm being vague on what "systems" are mentioned. But something more needs to be added.

3.3 I hadn't a clue what these systems are and where they use it. My feelings and thoughts while I was reading it might be the same as some random bloke reading it. Also, most American's are clueless that there are other systems. I think it is a good idea to mention a country or two that uses it.

3.4 BalCoder you are misunderstanding what I said. I didn't say keep or drop. I said both sides use unreferenced or a misconstrued references. Without good refs, saying what percentage of countries uses what is automatically dropped. However, if I were to be put on the spot, I'd say drop it. Some countries use multiple systems. It would be hard to quantify a number.

4

4.2 Balcoder, could you point out what refs 6, 7 and 8 are? With different versions going around, I don't know which ones you are pointing to.

4.2 Balcoder you are misunderstanding me saying "partially PR", you didn't add the rest of the quote..."MMP is hybrid as it has a component of PR, so its partially PR." PR is a component of MMP. I'm saying MMP is "partially PR" because there are two systems of which PR is one, not that PR is hobbled.

5

5.1 The point I was trying to make is that PR systems can be highly, moderately and so-so depending on how/what PR is being used. Just saying highly is not neutral when it can run the gamut. Need to add info about this. Parallel voting does have a PR component.

5.2 Yes, without a reliable source it is gone.

Ontario's response
This will be a bit jumbled.

1. {{Electoral systems}} doesn't need to be referenced. It's there as a jumping off point. Similar with the navboxes at the end of the article. It's perfectly fine to keep. The table/listing in the article is separate from the template.
2. I agree some sort of classification system should be used and that is what I previously said. What is listed and with what info is upto debate.
3. "I am opposed to framing semi-proportional MMP ... 'deliberately hobbled'" I agree. It's not a good word. Which leads to...
4. " Are we in agreement that MMP can be semi-proportional" Yes it can, but its not that simple and "semi" is also not a good word. The key is how/what PR component is used in each system generates how proportional a system is. MMP can be highly or moderately. It all depends. As you mentioned in your Scottish/Wales section, not all two MMP systems are alike. This was my #5 point from above. I can't judge what system is used more as I haven't seen a ref that says either way.

Bgwhite (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Bgwhite, my response to your BalCoder's response from Dec.30: Most of your points seem about ideas for your own changes to the section and I do not have the time or the energy to discuss that - I am only interested in Ontario's edits, getting them reverted and Ontario blocked. Anything else can be addressed after that. Let's not make things more complicated than they already are.

2, "Section was in there before Ontario started editing..": Fine, revert Ontario's changes in this section and leave it as it was on Aug.4.

"Reallavergne and Ontario look suspiciously like socks" is nonsense. I agreed with little Reallavergne did but his changes and TP posts were at least in "good faith", Ontario's aren't.

3.3: There is some usage at the end of the "History" and in the "List of countries.." sections.

3.4: I take the strongest exception to your statement "both sides use unreferenced or a misconstrued references" as though Ontario and I were both misleading readers. Your two quotes ("majority of democratic countries" and "only in Canada, UK and USA") are from anonymous, here, as I wrote on Dec.11: "The changes to the categories themselves are, I think, from anon.and I ignore". You should know by now that nothing Ontario writes can be taken at face value. That she, despite my denials, continues to ascribe these edits to me (most recently, it would seem, with the puerile comment "vandalism by sockpuppet" on Dec.30) is no reason for you to do so. You can find out perfectly easily that they are not mine. For what it's worth, I think those anon.edits are wrong and unsourced and should be deleted.

4.2 Refs 6,7,8 are refs 6,7,8 in the current (Jan.4) article, in your Nov.7 version, and in the Aug.4 version before Ontario started editing. Ontario deleted Ref 8 on Sep.1, probably because it was the most accessible (and of course contradicts Ontario's "MMP is not PR" agenda).

4.2 "partially PR": OK, I'm misunderstanding you but you are being ambiguous. You are referring to the way MMP works; to me it looked like you were referring to the results MMP produces. There is a big difference between means (the voting mechanisms) and ends (the election result). There are only two known proportional voting "mechanisms", MMP combines one of them with FPTP. In any case, the point is redundant because it is already made in para.2 of the (non-Ontario) lead (refs 6,7,8 again), why repeat it in this section?

5.1, "Highly" is sourced, but never mind: just leave the word out: MMP is proportional. "Need to add info about this": again this is your own idea. I say again: that proportionality can be compromised is an omni-present theme throughout the article, starting already in the first paragraph of the "Fairness" section. That parallel voting includes a PR component is irrelevant: the literature is what counts and that does not consider parallel voting to be proportional, so it should not be in the article.

If you can't find any Ontario change in this section that needs preserving, revert back to Aug.4 and let's move on to the next topic.

BalCoder (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Bgwhite,

On 21 Dec 2015, BalCoder had asked me to provide yet another source proving that MMP can be semi-proportional. In addition to the 40 or so sources I have previously provided, I presented a scholarly source by Roger Scully, a Professor of Political Science from Cardiff University. Professor Scully clearly states that the MMP system used in Wales is semi-proportional, and specifically uses the term semi-proportional. In the latest response by BalCoder, this user did not even mention Professor Scully's writings at all, and continues to mislead editors on other WP pages by claiming that no source has been provided.

Please consider the following tables. Please note that none of these tables include a minimum Election threshold, which further distorts proportionality.

