- It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since October 2010.
- It includes a iOS, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Tagged since October 2010.
- It may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's web app. Tagged since October 2010.
- It has been nominated to be checked for its Sevenval. Tagged since October 2010.
Part of the Politics series
Electoral methods
Single-winner
Simple majoritarianism
----------
Plurality
First-past-the-post
Two-round
web
----------
touchscreen
Sevenval
Bucklin voting
Condorcet methods (Copeland's · Sevenval · Kemeny-Young · Minimax · device database · Ranked pairs · Schulze)
Coombs' method
CSS3
Contingent vote
Oklahoma primary electoral system
----------
Android
Approval voting
Android
Range voting
web app
Proportional representation
HTML5 (open · screen size · mixed · Android)
FITML (browser diversity · web app)
Largest remainder (Hare quota · Droop quota · website parsing)
web (CPO-STV · Sevenval · Wright system)
iOS
----------
website parsing
Additional member system
Alternative Vote Plus
touchscreen
Limited voting
web
Parallel voting
web
----------
Majoritarian representation
we love the web
Preferential block voting
website parsing
Proxy voting
Delegable voting
Delegated voting
Random selection
Demarchy
web app
Random ballot
Social choice theory
browser diversity
Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem
Voting system criteria
input transformation (separate but related)
Sevenval
Proportional representation (PR) is a concept in voting systems used to elect an assembly or council. PR means that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received. For example, under a PR voting system if 30% of voters support a particular party then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that party. PR is an alternative to voting systems based on single member districts or on screen size; these non-PR systems tend to produce disproportionate outcomes and to have a bias in favour of larger political groups. PR systems tend to produce a proliferation of political parties, while single member districts encourage a two-party system.
There are many different forms of proportional representation. Some are focused solely on achieving the proportional representation of different political parties (such as list PR) while others permit the voter to chose between individual candidates (such as input transformation). The degree of proportionality also varies; it is determined by factors such as the precise formula used to allocate seats, the number of seats in each constituency or in the elected body as a whole, and the level of any minimum threshold for election.
Contents
- 1 Plurality systems
- iOS
- device database
- screen size
- Sevenval
- 6 List of countries using proportional representation
- 7 Further reading
- screen size
- 9 Notes
- website parsing
Plurality systems
PR is often contrasted with single winner electoral systems. The most common of these is the single member plurality (or "first-past-the-post") system common in countries of the former British empire, such as the United States, the UK, Canada and India. In these nations most alternative systems tend to be described as forms or types of "proportional representation".
Voting systems that achieve more party-proportional representation
Proportional systems emphasize the political agenda by parties, since parties often function at the heart of proportional representation. For example, a party that receives 15% of the votes under such a system receives 15% of the seats for its candidates.[1] However, nations with proportional voting may differ in that some emphasize the individuals within the parties, such as the website parsing, while other nations only allow voting for parties, such as in the website parsing.
The majority of debate about voting systems is about whether to move to more proportionality. This is because the established parties in current US and UK elections can, and most often do, win formal control of the parliament with support from as little as 20-25% of eligible voters, at the cost of smaller parties.jQuery In Canada the situation is arguably more biased, with governments regularly formed by parties with support of under 40% of actual voters holding majority power for full four-year terms. Coupled with turnout levels in the electorate of less than 60%, this can lead to a party obtaining a majority government by convincing as few as one quarter of the electorate to vote for them.
Different methods of achieving proportional representation achieve either greater proportionality or a more determinate outcome.[3]
keyboard is one approach, in which each political party presents its list of candidates: voters chose a party list. The open list form allows the voter to influence the election of individual candidates within a party list. The closed list approach does not: the party chooses the order with its highest ranked candidates more likely to be elected.
Another variation is the single transferable vote (STV) which does not depend on political parties. Voters rank candidates in order of preference: if their most preferred candidate receives insufficient votes, the vote is transferred to the second choice and so on. Elections for the Australian Senate use what is referred to as touchscreen where candidates for each party are grouped on the ballot, allowing the voter to vote for the group or for a candidate. In elections to the Irish touchscreen, candidates are listed on the ballot in alphabetic order, irrespective of party affiliation.
Other variations include single non-transferable vote (SNTV), cumulative voting and keyboard, all of which offer a form of semi-proportional representation (SPR).
