Talk:Proportional representation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proportional representation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 6 months

Deviation from proportionality was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 October 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Proportional representation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

votes actually used to elect someone

Introduction, the article reads: The essence of such systems is that all votes cast - or almost all votes cast - contribute to the result and are effectively used to help elect someone ...

Effective has two different meanings - actually and having the effect of. It is unclear that "actually" is what is meant.

PR is such that all votes cast - or almost all votes cast - contribute to the result and are actually used to help elect someone. 68.150.222.51 (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coalitions

the table does not match the text nearby

the table says Italy is PR list while the text says it is parallel voting and definitely not PR. 68.150.222.51 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum number of constituency seats no longer exists in Germany.

"In Germany and New Zealand (both MMP), the threshold is 5% of the national vote but the threshold is not applied to parties that win a minimum number of constituency seats (three in Germany, one in New Zealand)."

This is no longer true. The so called "Minimum mandate clause" (Grundmandatsklausel), which was responsible for this, no longer exist.

(German) Electoral law reform adopted to reduce the size of the Bundestag

The direct mandate has been weakened and the decision has been made to go to a more purely proportional voting method, so I am not sure, if calling it MMPR is even appropriate anymore.

Unfortunately, I could not find the English version of the document. Sorry.

I already made the edit 09:46, 1 July 2024‎, but to clarify why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dueldu (talk • contribs)

the grahic showing seat distribution under MMP and parallel majortarian

graphics show more than four parties (six parties shown?) but parties A, B, C, D took 100 percent of the votes in the number charts that accompany the graphics. 2604:3D09:8880:11E0:E56B:939A:8576:6A7B (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the shading indicates how many seats are FPTP seats vs top-up (compensatory) seats. Take the total composition of the MMP assembly as an example:

The color are brown/dark red, red/orange, dark blue, blue, green, dark purple, and purple.

That doesn't mean that there are seven parties, just that the red party got some FPTP seats (colored dark red) as well as some top-up seats (colored red/orange). Similarly, the blue party got FPTP seats (dark blue) and top-up seats (blue), the green party only got top-up seats, and the purple party got both kinds, but only a few FPTP seats. Wotwotwoot (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FPTP: hyphenated or not

@AndyAnderson:

When we're using first-past-the-post without "voting" or "system" after it, it's not serving as a compound modifier used predicatively (we're not saying "the system is FPTP"), it's serving as a compound noun relaying the name of the system (we're saying "FPTP is a system"). (Although, as per MOS:HYPHEN, even compound modifiers used predicatively are sometimes hyphenated: The turkeys were hand-fed.)

Compound nouns can be open (high school), closed (football), or hyphenated (love-in). For clarity and per the status quo, we generally refer to single-winner plurality as first-past-the-post with hyphens. Hence my reversion of your changes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This compound noun stands alone, it’s not being used predicatively. Who is the “we” in “we generally refer”? I usually see FPTP spelled without hyphens when used as a noun, and it looks very weird to me otherwise. I’ll show you an example, a reference from this very page:
"India's parliamentary government and First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system is a legacy of British colonialism, which ended in 1947."
And here’s three more, from prominent US newspapers:
"Votes for the pro-Brexit Conservatives had 10 times the effective power of votes for the anti-Brexit Liberal Democrats. Thank the electoral system known as “first past the post.”"
"In general, we use a plurality system, sometimes confusingly referred to as “first past the post.”"
"“Sometimes you’ll have a race where there are seven candidates who are similar in ideology and in perception, and they end up splitting a vote, and the eighth candidate who is liked by only like 23 percent of voters ends up winning, because our current election system is first past the post.”"
Show me examples otherwise. — Andy Anderson 00:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, First Past the Post is a stupid name; it’s a metaphor to horse racing, but unlike that sport there is no “post” in “plurality voting”. I’d much rather we used the latter term everywhere, with an incidental reference to FPTP. — Andy Anderson 00:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]