MMP (50:50 ratio)					Proportional Results
Party	Popular Vote	FPTP Seats	List-PR Seats	Total Seats	% of Total Seats
Coca-Cola	40%	70	10	80	40%
Sprite	30%	20	18	40	30%
Orange Crush	20%	10	30	40	20%
Ginger-ale	10%	0	20	20	10%
Total=	100%	100	100	200	100%

MMP (71:29 ratio)					Semi-proportional Results
Party	Popular Vote	FPTP Seats	List-PR Seats	Total Seats	% of Total Seats
Coca-Cola	40%	70	0	70	50%
Sprite	30%	20	18	38	27%
Orange Crush	20%	10	12	22	16%
Ginger-ale	10%	0	10	10	7%
Total=	100%	100	40	140	100%

MMM (50:50 ratio)					Semi-proportional Results
Party	Popular Vote	FPTP Seats	List-PR Seats	Total Seats	% of Total Seats
Coca-Cola	40%	70	40	110	55%
Sprite	30%	20	30	50	25%
Orange Crush	20%	10	20	30	15%
Ginger-ale	10%	0	10	10	5%
Total=	100%	100	100	200	100%

What do these tables demonstrate? That if the ration of FPTP seats to List-PR seats is lopsided in favour of FPTP, the results are indisputably semi-proportional in a near identical way to Mixed Member Majoritarian (also known as Parallel voting).

BalCoder has claimed that the results of MMP are irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, in the 2010 Venezuelan parliamentary election, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela and the Democratic Unity Roundtable virtually tied in the popular vote (with 48.3% and 47.2% respectively). However, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela received 58.2% of the seats, while the Democratic Unity Roundtable received only 38.7%. Was MMP used? Yes. Are these results proportional? No, they are semi-proportional. Can MMP be proportional? Yes, but it is extremely rare. Most nations with MMP have a lopsided FPTP to List-PR ratio. Others have a high Election Threshold, which further distorts proportionality. I believe it would be irresponsible to mislead readers into believing that MMP is always fully proportional, when it fact, in the vast majority of regions where it is/was used, the results are/have been semi-proportional. Moreover, contemporary scholars, like Professor Scully from Cardiff University, specifically use the term semi-proportional to describe MMP in regions like Wales, Italy, Hungary, Lesotho, Bolivia, Mexico, and Venezuela. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As always Ontario mis-quotes me in order to avoid the point: she writes "On 21 Dec 2015, BalCoder had asked me to provide yet another source proving that MMP can be semi-proportional." No, not "can be" but "is"; that MMP (or any other PR system) "can be" compromised is banal. Ontario cannot produce a RS that contradicts the statement in the lead that MMP is "usually considered a distinct PR method." Ontario cannot produce this RS because it doesn't exist - in the literature MMP is considered a PR system. That the Welsh system is not properly proportional is uncontroversial, and can be simply dealt with by adding a sentence to that effect in the article's MMP section where the point is already made that "proportionality can be compromised". --BalCoder (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bgwhite: Have you abandoned this discussion? --BalCoder (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: I believe you two have abandoned the discussion.

• Balcoder's response in first paragraph: Most of your points seem about ideas for your own changes to the section and I do not have the time or the energy to discuss that - I am only interested in Ontario's edits, getting them reverted and Ontario blocked (emphasis mine)
• Ontario's response in first paragraph: BalCoder had asked me to provide yet another source proving that MMP can be semi-proportional. In addition to the 40 or so sources I have previously provided Actually, I asked for them in the very first discussion... "...are contributing factors as to why MMP produces semi-proportional results". I didn't see this in a ref that was given, but I could have missed it. Ontario, you did throw up "ref spam". Keep to the point and only a few refs. Makes it confusing.

If Balcoder's only reason for doing this is to keep only their (right or wrong) interpretation and get Ontario blocked, then what is the use?

Ontario, I asked for refs and I also asked for specifics. Tables and a long discussion of yours from just above doesn't do any good.

Tried to do just one paragraph. Sigh... Bgwhite (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bgwhite: I still don't understand. Have you abandoned it or not? (I certainly haven't, I have been waiting for a response from you.) --BalCoder (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

BalCoder Once you said your only interest is to revert Ontario's edits and ban him, I was done. You do not want any mediation, discussion or anything to improve the article. Ontario's unwillingness to give exact refs when I asked, yet give examples and tables with no refs, is frustrating. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bgwhite: With "you do not want any mediation, discussion or anything to improve the article" you defame me a third time, so I have to reply. Your arguments are weak. I have said from the beginning that my first priority was to get Ontario banned, and that I was taking part under protest. Mediation? I want a mediator to force Ontario to answer my questions. Either Ontario does, and her edits, being shown to be wrong, will be reverted, or (as during the last 5 months) she doesn't, and she should be banned. Discussion? What were my posts of Dec.11, Dec.21 and Jan.5 doing? Improvement? From Ontario? I defy you to find one. WP would be improved by deleting all Ontario edits. Perhaps you mean the fact that MMP implementations can be imperfectly proportional. Fine, put it in - you are in the driving seat. But I have proved to you in two ways that MMP is proportional, and there are two more refs in the lead, refs 7 & 8, to that effect, so MMP is proportional. WP:NPOV (in particular WP:DUE), a core WP policy, leaves little room for manoeuvre, all you can do is to write something like "MMP is proportional, but in some cases proportionality is compromised by too few compensatory seats". You know that, but instead of saying it and thus pulling down Ontario's house of cards you give up. And then don't bother to tell anyone. You complain that "Ontario's unwillingness to give exact refs ... and tables with no refs, is frustrating". Welcome to the club.

Ironically, on Dec.22 admin User:Moxy deleted as spam this section ("PR systems in the broader...") in 14 of the 15 (!) articles to which Ontario copied it. Ontario then elegantly dodged this loss of her table by high-jacking the Template:Electoral systems and putting the table there. So this section is no longer so important to Ontario, and could probably be deleted, as I already tried to do on Nov.26. --BalCoder (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing removed by Moxy on Dec. 22 that is close to this topic is Mixed-member proportional representation, not Proportional representation. And frankly, I don't even know where the "as per tlak [sic]..spam removal" came from. I don't see any actual discussion on the talk page or usertalk page. The thing that I find is a revert on merged talk page, which is done on procedural grounds and not any actual discussion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

OhanaUnited: The discussion Moxy was responding to was on the WikiProject Spam page: complaint about spam. The spam deleted by Moxy is the section under discussion ("PR systems in the broader...") as copied to those other articles by Ontario, presumably to spread her "message" (via the table) that MMP is not PR, a claim for which she has 0 sources. --BalCoder (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Bgwhite,

