Mixed Member Proportional Discussion

Home Forums Fair Vote Discussion Forum Mixed Member Proportional Discussion

This topic contains 15 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Rhys Goldstein 1 week ago.

Viewing 16 post (of 16 total)
  • Author
  • #26095

    Rhys Goldstein

    I agree with pretty much all the recommendations in Réal’s paper.

    My own criteria for MMP is basically that any implementation is acceptable if it ensures highly proportional outcomes and minimizes the risk of tactical voting. I’d be okay with a moderately proportional version of STV (e.g. 4-member districts everywhere). But for MMP, issues can arise if the results are not highly proportional.

    A very simple MMP model that meets my criteria is to use closed regional lists with a single-vote ballot. But I recognize that having 2 votes and a bit more choice is an expectation for many. Réal’s proposal is a realistic way of implementing open-list MMP without risking unintended consequences (i.e. distorted results, tactical voting, the “Bevan-Baker problem”, etc.). It makes sense to me to mention more ambitious features like biproportionality and ranked ballots, but not to strongly recommend them unless perhaps there’s an indication they’d be seriously considered.

Viewing 16 post (of 16 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.