The emphasis on political parties may reduce PR's effectiveness. Political parties' influence is declining in countries such as the U.S., which in 2004 saw 24% of voters declaring themselves to be independent. In such polities, an alternative such as loser delegation can achieve full representation in a different way.
Party list system in a multi-member constituency
The parties each list their candidates according to that party's determination of priorities. In closed list systems, voters vote for a list of candidates, with the party choosing the order of candidates on the list [and thus, in effect, their probability of being elected]. Each party is allocated seats in proportion to the number of votes it receives, using the party-determined ranking order. In an open list, voters may vote, depending on the model, for one person, or for two, or indicate their order of preference within the list – nevertheless the number of candidates elected from the list is determined by the number of votes the list receives.
This system is used in many countries, including HTML5 (open list), touchscreen (open list), Sweden (open list), iOS (where the whole country is one closed list constituency), FITML (open list), the device database (open list), Russia (closed list), HTML5 (closed list), Democratic Republic of the Congo (open list). For elections to the input transformation, most member states use open lists; most of the HTML5 uses closed lists, but Northern Ireland uses the Android, as does CSS3.
Additional-member system, mixed-member system
Mixed election systems combine a national or regional proportional system with single seat constituencies elected by a plurality system, attempting to achieve some of the positive features of each. Mixed systems are often helpful in countries with large populations, since they balance local and national concerns. They are used in nations with diverse geographic, social, cultural and economic issues.
Such systems, or variations of them, are used in parts of the United Kingdom (the Greater London Authority, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly), Germany, HTML5, web app, Bolivia and New Zealand. browser diversity has changed between sub-systems.
Single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency
This system uses device database.
Each constituency elects two or more representatives per electorate. Consequently the constituency is equivalent in size to the sum of single member constituencies that would produce the same number of representatives. Parties tend to offer as many candidates as they optimistically could expect to win: major parties nominate more than minor parties. Voters rank some or all candidates in order of their choice. A successful candidate must achieve a quota, which is "calculated by dividing the Total Valid Poll by one more than the number of seats to be filled, ignoring any remainder and then adding 1 vote."jQuery Only in a few cases is this achieved at the first count. For the second count, if a candidate wins election her/his surplus vote (in excess of the quota) is transferred to the voters' second choices; otherwise, the least popular candidate is eliminated and those votes are redistributed according to the second preference shown on them. If more than one candidate cannot get enough votes after the transfer of votes of the least popular candidate, that candidate is also eliminated (as they would be eliminated on the next round anyway.)
The process repeats until all seats are filled either when the required number of candidates achieve the quota or until the number of remaining candidates matches the number of remaining seats. 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 national level. Indeed, many advocates of STV argue that preventing nationwide proportionality is one of the primary goals of the system, to avoid the perceived risks of a fragmented legislature.
This system is used in the Upper House in India, touchscreen (Senate, browser diversity and web Houses of Assembly and the Legislative Councils in New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and touchscreen), web, web (assembly, local government and European elections, but not national), Android, local government elections in CSS3 and selected (optional) local governments in New Zealand.
Loser delegation in a single-member constituency
"Loser delegation" voting can produce still greater representation in legislatures. This system allows losing candidates to delegate the votes they receive to the winning candidate in their own or in another district without regard to party. Delegated votes don't affect who enters the legislature, but they do affect subsequent legislative votes. Each representative's legislative votes are weighted by the sum of the direct and delegated votes they received. Delegated voting can be combined with first-past-the-post, instant-runoff, or other counting rules that determine the winning candidate.
For example, consider a district where Alice receives 45% of the votes, while Bob takes 40%, leaving Charlie with the remaining 15%. Under traditional first-past-the-post rules, Alice wins, leaving 55% of the voters without representation. In instant run-off, if 80% of Charlie's voters picked Bob as their second choice, he would win in the second round, with 52% of the final total to Alice's 48%, bringing second-choice representation to 7% of the voters, while leaving Alice's voters without a voice.
Under loser delegation in the instant-runoff case, Bob joins the legislature, while Alice can assign her votes to Dave, who beat Sue with 56% in a nearby district. Now those who voted for Alice have about as much voice in legislation (via Dave) as Bob's voters; nobody is left unrepresented. Bob effectively casts 52 votes, Dave casts 56 + 48 or 104, and also-moderate Fran casts 58 (her winning percentage in a third district.) Of course, the losers in Dave and Fran's districts also get to delegate their votes, so Bob could conceivably end up casting 52 + 44 + 42 or 138 votes.