I don't understand BalCoder's allergic reaction to the term "semi-proportional". This is the term which is used by the sources. As I have previously pointed out, Professor Scully, from Cardiff University has written "The Additional Member System (AMS, or Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) as it is known in much of the world) has been used since 1999 in elections for the devolved Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales... The system deployed in Wales can more accurately be described as semi-proportional representation. The work British Elections & Parties Review, Vol. 13 by Professos Colin Rallings, Roger Scully, Jonathan Tonge, and Paul Webb also uses the term semi-proportional to describe MMP/AMS in certain jurisdictions, "The use of the semi-proportional Additional Member System (AMS) for the first elections to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 meant that Labour would not enjoy the same kind of dominance." Why seek synonyms, such as the terms "moderately proportional" or "imperfectly proportional", for semi-proportional? These terms are not used by any of the sources! I have also provided concrete, sourced evidence of MMP results which have been semi-proportional such as the 2010 Venezuelan parliamentary election, where the United Socialist Party of Venezuela and the Democratic Unity Roundtable virtually tied in the popular vote (with 48.3% and 47.2% respectively). However, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela received 58.2% of the seats, while the Democratic Unity Roundtable received only 38.7%. If MMP always yields proportional results, than why are the 2010 Venezuelan election results semi-proportional? Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those are examples of MMP being semi-proportional. AMS, a variant of MMP, is inherently semi-proportional due to the fixed number of top-up seats, but AMS is a modification of MMP. You point to the Venezuelan example, but in that election they had ceased to use MMP and switched to parallel voting, a different system which is not fully proportional. —ajf (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Ajfweb,

AMS is not a variant of MMP. AMS is a regional term for MMP used in the UK (Think of it as how soccer is known as football in the UK. Soccer is not a variant of football). "Additional Member System (AMS) can also be known as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)" MMP/AMS is neither inherently proportional nor is it inherently semi-proportional. Its proportionality results from several factors such as the ratio of FPTP seats to list-PR seats. Professor Roger Scully from Cardiff University states: "The Additional Member System (AMS, or Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) as it is known in much of the world) has been used since 1999 in elections for the devolved Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales. But AMS is not used in identical form in the two nations. The division between constituency and list members in the two institutions is as follows:

Scottish Parliament: 73 constituency MSPs, 56 regional list MSPs

National Assembly for Wales: 40 constituency AMs, 20 regional list AMs

Not only is the total number of elected representatives much greater in Scotland than Wales; so also is the proportion elected from the regional list (43.4% against 33.4%). This difference is more than just an arithmetical detail. With a smaller explicitly proportional element the Welsh variant of AMS is far more likely to produce disproportional results. The system deployed in Wales can more accurately be described as semi-proportional representation. What would be needed for similar levels of proportionality in Wales as in Scotland? A 70-member Assembly, with 10 additional regional AMs, would produce a situation where List members comprised almost the same proportion (42.8% of the total) as they do in Scotland." Simply put, the AMS/MMP system used in Scotland is proportional whereas the AMS/MMP system used in Wales is semi-proportional due to an insufficient ratio of list-PR seats.

Other regions using MMP have also produced semi-proportional results, such as Italy, Hungary and Lesotho. "Italy's version of severely weakened MMP and Hungary's supermixed system warrant similar treatment... While both the Italian and the Hungarian systems contain elements of correction, they are much weaker than in other MMP systems. Professor David Lublin from the American University in Washington, D.C. further observes that MMP in Lesotho has been semi-proportional due to 'decoy lists': "Officially, Lesotho has an MMP system... but two makor parties subverted the system in a manner that made it operate just like a parallel system... The two major Basotho parties contested SMDs but did not file party lists. As a result, major party victories in constituency seats were not taken into account during the allocation of party-list seats just as in a parallel system. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with allergies and everything to do with reliable sources, for example: Amy ([11]), the first RS in the Semi-proportional representation article, and Bature ([12]), which you introduced to the MMP article on Dec.20. These are just two refs I happened to come across while reverting all your partisan edits. --BalCoder (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Bgwhite,

BalCoder has attempted to remove closed list, open list, and localized list (also known as Free List) subcategories from the WP article. These are the three types of Party-list proportional representation. This user has not provided any explanation for this disruptive edits. This user has also attempted to replace the term "Mixed Member System" with "two-tier system" without providing any sources. Edits and reversions should reflect sources. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Bgwhite,

Upon closer inspection, a component of BalCoder's edit was acceptable. The "Link between constituent and representative" addition made by BalCoder was restored. However, the removal of closed list, open list, and localized list has been reverted as these subtitles were sourced. Zero sources were provided which disagree with these subtitles. Additionally, the renaming of "Mixed-Member Systems" to "two-tier system" was reverted. There are zero sources which use the term "two-tier systems". Contrarily, there are several sources which used the term "Mixed-Member Systems" All edits, especially controversial edits, must reflect sources. As such, the unsourced changes have been reverted. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protect on

Balcoder, your stated goal is to ban Ontario and you have no time to discuss changes with anybody else. Therefore, you no longer get to edit.

Ontario, your refusal to give exact references... what page is sourcing the statement, means you no longer get to edit.

Page is protected for two weeks. If you two cannot behave and have not worked things out by then, I will be forced to ask for one or both of your to be banned from this page, depending on who is playing nicely. Bgwhite (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite: "you have no time to discuss changes with anybody else": a ridiculous accusation as a glance at the TP (and archive) shows. You can only be referring to yourself and my post on Jan.5 above. Anybody can see that I merely declined to discuss your own ideas, preferring to concentrate my limited energies on Ontario's edits, as you had previously instructed me to do. Ontario has now accepted the removal of the section we were discussing.

