Talk:Overhang seat

i think this is wrong about Germany. It gives the impression that the party winning the overhang seats keeps them and other parties are given extra seats to maintain the balance. I think that is wrong. I think the party with the overhang seats keeps them but no one else gets compensatory seats.

That is correct. In the German Bundestag overhang seats are allowed, but there are no compensatory/balance seats. 78.48.179.162 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it is correct that parties that win three constituency seats can participate in the proportional seats, as an alternative to satisfying the 5% threshold, but surely this has nothing to do with 'overhang' seats? Can anyone confirm the position?Ntmr (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Lack of overhang seats in the Welsh Senedd, and Scottish Parliament?
This article appears to discuss overhang seats only in the context of the German mixed-member proportional system and more fully proportional systems elsewhere. It is surprising that no mention is made of the possibility of a party being over- or under-represented in the mixed-member system used for elections for the Welsh Senedd (and its predecessor the Welsh Assembly). This arises when a party wins more constituency seats than it would be entitled to under its party-list vote. The solution of the Welsh system is simply to allow the over- or under-representation. For example, in 2016, in the South East Wales region (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Wales_East_(Senedd_Cymru_electoral_region), the Labour party ended up with one more list seat and Plaid Cymru with one fewer list seat than they would have been entitled to if the d'Hondt allocation had applied without the priority given to constituency seats. In 2007, as a result of the election for a constituency seat of an Independent, the Conservative party was under-represented by being deprived of one list seat. There may be other examples from other Welsh Assembly elections.

The same phenomenon of under- or over-representation may well apply in theory with the similar electoral system used for elections to the Scottish Parliament, but the larger proportion of list seats in Scotland (43.4% in Scotland, as opposed to 33.3% in Wales) makes this less likely to occur.

Should it therefore be noted somewhere in this article that another way of dealing with the problem which gives rise to the need for overhang seats is to ignore it, and to allow the over- and under-representation?Ntmr (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * But that does not happen in Scotland. What actually happens is that the number of list seats is reduced so that it evens up, so the assertion, above, is untrue.


 * Also, I believe the entire section regarding Scotland should be deleted, as it is also untrue, as what it outlines is a failed attempt by *one* party (Alba), not "multiple parties", to deliberately game the system by only running as a list party and then suggesting to the majority party (the SNP) that they should form a coalition together, which is not the same thing as a party gaining overhang seats (and it failed spectacularly for Alba, in any event).


 * So, for both reasons, it is incorrect, and should be deleted. I will do this now, but can add it back if others disagree. 49.184.24.88 (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Decoy party in 2021 election for Scottish Parliament?
The reference to "decoy parties" as a way in which overhang seats may be needed, to promote proportionality, prompts the thought: is this not the likely effect of the setting up of the Alba party, and its decisions (a) to contest only the list seats and (b) to encourage its supporters to vote for SNP constituency parties? Provided that Alba gains around 5% - 6% of the party list vote in any region, it is likely to qualify for one or more list seats, even if the SNP has made a "clean sweep", or nearly so, of the constituency seats. In the 2016 Election, in some regions (eg Mid Scotland and Fife, and North East Scotland, in the 2016 Election), the SNP had already made a near "clean sweep" of constituency seats, and so did not qualify for any list seats. Should it not be recognised that the Alba Party is hoping to take advantage of the "decoy party" phenomenon? Ntmr (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you have fundamentally misunderstood what is referred to as decoy parties, as ALBA and are two separate, and opposed, parties (on all issues other than Scottish independence, in any case).
 * ABLA only ran as a list seats party, and there was no "decoy" effect at all. It is true that they *did* try to game the voting system (and failed miserably, not even gaining a single list seat), but there was no "decoy" scheme at play.49.184.24.88 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ABLA only ran as a list seats party, and there was no "decoy" effect at all. It is true that they *did* try to game the voting system (and failed miserably, not even gaining a single list seat), but there was no "decoy" scheme at play.49.184.24.88 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ABLA only ran as a list seats party, and there was no "decoy" effect at all. It is true that they *did* try to game the voting system (and failed miserably, not even gaining a single list seat), but there was no "decoy" scheme at play.49.184.24.88 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)