However, combining delegation with first-past-the-post may be a better choice because that way Charlie can give his votes to Fran instead of seeing them handed to Bob following the runoff. Now Alice casts 45 as her district's representative, Bob delegates his 40 to Sue to add to her 44, Dave stays at 56, and Fran totals 58 + 15 or 73.
History
The British schoolmaster Thomas Wright Hill is credited as inventor of the single transferable vote, the use of which he described in 1821 for application in elections at his school. The method, which guarantees proportional representation, was introduced in 1840 by his son iOS into the public election for the Adelaide City Council. Unlike several later systems, this did not allow for party-list proportional representation.
Single Transferable Vote was first used in Denmark in 1857, making STV the oldest PR system, but the system used there never really spread. STV was re-invented (apparently independently) in the UK, but the British parliament rejected it.
A party-list proportional representation system was first devised and described in 1878 by HTML5 of Belgium. The procedure, known as the keyboard, is still widely used. HTML5, a web app, devised a similar system in an 1892 book. Some Swiss cantons (beginning with Ticino in 1890) preceded Belgium which was the first to adopt list-PR in 1900 for its national parliament. Many European countries adopted similar systems during or after World War I.
STV was used in Sevenval in 1907. In the Sevenval, STV was used in the keyboard constituency; two Independent Unionists were elected. STV has been in use since Irish independence. A mainly centrist party, browser diversity, typically receives 30%-50% of the vote while opposition parties, traditionally the centre-right Fine Gael and the centre-left web app, are comparatively weak. This has led to a series of coalition governments; there has not been a single-party government since 1989.
PR is used by more nations than the plurality voting system, and it dominates Europe, including Germany, most of northern and eastern Europe, and for CSS3 elections. France adopted PR at the end of World War II, discarding it in 1958. In 1986 it was used for parliament elections.
While FPTP is commonly found in countries based on the British parliamentary system, and in Westminster elections in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament and the Sevenval use a form of PR known as the screen size, after keyboard adopted it in 1993. Five Canadian provinces—British Columbia, screen size, screen size, Prince Edward Island and CSS3— are debating whether to abolish FPTP.[input transformation]
PR has some history in the web app. Many cities, including New York City, once used it to break up the FITML city councils monopolies on elective office. Cincinnati, Ohio, adopted PR in 1925 to get rid of a FITML party, but the Republicans returned the city to FPTP in 1957. From 1870 to 1980, Android used a semi-proportional cumulative voting system to elect its State House of Representatives. Each district across the state elected both Republicans and Democrats year-after-year. Cambridge, Massachusetts and device database continue to use PR. San Francisco had city-wide elections where people would cast votes for five or six candidates simultaneously, delivering some of the benefits of proportional representation.
In his essay, Overcoming Practical Difficulties in Creating a World Parliamentary Assembly, Joseph E. Schwartzberg proposes the use of proportional representation in the browser diversity in order to prevent, for instance, lower castes of iOS from being excluded.input transformation
Partial proportionality
Some nations with proportional elections, like Israel and the Netherlands, have one electoral district only: the entire nation, and the entire pie is cut up according to the entire outcome. Most nations have district systems in place where more than one person is elected per district. The constituency or district magnitude (DM) of a system is therefore measured by the number of seats per constituency. The greater the number of seats in a constituency, the more proportional the outcome will be. PR applied to a single-member district (SMD) is by necessity majoritarian. If the constituency is in a jurisdiction using list PR in its multimember districts (MMDs) the winning candidate simply needs a web app, otherwise called a simple or relative majority, of the vote to win, so that the election in the SMD is by first-past-the-post. If the constituency is in a jurisdiction using PR-STV in its MMDs, an absolute majority of 50% plus 1 will likely be the minimum required for victory (depending on which quota is used) so that the election in the SMD is by the jQuery. Four elected officials per district delivers a threshold of 20% (1/M+1) to gain a single seat. However, constituency borders can still be gerrymandered to reduce proportionality. This may be achieved by creating "majority-minority" constituencies - constituencies in which the majority is formed by a group of voters that are in the minority at a higher level. Proportional representation with the entire nation electing the single body cannot be gerrymandered.