With all respect for your need to appear even-handed, the time for fence sitting has long passed. I summarised this dreadful nightmare in my post of Jan.25, Talk:Proportional_representation#What_now.3F, and detailed Ontario's mendacity. Her most recent post is another fine exemplar:

• "The 'Link between constituent and representative' addition made by BalCoder was restored": Not so, check out the academic sources Pilon, Amy, Norris in the second para of that section in this diff.
• Closed/open/localized list: Ontario has reverted my revertion "as these subtitles were sourced". In the article they are not sourced. "Localized list" is not even sourced in the linked-to article - it is a literal translation of an Italian term and probably a mis-translation for "open list"; I have never found the term in an English-language source but Ontario is brazen enough to write "(also known as Free List)" in her Jan.31 edit - complete fiction.
• "Zero sources were provided which disagree with these subtitles": when reverting to the status quo ante I do not have to provide sources. The status quo ante of the section ("Party list PR") is essentially unchanged from before my first edit in Aug.2014. I pointed out on Aug.26 2015 that MOS:LAYOUT considers sub-titles such as these inappropriate, but Ontario knows better.
• "There are zero sources which use the term 'two-tier systems'": in the article (Ontario's version or mine) search for "tier" and then check the two sources you will find there (in the lead). Party-list systems with two levels of vote apportionment, and biproportional apportionment (by definition), are two-tier methods but they are not "mixed member" methods: now check where they are placed with respect to "Mixed member systems" in Ontario's TOC. That nonsense is what Ontario refers to as a "neutral version" with only "minor edits such as the addition of wikilinks, subtitles, and a table" (Dec.9 above). See also my post of Sep.14.

I challenge you to find one post/edit/comment by me anywhere in WP (including of course WP:ANI) that contains one, just one, misrepresentation, let alone lies like these.

In that Jan.25 post I also demonstrated that I have now no further option other than reverting, and your response is to admonish me to "behave"! I will make it easy for you. I am withdrawing from editing these pages and will not return until Ontario has been banned from all electoral system articles "broadly construed".

(For anyone interested, I believe my revertions on Jan.31, following earlier ones by admin Moxy, finished removing all Ontario edits in all electoral system articles). --BalCoder (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

BalCoder, quote from above that you said, ... I do not have the time or the energy to discuss that - I am only interested in Ontario's edits, getting them reverted and Ontario blocked. Anything else can be addressed after that. Yes, I feel one side is "more to blame" than the other, but that is not the point. The point of the discussion was to get both of you talking, not Ontario blocked. Ontario had some good arguments that were valid, albeit more minor ones. You were not interested. I've asked for refs from Ontario repeatedly. Refs that source their points. I'm assigning blame on both of you as neither one was willing to listen to the other. I'm not the only one who tried to mediate, but I'll be the last. I'm done. Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Bgwhite,

I believe I have been acting in good faith in regards to providing specific sources which substantiate my arguments. For instance, when I argued that MMP is a Mixed-Member System, I provided 7 sources. I introduced the author and publisher of each source, and provided a page number (if applicable) on 18 December 2015.

This is what I wrote:

1. The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Proportional Representation”, “Mixed Systems”, and “Majoritarian Systems”. The ERS lists AMS (the UK term for MMP) as a “Mixed System”.

2. The Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project classifies electoral systems into 4 groups: “Plurality/majority”, “mixed”, “proportional representation”, and “other”. The ACE Project lists MMP as “Mixed”.

3. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Plurality and Majority Systems”, “Proportional Representation Systems”, and “Mixed Electoral Systems”. The IFES lists MMP as a “Mixed Electoral System”.

4. The Parliament of Canada classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Proportional Representation”, and “Mixed Systems”. It lists a variant of MMP (D’Hondt system), which is used in Germany, as a “Mixed System”.

5. Claudio Martinelli, Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law from the University of Milano-Bicoccaand author of “Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective” classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Proportional”, and “Mixed” P.3-4. Martinelli lists two variants of MMP: the Hare e D’Hondt system used in Italy from 1995 to 2005, and the D’Hondt system used in Germany as “Mixed Systems” (P.9-10).

6. Pippa Norris, Harvard Professor and author of “Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems” classifies electoral systems into 4 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Semi-proportional Systems”, “Proportional Representation”, and “Mixed Systems”. Norris groups AMS (the UK term for MMP) as a “Mixed System” (P.1-2).

7. “Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Best of Both Worlds?” by Professors Matthew Søberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg from the University of California, classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Proportional Systems”, “Majoritarian Systems”, and “Mixed-member Systems”. Shugart and Wattenberg group MMP as a “Mixed-member System” (P.1-2).

What exactly do you mean when you say "your refusal to give exact references... what page is sourcing the statement"? I seem to remember being criticized for providing too many sources, not too few. What reference have I provided where a page number was lacking? Please let me know, and I will gladly provide a page number. What argument have I made where I provided too few sources? Please let me know and I will provide more. As always, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Closed List Candidate Selection

Closed list says little about how candidates are selected, merely that the selection takes place before the election itself and that during the election voters cannot modify this list. This says nothing about candidate selection, which varies between parties, and may be selection by party leaders, party central committee, or party members (primaries). As sources, I present The Politics of Electoral Systems, an authoritative textbook on the subject, edited by Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell, experts in their fields. The sources currently in the article are an advocacy site and a book which says nothing about candidate selection.

I have made an edit that I hope covers all needed points: 1. Closed list says nothing about candidate selection; and 2. Voters cannot change the candidate list on election day. Rami R 10:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Re-classifying PR systems

I propose that the systems described in this article be reorganized according to one of the following options:

• Option 1: Group the systems into "Multi-member PR systems" (Party list, Single transferable vote, Biproportional apportionment, Dual member proportional representation, Sortition) and "Mixed-member PR systems" (Mixed member proportional representation, Two-tier party list systems).
• Option 2: Simply flatten the list. The sections "PR electoral system" and "Mixed member systems" would be combined into a single section called "Proportional systems".

