Talk:Mixed-member majoritarian representation

Distinction from parallel voting
Is this distinct enough from parallel voting to deserve a separate article? I know they're not technically the same, but it seems like these could be merged. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't think it should be merged. Yes, there is a 90% overlap if looking at nationak legislatures, but nowdays there are so many mixed systems in use, I think both categories deserve their own article, although both need more than just polishing.
 * Mixed member majoritarian - it's good that it exists ad it provides contrast to MMP, this distinction is common in literature, especially newer, so this should definitely be kept
 * but it also covers other systems, especially in Massicotte/Blais typology:
 * -coexistence - where many districts use majoritarian while others proportional, this is enough to make it not proportional, definitely fits here and nowhere else (this is not parallel voting)
 * -parallel voting with a winner-take-all and proportional mix. yes, I dislike the phrase "majoritarian" here too, but I haven't really seen the "winner-take-most" anywhere, and is actually somewhat more confusing in my opinion
 * -majority bonus/jackpot (fusion) - has it's own article (probably should have two different ones as well), probably the most perfect fit for MMM (since here majoritarian is more appropriate here)
 * for all these I would stick with MMM being an article
 * -systems with very limited compensation, which are technically not parallel, but for all intents and purposes are surely not MMP either (Korea, Mexico, etc)
 * Parallel voting
 * -just means two independent systems superimposed (superposition) on each other. Sometimes even just the two-vote version.
 * -it could be two proportional systems too
 * I would keep the parallel voting article, especially since its even a bit more polished already.
 * I think if AMS and MMP are still separate (which I am neutral on), I think these have so much more reason to be. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense (keeping both separate if we keep AMS/MMP separate), but I feel like the Wikipedia articles on all these systems are kind of a complete mess, and I have no idea what's going on or what's different between these systems. I have no idea what, and it would be very nice to have a diagram or categorizing proportional representation systems by all the axes they can vary along. Something like:
 * No list (e.g. PAV) vs. Open list vs. Semi-open (quota) list vs. Closed list
 * Mixed single vote vs. Two separate votes
 * Homogenous vs. Mixed-member compensatory vs. Mixed-member noncompensatory
 * Single apportionment vs. independent regional apportionments vs. biproportional apportionment
 * I've mentioned before that I come from a math/social choice/econ background, so I don't know much about detailed terminology on all these systems.
 * I think someone has to be trolling me. Have politicians really created a hellish series of Rube-Goldbergesque contraptions specifically to torment me? Dear god, what in the fresh hell is going on with the German Bundestag? How did it get so big? Wait, half their members are elected by first-past-the-post? You can just keep the overhang seats? Well, at least they compensate for it by adding... wait, they used to not have compensatory seats?! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I empathize a lot. I'll see what I can do to clean it up a bit.
 * I would actually be up for ditching MMM (especially because of the "majoritarian" in it) but only if we can ditch MMP (which is not really that proportional often...)
 * I see that you renamed a few articles with lesser used but more accurate names. We could do the same here. Then it would look like this:
 * Mixed compensatory systems:
 * -"MMP", with all it's forms
 * -currently german system??? (idk if still counts as "mixed")
 * -AMS
 * -DMP
 * -majority jackpot?
 * -vote linkage
 * (-supermixed systems with partial compensation)
 * Mixed non-compensatory systems (sometimes called mixed majoritarian).
 * -parallel voting with winner-take-all + proportional setups =?= "supplementary member system" = "trench system"
 * -seat linkage (copying?) like Pakistan and some other countries where additional (often) womens seats are added but in proportion of FPTP seats
 * (mention of partially compensatory systems)
 * -majority bonus
 * potentially: Mixed partially compensatory systems
 * -supermixed
 * -vote linkage, scorporo Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems interesting! I'm generally wondering whether we can describe some of these methods as "compositions" of different traits. e.g. most "majority bonus" systems (at least the Greece-style ones) could be reinterpreted as parallel voting, where some of the seats are elected by party list block voting and the rest by proportional representation.
 * To give an example of something I'm confused about, what's the difference between vote linkage and seat linkage? These sound like they have to give the same results, but I'm kind of confused as hell.
 * It seems like lots of systems that have been labeled as "different" might actually be the same. For example, is Scorporo just badly-designed dual-vote MMPR? If you let parties keep their overhang, and have a dual-vote system, you can break proportionality with the decoy list tactic. But the weird results don't seem related to any kind of "negative vote transfer" or anything like that, just the fact that they didn't make a credible commitment to introduce as many leveling seats as necessary to ensure proportionality, the way Germany does. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)