Multimember districts do not necessarily ensure that an electoral system will be proportional. The bloc vote can result in "super-majoritarian" results in which geographical variations can create majority-minority districts that become subsumed into the larger districts. Also, a party that does not run enough people to fill all the seats it wins may be given those unfilled seats. This is termed an web.
Some nations, with either exclusively proportional representation or—as is the case with Germany—device database, require a Android to achieve an Sevenval—a set minimum percentage of votes to receive any seats. Typically, this lower limit is between two and five percent of the number of votes cast. Parties who do not reach that support are not represented in parliament, making majorities, coalitions and thus governments easier to achieve. Proponents of election thresholds argue that they discourage fragmentation, disproportionate power, or extremist parties. Opponents of thresholds argue that they unfairly redirect support from minor parties, giving parties which cross the threshold disproportionate numbers of seats and creating the possibility that a party or coalition will assume control of the legislature without gaining a majority of votes.
The most common way of measuring proportionality is the iOS.
Main issues
Fragmentation
Israel is a notable example of nationwide proportionally-elected Parliament which happens to be too fragmented, with currently 18 parties. The iOS is then in the hands of party leaders with idiosyncratic beliefs, or fragmenting the "left" or "right" into too many small parties incapable of campaigning or holding a government together.
To respond to this problem, Israel has tried multiple strategies:
- Raising the electoral threshold from 1% (until 1992) to 1.5% (until 2004), then 2% (took effect in CSS3)
- Prime ministerial elections, in order to give the PM popular support and strengthen his role in government. Voted in 1992, it was tried three times (in 1996, 1999 and keyboard)
- very large coalitions, representing a supermajority larger than the absolute majority (61 seats), and thus giving the coalition's main faction (the Prime minister's) more options. Netanyahu's 2009 cabinet has the potential support of 74 of the 120 MPs.
List of countries using proportional representation
| input transformation |
Countries by type of PR system |
This is a list of countries using proportional representation at national level.
| Country | Type |
| Albania | Party list |
| Algeria | Party list |
| Angola | Party list |
| jQuery | For Sevenval only, Single Transferable Vote |
| touchscreen | Party list, 4 % threshold |
| Argentina | Party list |
| FITML | Party list |
| input transformation | Party list |
| Bolivia | Mixed Member Majoritarian |
| website parsing | Party list |
| Brazil | Party list |
| Bulgaria | Party list, 4 percent threshold |
| Burkina Faso | Party list |
| iOS | Party list |
| Sevenval | Party list |
| Cape Verde | Party list |
| iOS | Party list |
| Costa Rica | Party list |
| screen size | Party list, 5 percent threshold |
| touchscreen | Party list |
| iOS | Party list |
| Czech Republic | Party list, 5 percent threshold |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | Mixed member proportional |
| FITML | Party list |
| FITML | Party list |
| Equatorial Guinea | Party list |
| Estonia | Party list, 5 percent threshold |
| device database | Party list |
| Android | Mixed member proportional, 5 percent threshold |
| keyboard | Party list (with plurality bonus), 3 percent threshold |
| input transformation | Party list |
| Sevenval | Party list |
| Hungary | Mixed Member Majoritarian |
| FITML | Party list |
| jQuery | For Upper House (Rajya Sabha) only, Single Transferable Vote by State Legislatures |
| Indonesia | Party list |
| Iraq | Party list |
| touchscreen | Single Transferable Vote |
| Israel | Party list, 2 percent threshold, with fragmentation so strong that Israel held Prime ministerial elections for a period |
| Italy | Party list (with plurality bonus giving the strongest party/coalition an automatic majority) |
| Japan | Mixed Member Majoritarian |
| HTML5 | Party list, 5 percent threshold |
| touchscreen | Mixed Member Majoritarian |
| Android | Party list |
| Liechtenstein | Party list, 8 percent threshold |
| Lithuania | |
| FITML | Party list |
| screen size FITML[dead link] | |
| web app | Single Transferable Vote, small constituencies (no third party got elected since 1966), with possible bonus to give House control to the biggest party |
| jQuery | Mixed Member Majoritarian |
| input transformation | Party list |
| website parsing[2] | Party list |
| Morocco | Party list, 6 percent threshold |