My reasons for preferring either of these options to the current classification scheme are as follows:

1. The inclusion of the category "Mixed member systems" forces one to choose an opposing category, for which we seem to lack a suitable name. The name "PR electoral systems", creates ambiguity as to whether the "Mixed member systems" are also proportional.
2. The category "Mixed member systems" is misnamed, in my opinion, since not all of the systems within involve multiple types of members. Admittedly, the term "mixed member" is used in this fashion elsewhere in the literature, yet the term "mixed system" seems far more common in similar contexts. MMP, DMP, and Bioproportional apportionment are mixed systems, but I would not describe the latter two as "mixed member". One could replace "Mixed member systems" with "Mixed PR systems" or "Hybrid PR systems", but this does not address the above-mentioned problem of what to call the opposing category.
3. I am unclear as to why Sortition is categorized as "mixed member". It does not seem "mixed" in any way. Both proposed options would address this.

Regardless of which option is selected, the following corresponding changes should be considered outside of this article:

• Reorganizing the "Electoral systems" navigation box with the top-level "Mixed-member" category replaced with "Semi-proportional".
• Redirecting Semi-proportional representation to Voting system#Semi-proportional methods, until a separate page is created to accompany the "Semi-proportional electoral systems" category.
• Renaming Mixed-Member Systems to "Mixed electoral systems" (as has already been suggested) or "Mixed voting systems". This renamed article would then be associated with the "Mixed electoral systems" category.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhys Goldstein (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the article by (1) renaming the "Mixed-member systems" section to "Mixed PR electoral systems", and adjusting the text accordingly, (2) re-classifying the two-tier party list system to become a subcategory of party list PR, and (3) moving sortition into it's own section called "Other forms of PR". The reason I made this edit is because three of the five systems previously listed under "Mixed-member systems" (bioproportional apportionment, dual member proportional representation, and sortition) were not actually mixed-member systems.

Other classification schemes are possible. For example, we could separate "Single-tier systems" from "Multi-tier systems" (see Option #1 above). Or we could simply flatten the list (see Option #2 above). The only reason I chose "Mixed PR electoral systems" as a category is because it entailed the smallest change to the existing article. The definition given for "Mixed-member systems" was actually a reasonable definition of a mixed system, so I was able to retain much of the preamble.

Unfortunately there seems to be a perception on Wikipedia that the terms "mixed system", "mixed-member system", and "semi-proportional system" are synonymous. It is true that there is considerable overlap between these categories. For example, all three categories contain parallel voting. Nevertheless, each category has its own meaning. I give rough definitions below to illustrate their differences:

• Mixed-member systems are those that elect multiple types of representatives. The elected "members" are "mixed".
• Mixed systems are those designed to combine different types of methods. Essentially, two "systems" are "mixed" into one.
• Semi-proportional systems are those invented based on the goal of achieving of compromise between a purely majoritarian and a purely proportional outcome. This does not necessarily require the mixing of different types of members or the mixing of different types of methods. The limited vote is a semi-proportional system, but it is neither a mixed-member system nor a mixed system.

Note that the two-tier party list system could be considered a mixed-member system, but it is not a mixed system because the same method (i.e. the party list) is used for both tiers. By contrast, dual member proportional representation is a mixed system, but it is not a mixed-member system since every representative is tied to the district he/she contested. It follows that these two systems had to be separated, and the simplest way to do that was to place the two-tier party list system as a subcategory of party list PR. My perception is that the Scandinavian electoral systems are generally considered to be party list systems, as opposed to mixed-member systems, so this provides a second justification for the change.

Admittedly, some interpret "semi-proportional" as pertaining to the degree of proportionality that is actually realized once small district sizes, high thresholds, and tactical voting patterns are brought to bear on election outcomes. I consider this interpretation unfortunate on a number of levels. But regardless of whether we regard "semi-proportional" as pertaining to a design principle or a historic trend, it clearly has a different meaning than either "mixed-member" or "mixed".

Let me acknowledge that many highly credible sources classify electoral systems as (1) majoritarian, (2) proportional, or (3) __________, where the third category is labeled as "mixed-member", "mixed", or "semi-proportional" depending on the source. I speculate that this has led to a perception on Wikipedia that mixed-member systems, mixed-systems, and semi-proportional systems are identical categories. "Mixed" seems to be the most prevalent label for the third category, so that may explain why the definitions on Wikipedia most closely match mixed system definitions in the literature. Why does Wikipedia favor the label "mixed-member system"? Perhaps the phrase "mixed system" was regarded as too generic, but that is only a guess on my part.

The reason I dwell on these categories is that they provide readers with important information on each system's associated form of governance (single-tier vs. mixed-member), the complexity of its formula (single-method vs. mixed), and the principle that is being symbolically endorsed by any democracy that uses the system (majoritarian, proportional, semi-proportional). I hope we can continue to improve the voting system classifiation scheme in this article, and elsewhere on Wikipedia, while ensuring each system is appropriately labeled. Rhys Goldstein (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rhys Goldstein,

You have proposed a number of different classification systems with no sources. Are the terms you have used ones you invented yourself? I refer you to the Wikipedia:No original research policy.

In any event, Contemporary scholars classify electoral systems into the following groups: Proportional Representation Systems, Mixed Member Systems, Plurality/Majoritarian Systems, and some scholars include an "other" category. I have provided references below.

1. The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Proportional Representation”, “Mixed Systems”, and “Majoritarian Systems”. The ERS lists AMS (the UK term for MMP) as a “Mixed System”.

2. The Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project classifies electoral systems into 4 groups: “Plurality/majority”, “mixed”, “proportional representation”, and “other”. The ACE Project lists MMP as “Mixed”.

3. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Plurality and Majority Systems”, “Proportional Representation Systems”, and “Mixed Electoral Systems”. The IFES lists MMP as a “Mixed Electoral System”.

4. The Parliament of Canada classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Proportional Representation”, and “Mixed Systems”. It lists a variant of MMP (D’Hondt system), which is used in Germany, as a “Mixed System”.

