Mixed-member proportional representation
In Germany, it was differentiated from a different compensatory mixed system by always being known as personalized proportional representation (PPR) (German: personalisiertes Verhältniswahlrecht).
Previously, the federal elections used a flexible number of additional compensatory seats, also known as leveling seats, which essentially guaranteed mixed-member proportional representation even with extremely disproportional constituency results, but dramatically increased the size of the Bundestag.
In the Canadian province of Quebec, where an MMP model was studied in 2007,[6] it is called the compensatory mixed-member voting system (système mixte avec compensation or SMAC).
In the United Kingdom the sometimes less proportional implementation of MMP used in Scotland and the London Assembly is referred to as the additional member system.
The Scandinavian countries have a long history of using both multi-member districts (members elected through party-list PR) and nationally-based compensatory top-up seats using the same method as MMP, however because the local MPs are also elected using PR, these systems are not usually considered MMP as they are not mixed systems.
Most of Germany changed to the two-vote variant to make local members of parliament (MPs) more personally accountable.
[9] In each constituency, the representative is by default chosen using a single winner method (though this is not strictly necessary), typically first-past-the-post: that is, the candidate with the most votes (plurality) wins.
In most jurisdictions, candidates may stand for both a constituency and on a party list (referred to in New Zealand as dual candidacy).
In Wales between 2006 and 2014 dual candidacy was banned, i.e. candidates were restricted to contend either for a constituency or for a party list, but not both.
In contrast, the open-list method of MMP was chosen in November 2016 by voters in the 2016 Prince Edward Island electoral reform referendum.
In Baden-Württemberg, there were no closed lists prior to 2022; they used the "best near-winner" method in a four-region model, where the regional members are the local candidates of the under-represented party in that region who received the most votes in their local constituency without being elected in it (Zweitmandat, literally "second mandate").
A counter-example would be the In Germany's Bundestag, where constituency winners may not always keep their seats since the latest modification of the electoral law.
For example, the provincial parliament (Landtag) of North Rhine Westphalia has, instead of the usual 50% compensatory seats, only 29% unless more are needed to balance overhangs.
The compensatory effect characteristic of MMP is in the fact that a party that won constituency seats would have lower averages on the table than it would if the election used MMM.
Countries which nominally use or have used MMP, but in practice had highly disproportional representation or it as otherwise not implemented are discussed in the next section.
Countries with systems which have been confused with mixed-member proportional representation: In March 2004, the Law Commission of Canada proposed a system of MMP,[27] with only 33% of MPs elected from regional open lists, for the House of Commons of Canada[28] but Parliament's consideration of the Report in 2004–05 was stopped after the 2006 election.
The Green Party of Canada has generally been a staunch supporter of a move to a proportional electoral system.
In early 2017, the Government announced that it would accept only some of the committee's recommendations, and would not pursue the issue of electoral reform any further.
[29][30] The pan-European party VOLT Europa proposes transnational mixed-member proportional representation with the combination of Majority Judgment and party-list PR.
The election was condemned by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe which said it failed to comply with international standards because of "serious irregularities", intimidation, vote-buying and "violence committed by extremists on both sides.
The two linked parties could then co-ordinate their campaign and work together within the legislature, while remaining legally separate entities.
The result of this approach, if it is used by all parties, would be to transform MMP into a de facto parallel voting mechanism.
[further explanation needed] After the decoy list tactic withstood a constitutional challenge, Venezuela eventually formally reverted to a parallel voting system, which yields a lesser degree of proportionality compared to MMP.
As a defensive move, the other coalition, Olive Tree, felt obliged to do the same, under the name Paese Nuovo.
For example, the German moderate-right Free Democratic Party (FDP) has often received votes from voters who preferred the larger Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, because they feared that if the FDP received less than 5% of the votes, the CDU would have no parliamentary allies and would be unable to form a government on its own.