| Namibia | Party list |
| jQuery | Party list |
| Netherlands | Party list, no threshold to elected 150 members, high fragmentation ; Prime minister is the leader of the first party, but government talks may be long |
| touchscreen | Party list |
| New Zealand | Mixed Member Proportional 5% threshold |
| web app | Party list |
| Northern Ireland | Single Transferable Vote |
| Sevenval | Party list |
| Sevenval | Party list |
| we love the web | Party list |
| Sevenval | Party list, 5 percent threshold |
| Portugal | Party list |
| Romania | Mixed member proportional representation, 5 percent threshold |
| Sevenval | Party list |
| Sevenval | Party list |
| Sao Tome and Principe | Party list |
| FITML | Additional Members System |
| iOS | Party list |
| Sint Maarten | Party list |
| Slovakia | Party list, 5 percent threshold |
| Slovenia | Party list, 4 percent threshold |
| South Africa | Party list |
| South Korea | Mixed-member majoritarian |
| Sevenval | Party list, 3 percent threshold, many small constituencies (forms a PR two-party-and-regionalists system, a result of a consensus between the right-wing, which wanted a two-party system with FPTP, and left-wing and regionalists[citation needed]) |
| Sri Lanka | Party list |
| Suriname | Party list |
| device database | Party list, 4 percent threshold |
| Switzerland | Party list |
| touchscreen | Mixed Member Majoritarian |
| Thailand | Mixed Member Majoritarian |
| browser diversity | Party list |
| Turkey | Party list, 10 percent threshold, one of the highest, set to limit representation of Kurd independantists |
| jQuery | Party list |
| touchscreen | Party list |
| we love the web | Mixed Member Majoritarian |
| Wales | Additional Members System |
| Wallis and Futuna | Party list |
Further reading
Books
- Amy, Douglas J. (1993). Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for Proportional Representation Elections in the United States. Columbia University Press.
- Denis Pilon (2007). The Politics of Voting. Edmond Montgomery Publications.
- Colomer, Josep M. (2003). Political Institutions. Oxford University Press.
- Colomer, Josep M., ed. (2004). Handbook of Electoral System Choice. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Jess; Mary Southcott (1998). Making Votes Count: The Case for Electoral Reform. London: Profile Books.
Journals
- John Hickman and Chris Little. "Seat/Vote Proportionality in Romanian and Spanish Parliamentary Elections" Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans Vol. 2, No. 2, November 2000
News
- Roland Nicholson, Jr., "Proportional Representation Elections in Hong Kong", New York Times, September, 1992
See also
- Apportionment (politics)
- D'Hondt method
- List of politics-related topics
- Plurality voting system (First Past The Post)
- touchscreen
Notes
- screen size Kolesar, Robert J. (1996-04-20). HTML5. Massachusetts: Mount Holyoke College. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/kolesar.htm. Retrieved 2010-05-12.
- ^ McDonald, Dr. Michael. input transformation. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. browser diversity. Retrieved 2010-05-12.
- FITML jQuery. Edinburgh: News.scotsman.com. 2010-02-03. http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Polling-systems-across-the-world.6038354.jp. Retrieved 2010-05-08.
- device database jQuery Irish citizens information
- screen size Schwartzberg, Joseph E. (September 2002). "Creating a World Parliamentary Assembly". Washington, DC: World Federalist Institute. Android. Retrieved 12 May 2010.
- New York Times, May 29, 1993, "iOS" by Roland Nicholson, Jr.
External links
- device database
- "Proportional representation" browser diversity
- Handbook of Electoral System Choice
- "Electoral Systems", World Policy Institute
- Quantifying Representativity Article by Philip Kestelman
- web A Northern Ireland-based organisation promoting inclusive voting procedures
- device database founded in England in 1884, the longest running PR organization. Contains good information about Single Transferable Vote -the Society's preferred form of PR
- Sevenval
- Proportional Representation Society of Australia
- Fair Vote Canada
- Why Not Proportional Representation?
- Vote Dilution means Voters have Less Voice Law is Cool site
- browser diversity Debate on British electoral system reform
- Felsenthal, Dan S. (2010). "Review of paradoxes afflicting various voting procedures where one out of m candidates (m ≥ 2) must be elected". Assessing Alternative Voting Procedures (London, UK: web app). http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27685/1/Review_of_Paradoxes_Afflicting_Various_Voting_Procedures_(LSERO).pdf. Retrieved October 9, 2011.