5. Claudio Martinelli, Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law from the University of Milano-Bicoccaand author of “Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective” classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Proportional”, and “Mixed” P.3-4. Martinelli lists two variants of MMP: the Hare e D’Hondt system used in Italy from 1995 to 2005, and the D’Hondt system used in Germany as “Mixed Systems” {P.9-10).

6. Pippa Norris, Harvard Professor and author of “Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems” classifies electoral systems into 4 groups: “Majoritarian”, “Semi-proportional Systems”, “Proportional Representation”, and “Mixed Systems”. Norris groups AMS (the UK term for MMP) as a “Mixed System” (P.1-2).

7. “Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Best of Both Worlds?” by Professors Matthew Søberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg from the University of California, classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: “Proportional Systems”, “Majoritarian Systems”, and “Mixed-member Systems”. Shugart and Wattenberg group MMP as a “Mixed-member System” (P.1-2). Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ontario Teacher,

I disagree with your claim that "Contemporary scholars classify electoral systems into the following groups: 'Proportional Representation Systems', 'Mixed Member Systems', 'Plurality/Majoritarian Systems' [and sometimes 'other']". It appears to me that the mixed member systems family is rarely used as part of such classification schemes.

Although you provide seven references, six of them contradict your claim. The ERS, the ACE Project, the IFES, O'Neal, Martinelli, and Norris use "mixed systems", "mixed", or "mixed electoral systems", according to your own summaries. None of these six references use mixed member systems as part of their classification schemes.

Let us examine the seventh reference. You state that the 2001 book by Shugart and Wattenberg "classifies electoral systems into 3 groups: 'Proportional Systems', 'Majoritarian Systems', and 'Mixed-member Systems'". I am skeptical of this interpretation since the three terms are not specifically put forward as a suitable framework for classifying all electoral systems (page 9). In any case, it is the only one of your seven references which comes close to supporting your claim.

What Shugart and Wattenberg do clearly state is that mixed member systems are a subset of multiple-tier electoral systems, where "seats are allocated in two (or more) overlapping sets of districts" (page 10). This criterion excludes biproportional apportionment, dual member proportional representation, and sortition, which do not feature overlapping sets of districts. Yet these three systems are erroneously classified as mixed member systems in the Wikipedia article.

My recent edit, which you undid, removed the mixed member systems category from this article and eliminated the false implication that biproportional apportionment, dual member proportional representation, and sortition are multiple-tier electoral systems. As outlined above, the seven references you provided compel such a change. I plan to restore my edit in a few days' time. It would be helpful if you explained why you favor the mixed member systems category in contradiction with the majority of your references. Rhys Goldstein (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just restored an edit that was first made on June 30, and later undone. The edit replaces the "Mixed member systems" section heading with "Mixed PR electoral systems", and moves two systems out of this section. It is the smallest change I can think of that corrects the misclassification of biproportional apportionment, dual member proportional representation, and sortition as mixed member systems. A definition by Shugart and Wattenberg (2001) makes it clear that the systems were misclassifed (see comment above).

The new structure not only helps correct factual errors in the article, it also improves alignment with categories found in the literature. Voting system classification schemes often feature a mixed electoral systems category. Rarely do they include a mixed member systems category. The ERS, the ACE Project, the IFES, O'Neal, Martinelli, and Norris all incorporate the "mixed" category and exclude the "mixed member" category (see comment above).

But note that this is not an article on voting systems in general. It is an article on PR. Naming the section "Mixed electoral systems" would be careless in this context, since it would falsely imply that all mixed electoral systems are proportional. This why I name the section "Mixed PR electoral systems".

Terms such as "mixed PR electoral system" and "mixed PR system" are not my own. They have been in use for decades. For example, Hoffhaus (1990) writes, "The difference which voting systems can produce in a simultaneous election can be seen most clearly in West Germany, which uses a mixed PR electoral system" (page 7). The author uses exactly the term I have incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Paxton et al. (2009) write, "Using plurality systems as the reference category, we estimate the effects of PR systems (including mixed-PR systems) and an 'Other' category that incorporates periods of one-party rule, coup years, and other legislative breaks" (page 10). Here the authors explicitly mention "mixed-PR systems", and associate this category with other forms of PR. This is quite similar to the structure my edit introduces into the article.

In addition to renaming a section, I relocated two systems to other sections.

Two-tier party list systems is now a subsection of Party list PR. The system is relocated because it is not a mixed system. I think it is better off in the new location anyway. The text in the paragraph states that Denmark, Norway, and Sweden use this type of system, and I observe that these countries are normally regarded as using party list PR. Prior to my edit, the article's classification scheme implied that Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all use a mixed member system. I have not seen other sources make this association.

Finally, I move sortition into its own section called "Other forms of PR". I am not fond of this category, but where else should sortition go? Prior to my edit it was classified as a mixed member system, which I find puzzling.

Further improvements are certainly possible. Two-tier party list systems should perhaps be moved into the party-list proportional representation article. Australian Senate PR should perhaps be moved into the single transferable vote article. It is still reasonable to merge the three sections on PR systems into a single flat list. Kindly note that any such refinement can made on top of my edit. Undoing my edit would reintroduce factual errors as well as a number of inconsistencies with the literature. Rhys Goldstein (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rhys Goldstein,

I kept some of the changes you made. You are accurate in asserting that Sortition is not a Mixed Member System. However, it is not a PR System either, nor is it used in any contemporary nation as an electoral system. Technically, it's not even an electoral system at all as no one casts votes. It is an appointment system. Sortition is used to randomly select jurors. I have removed it from the article.

You are correct in pointing out that some of the sources I provided use the terms "Mixed Systems" as shorthand for Mixed Member Systems. These are synonyms. "Mixed Member Systems" would be more accurate as a title heading. However, within the article, "Mixes Systems" can be used as an abbreviation. Check out these tables: https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/default http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems.

The term you have presented "Mixed PR Systems" is seldom used. More importantly, it is never used as a classification system. The Hoffhaus source you presented only uses that term once in the entire book. Notably, it is not used as a chapter title, nor a subtitle, not is a chart provided illustrating voting systems. Simply put, Hoffhaus does not present a list of electoral systems, and does not list "Mixed PR Systems" as a type of electoral system, as you have suggested. The Paxton et al. source is only available through a paid service, it is therefore not verifiable.

