Proportional representation

Proportional representation (PR) is any election system which ensures a proportionally representative result of a democratic election, x% of votes should be represented by x% in the democratic institutions, parliament or congress.

Methods of proportional representation

There are different methods of PR, which achieve either a greater degree of proportionality or a greater degree of determinate outcome.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Party list system in a multi-member constituency

The parties each list their candidates according to that party's determination of priorities. In a closed list, voters vote for a list, not a candidate. Each party is allocated seats in proportion to the number of votes, using the ranking order on its list. In an open list, voters indicate their order of preference within the list.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• This system is used in Israel (where the whole country is one closed list constituency), the Netherlands (open list) and for elections to the European Parliament in the United Kingdom (closed list) as well as in Finland using multi-member districts and open lists.

Additional-member system, mixed-member system

Main articles: Additional Member System (Mixed Member Proportional); Parallel voting or Supplementary Member; Alternative Vote and Alternative vote top-up (Alternative Vote Plus)

Related Topics:
Additional Member System - Parallel voting - Alternative Vote - Alternative vote top-up

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The country is divided into one-member constituencies, but a further bloc of seats are reserved for proportionality - the additional members bloc. In some versions voters have two ballot papers: the first is a "first past the post" ballot for their local constituency. The second is a Party List ballot as above. The additional member seats are allocated in proportion to the number of party list votes. In other versions there is only the "first past the post" ballot electing constituency representatives; additional member seats allocated in proportion to the votes a party's candidates recieve nationally. It is criticised on the grounds that a significant number of deputies are not directly answerable to constituents and are difficult to vote out of office.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• This system (or variations of it) is used in Germany, New Zealand, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Italy has changed between sub-systems.

Single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency

Main article (with worked examples): Single Transferable Vote

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A constituency elects at least three, rarely more than five representatives. (Consequently the constituency is three to five times larger than a single member constituency in "first past the post".) The major parties may offer as many candidates as there are seats, the minor parties and independents rather fewer. Voters mark their ballot, giving their preferred ranking for some or even all the candidates. Consequently, it is the voters, rather than the party, who have final say over which candidates succeed - it is not a good system for party apparatchiks. A successful candidate must achieve a quota of one-fourth plus one of the preferences in a three-member constituency, one-fifth plus one in a four-member, and so on. Only in a few cases is this achieved at the first count. For the second count, if a candidate wins election his surplus (votes in excess of the quota) is transferred to his voters' second choices; otherwise, the least popular candidate is eliminated and his votes redistributed according to the second preference shown on them. This process continues for as many counts as are needed until all seats are filled. Although the counting process is complicated, voting is clear and most voters get at least one of their preferences elected. All deputies are answerable directly to their local constituents. Some political scientists argue that STV is more properly classified as 'semi-proportional' as there is no assurance of a proportional result at a nationwide level.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• This system is used in Australia, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Malta.

Shared-candidate democracy

This is a system where each candidate who gets a minimum proportion of the votes (such as 5% of the total votes available) is allowed a seat, or the votes are given to each candidate based on a system similar to Instant Runoff Voting, where the votes are runoff to a persons most preferred candidate of the top four or so candidates that have the most preference. However, when a representative votes on an issue on behalf of his constituents, his (or her) vote is weighted based on the percentage of citizens (s)he represents. If all citizens in a constituency vote, the sum of the votes from all the representatives from that constituency sum to 100%, or one full vote. Usually this is accomplished simply by having every person in the legislature cast the amount of votes that they received, instead of a complex system of percentages of votes that would confuse the electorate. Typically, all powers of the candidacy, including speaking time and salaries, are also linked to the percentage of the candidacy that each representative shares. In this way, every vote literally does count. There may also be a system in place in which a person can vote for no candidate, or every voter who does not vote has their vote counted for no candidate, essentially a vote for the status quo.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Benefits of this system include simplicity (all the voters vote, and each candidate just divides his total votes by the total number of voters to decide his share of the representation), direct proportionality (representatives get exactly the proportion of power that the voters give them), resistance to gerrymandering (political parties can't gain a significant advantage by moving voting district borders), and minority representation (minority groups get a voice; but the majority still rules). It also remains neutral on the issue of party politics; independent candidates are not favoured nor punished. Voters may perhaps feel less disenfranchised with this system: even minority parties with only 10% popular support still have a chance to speak and vote.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Potential drawbacks include added complexity for computing representative vote results, and variability in the number of representatives that may be in power after any given election. This is not as much of an issue in the IRV system, as only four or so people from each district would be allowed, but it does suffer from some of the drawbacks of IRV itself, just to a much lesser extent. There is also the problem that it would add complexity to the legislature. Many people point out, though, that other systems are perhaps more complex, that this lesser amount of complexity is a small price to pay for every vote to count, and that it would be easy to simply use a computerized system, so that it would at least make it easy to count up the votes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One variant of this system allows for fractional voting. If a constituent likes Candidate A 30%, Candidate B 30%, and Candidate C 40%, he can give each candidate the appropriate fraction of his vote. In this way, the trust of the voter in his representatives can be more accurately portrayed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In mixed member systems, candidates from the first-past-the-post districts are given 100% of a districts vote (or 100 votes, depending on the variant) to be added cumulatively with the shared member districts.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• This system remains theoretical; no known nations use this method today.