The following description is copied from the BC Citizens’ Assembly: Fact Sheet #12 – Mixed Electoral Systems
Mixed Electoral Systems
In some ways, it is misleading to call mixed systems a distinct “family” of electoral systems. As the name implies, these systems mix two – or more – different systems in an attempt to obtain the advantages of the different systems while minimizing their disadvantages.
The most widely used mixed systems attempt to balance two key principles that are generally seen as mutually exclusive: identifiable local representation and some measure of proportionality.
While there are many ways in which systems can be mixed, the possibilities include:
- Using a mix of systems across the province.
- Using different systems in different areas of the province.
- Using different systems to elect different levels of government.
- Using a mix of different kinds of options.
Systems that mix different electoral families across the province
In mixed systems that attempt to combine local representation with some form of proportionality, the most common method is to essentially split the legislature into two types of members: Some members are elected in individual districts, while others are elected by some form of PR-List system.
For example, Germany elects half its 600-member parliament from single-member districts using the plurality system, while the other half are chosen by a party list system with regional lists of candidates.
- German voters have two votes – one for the local member, one for the party list.
- Their parties must win 5 per cent of the national vote or three individual constituency seats before they are eligible to receive any list seats.
Systems that use different electoral families in different regions
Systems that use different electoral families in different regions are designed to deal with the representational challenges of various communities. One significant issue is how to balance the representational issues of dense urban communities with those of sparsely-populated rural areas.
France, in its system to elect its Senate, uses a combination of majority and plurality rules in single-member rural electoral districts and proportional representation in urban, multi-member districts.
In the past, Alberta and Manitoba experimented with simultaneously using different systems in different parts of the province in an attempt to balance rural and urban interests. In urban areas, they had multi-member districts – that is, more than one representative elected from a district – using proportional representation by single transferable vote (PR-STV), while in rural areas they had single-member districts with a majority formula. The ballot in both urban and rural districts looked the same; voters simply indicated their preference(s) by rank ordering the candidates.
Systems that use different electoral families for different assemblies
Australia and Japan hold simultaneous elections for both their lower and upper houses of parliament – using different systems for the two houses. This often means parties must use different nominating and campaigning strategies and voters have different kinds of decisions to make, on different ballots, at the same time.
Systems that mix different kinds of options
Russia has included a None of the Above (NOTA) option on their ballot papers, in addition to listing candidates by party. In Russia, the NOTA option has never attracted a very large percentage of the vote. However, if NOTA should win, the procedure would be for another election to be held. An alternate proposal would have a member of the legislature chosen at random if the NOTA option gets a majority.
The following description is copied from the Electoral Reform Society – UK
Additional Member System
Additional Member System (AMS) can also be known as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)
How does the Additional Member System work?
AMS is a hybrid voting system. It combines elements of First Past the Post where voters mark an X next to the candidate they want to represent them in their constituency, and proportional representation, where voters select from a list of candidates for each party who represent a larger regional constituency. This helps to overcome the disproportionality often associated with First Past the Post elections.
Under AMS, each voter typically gets two votes – one for a candidate and one for a party.
Each constituency returns a single candidate, in the style of First Past the Post. The votes for the party list candidates are then allocated on top of these constituency seats to ‘top up’ the number of seats won by each party to represent their share of the votes proportionally. These are the “additional members”.
Pros and cons of the Additional Member System
The case for AMS (MMP)
It is broadly proportional.
Each voter has a directly accountable single constituency representative.
Every voter has at least one effective vote.
It allows a voter to express personal support for a candidate, without having to worry about going against their party.
The arguments against AMS (MMP)
Many representatives are accountable to the party leadership rather than the voters.
Having two different types of representative creates animosity between them. In Wales and Scotland, for example, AMs and MSPs elected via the regional lists have been seen as having ‘got in via the backdoor’ or as ‘assisted place’ or ‘second class’ members.
AMS sometimes gives rise to ‘overhang’ seats, where a party wins more seats via the constituency vote than it is entitled to according to their proportional vote. In Germany and New Zealand, but not in the UK, extra seats are allocated to the other parties to redress the balance. This can get complicated and lead to further bickering and animosity.
It can be complicated, with people getting confused over exactly what they’re supposed to do with their two votes.