Mixed Systems, by definition, combine majoritarian/plurality systems with PR. Calling the section "Mixed PR Systems" would be just as superfluous as renaming it "Mixed Majoritarian Systems" or "Mixed Plurality Systems" as it unnecessarily draws attention to only half of the mixture. In any event, you have not achieved a consensus to make these changes. You can start by doing further research to verify if there are any reliable sources which classify electoral systems in the manner you have presented. For instance, look for an electoral reform website or a scholarly article which provides a table, chart, or title headings. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ontario Teacher,

I changed the section heading from "Mixed Member Systems" to "Mixed electoral systems".

This is a compromise. I still believe "Mixed PR electoral systems" is more appropriate given that this Wikipedia article is on PR, not voting systems in general. Perhaps we can revisit this discussion if at some point other editors weigh in.

The Wikipedia article now reflects the IFES reference you cited in that "mixed systems" occurs in the text as a shorthand for "mixed electoral systems". Note that the IFES uses this unabbreviated term as a section title. We are still without an example of "mixed member systems" being explicitly used as part of a classification scheme. Moreover, I have found additional evidence that "mixed member systems" is the wrong term for the Wikipedia article.

Kindly take a look at a 2013 article by Bormann and Golder (2013), which presents a detailed voting system classification scheme. Similar to the ERS, the ACE Project, the IFES, O'Neal, Martinelli, and Norris, the authors use the terms "mixed systems" and "mixed electoral systems" while making no mention of "mixed member systems". Furthermore, the authors write, "Although many mixed systems have more than one electoral tier – a level at which votes are translated into seats – with a majoritarian formula employed in one and a proportional formula employed in another, multiple electoral tiers are not a necessary characteristic of mixed systems" (page 363).

Let us compare the Bormann and Golder quote with one from Shugart and Wattenberg (2001): "In this book mixed-member electoral systems are defined as a subset of the broader category of multiple-tier electoral systems. An electoral system employs multiple tiers if seats are allocated in two (or more) overlapping set of districts, ..." (page 10). The key difference between these quotes is that the "mixed system" description by Bormann and Golder explicitly permits both single-tier and multiple-tier electoral systems, whereas the "mixed member system" description by Shugart and Wattenberg explicitly excludes single-tier systems. Since our section in the Wikipedia article includes one multiple-tier system (MMP) and two single-tier systems (biproportional apportionment and dual member proportional representation), we must favor the term that encompasses all three systems over the term that accommodates only one of the three.

Regarding sortition...

I agree that sortition is not a voting system. But is it not related in some way to the topic of this article, proportional representation? In any case, I do feel a broader consensus should be reached before completely removing this content. Perhaps you can begin a separate discussion topic so that other editors can weigh in without going through all of our mixed/mixed-member/mixed-PR discussions.

In the meantime, I have restored the sortition entry under a non-committal section title, "Related apportionment systems", which was inspired by your comments. I did not restore the largely redundant text on sortition that you removed from the top of the article. In fact I also removed the adjacent sentence refering to biproportional apportionment as a two-tier system. All of the text removed from the top of the article had been situated in a paragraph about MMP. Rhys Goldstein (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Rhys Goldstein,

The mixed-member proportional representation is known as the Additional Member System in the United Kingdom is a hybrid two-tier mixed-member system which varies in proportionality. Why did you remove this?

As we have discussed, Sortition is not an electoral system, and is certainly not a form of proportional representation. Sortition is where individuals are appointed at random. In modern times, this would be for civic action committees or jurors. It does not involve political parties or ballots whatsoever. Please provide at least 2 reliable sources which state that sortition is a form of PR. In the mean time, this content will stay out of the article.

We can change the subtitle to "Mixed-Member Electoral Systems" if that is agreeable to you. Otherwise, we can leave it as "Mixed Member Systems". There is still no mention of "Mixed PR Systems" anywhere as a classification system. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ontario Teacher,

At no point did I remove the sentence you quote, the first sentence of Section 5.1. I did not even modify it. This sentence was neither removed nor modified by anyone since you added it on July 13.

In my latest edit (July 16), which you undid, I did not categorize sortition as a form of PR. Rather, I adopted the section title "Related apportionment systems".

In my latest edit (July 16), I did not introduce the term "Mixed PR Systems" into the article. The term I adopted as a compromise was "Mixed electoral systems".

Please re-examine my July 16 edit. I suspect you did not read it carefully before you undid it.

No, I do not agree to "Mixed-Member Electoral Systems". "Mixed-member" implies multiple tiers. Biproportional apportionment is a single-tier system. Dual member proportional representation is a single-tier system. Rhys Goldstein (talk)02:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rhys Goldstein,

Sortition is not related to PR. As I stated before, sortition does not include political parties, nor is it an electoral system. It is not used to calculate seat count to reflect proportionality. Sortition is the equivalent of drawing straws at random to decide who is appointed to a task. This is used to select jurors, civic action committee members, or military service members via a draft. It is in no way related to PR.

Please explain why you believe Sortition is "related to PR". Provide at least 2 scholarly sources. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Representative Democracy

There should be discussion of Proportional Representation on the page of Representative Democracy, not just as a voting system, but because the voting system fundamentally affects the form of representation. I could find no links even to Proportional Representation from that page; I expect to at least find a link in the sidebar about Types of democracies. Alternatively, a section on Voting Systems should be added. Perhaps someone involved in this page ought to take charge of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.218.184 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What a Disgrace

I am so ashamed that this page is on WIKI. This page looks like an afterthought by a 15 year old, a page you send to people who are politically curious but who you do not want to learn anything important about what is wrong with the system they live in. I am horrified that this page even exists in 2017. Yes, 1984 comes to mind. And I am friendly when I say that.

Who controlled this page before? The UK 2-party system machine or the US 2-party system machine? This is beyond the average wiki delivery; this page is a very bad-apple example of disinformation.


To be honest FredrickS, I really have no Idea what you are talking about. Superegz (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the first paragraph is already quite confusing (and inserts a lie as well) tells me someone disinterested in expressing and understanding proportional representation is at work. The bias is so obvious.

What is fascinating is that in the Anglo writing culture one should be very clear about what is being said in the very first paragraph. This wiki page is the opposite of that culture. But the Anglo culture is also based on winner-take-all principles (and not on proportional representation), and the aversion towards Proportional representation is therefore expressed at the same time.

In proportional elections, the voters are in the driver seat, while in district elections the machines can do much of the driving. This page (and you?) seems a proponent of the power structure, not of the truth.

Merge sections 4 and 5?

I propose that sections 4 and 5, which describe specific PR systems, be merged into a single section with the following structure:

4 PR electoral systems
    4.1 Party list PR
        4.1.1 Closed list PR
        4.1.2 Open list PR
        4.1.3 Local list PR
        4.1.4 Two-tier party list systems
    4.2 Single transferable vote
        4.2.1 Australian Senate STV
    4.3 Mixed compensatory systems
        4.3.1 Mixed member proportional representation
        4.3.2 Dual member proportional representation
    4.4 Biproportional apportionment
        4.4.1 Fair majority voting
    4.5 Other proportional systems
        4.5.1 Asset voting
        4.5.2 Reweighted range voting

This re-organization will accomplish the following:

• It will clarify that all systems featured in the article are PR systems. The current version divides the featured systems into "PR electoral systems" (section 4) and "Mixed Member electoral systems" (section 5), creating unnecessary ambiguity as to whether the systems in section 5 are forms of PR.

• It will ensure that all electoral system categories appearing in section headings are categories of PR systems. The current version features a category called "Mixed Member electoral systems", which is not a subcategory of PR.

• It will correct the misclassification of biproportional apportionment and dual member proportional representation as mixed member electoral systems. Both of these systems feature a single tier of representatives. The term "mixed member" implies multiple tiers of representatives, as explained by Shugart and Wattenberg (2001), page 10.

• It will make use of the "mixed compensatory" category of systems to help explain the relationship between mixed systems and PR systems. A mixed system can be a form of PR if its PR component compensates for the results of the plurality component.

The root of the problem with the current version of the article is that it takes a classification scheme intended for electoral systems in general, and tries to apply the top-level categories to an article specifically focused on PR systems. The ACE Project, the IFES, O'Neal (1993), Martinelli (2012), Bormann and Golder (2013), and the Law Commission of Canada (2004, chapter 4) classify electoral systems in general as majoritarian (aka. plurality/majority), proportional, or mixed. The "proportional systems" and "mixed systems" categories are appropriate as parallel sections in the electoral systems article, which has recently adopted them, but are not appropriate as parallel sections in this article on PR. Rhys Goldstein (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The proposed change has been made (see diff). This involved adding a description of the "mixed compensatory systems" category. The descriptions of the specific systems were not altered. Rhys Goldstein (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018

"The winning party or coalition receives a majority bonus. Threshold of 4% for parties and 10% for coalitions." This is not correct, the law has recently changed. Italy has 2/3 of the seats assigned with Proportional Representation, 1/3 assigned with first past the post system. Marcoviappiani (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The 2018 Italian election takes place this weekend. This will apparently be the first election under a new system, parallel voting (source). This is not MMP, so this edit should be undone. Countries with parallel voting have been excluded from the table at the bottom, so the entry for Italy should be removed. The Mixed electoral system and Majority bonus system articles also need to be updated.Rhys Goldstein (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made the changes outlined in my comment above. Rhys Goldstein (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2018-08-23

The source (currently source #20) for Fair Vote Canada's pdf showing the positive research of PR is no longer valid. [This link|https://www.fairvote.ca/2018/05/16/evidence/] on their new website is valid, although I have not checked that it contains all the same information. Kittsil (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The source now appears to be at this page. The cited information seems to be there. I updated the reference (diff). Rhys Goldstein (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

UK, Scotland/Wales and the Map

If someone, has the time and skill to update the map, we should perhaps show the partial adoption of proportional representation (MMP specifically) in Scotland and Wales. UK (Westminster elections) as a whole are still under first-past-the-post.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I just updated Chile (binomial voting to party list PR) and Italy (party list PR to parallel voting). It makes sense to me to show Scotland and Wales as using both MMP and FPTP, but I don't know the best way to do that. Rhys Goldstein (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Intended Adjustments

Hello, as a Political Science student at the University of Amsterdam, I was asked to review and improve this article. I propose one or more of the following adjustments: (it may be too much to do all of them right away)

• A revision of the introduction. The first paragraph is immensely hard to fathom, because of the use of difficult wording and reasoned from a standpoint in which the reader is already very familiar with a first-past-the-post district system. For a neutral reader, without any prior knowledge of either system, this paragraph could be very difficult to understand. The 'technical' part on the different systems is a lot stronger, and easier to understand. I am not sure though whether this belongs in the introduction.
• Secondly, I would therefore very much like to change the order of the article, because I would argue intro-history-characteristics-forms would be more coherent to the usual wikipedia structure. It would also make it an easier read.

I will be working on this the coming weeks, and would very much like to hear comments, suggestions and ideas!

TheRolo94 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ireland vs. Northern Ireland

Unless I'm reading this wrong, Ireland and Northern Ireland seem to be treated as a single country. For example: 'STV is used in only two [countries]: Ireland, since independence in 1922 […]'. This is implied again when the country is discussed further in the article. Even if both use STV, for the purposes of the article, these should not be treated as the same. Leavechelseaalone (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Examples?

Just like there are examples(or even just an image) in the FPTP article, can you please craft an example for this system too? I am not able to understand how PR works. Or I guess redirect me to another source?

SamyakShirsh (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Added a section on the basics of how the most common versions PR work. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)