Crafting Mixed-Member Proportional Representation For Your Constitution

Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) is an electoral system that combines elements of First Past the Post (FPTP) and Party-List Proportional Representation (PR) to achieve a more proportional parliament while retaining local representation. MMP, also known as the Additional Member System (AMS), has been adopted in various countries, each with unique implementations. This paragraph will discuss the key considerations for writing MMP into a constitution, drawing from the experiences of nations that have explored or implemented this voting system.

Explore related products

Electoral Reform in the United States: Proposals for Combating Polarization and Extremism

$27.36

Party Ballots, Reform, and the Transformation of America's Electoral System

$29.25 $45

The Politics of Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of Democracy

$37.99 $41.99

Ambition, Competition, and Electoral Reform: The Politics of Congressional Elections Across Time (Legislative Politics and Policy Making)

$31.95

Race, Reform, and Regulation of the Electoral Process: Recurring Puzzles in American Democracy (Cambridge Studies in Election Law and Democracy)

$22.17 $46

Electoral System Reform for a Diverse Nation: The Case of Guyana

$24.98

Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) vs. first-past-the-post

Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) is a type of electoral system that combines local winner-take-all elections (known as first-past-the-post) with a compensatory tier of party list seats, resulting in proportional representation overall. In typical MMP systems, voters have two votes: one to choose a representative for their single-seat constituency, and one for a political party. The first vote determines the successful constituency candidates, while the second vote determines the allocation of seats to parties based on the percentage of votes received nationwide or region-wide. This two-vote system aims to achieve proportional representation, ensuring that the number of seats a party wins is proportional to the number of votes they receive.

First-past-the-post (FPTP), on the other hand, is a winner-take-all system where each district elects a single representative. In this system, voters cast a vote for a candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, even if they did not receive a majority of the votes. This can result in unrepresentative outcomes, as a significant portion of the electorate may not be represented by a candidate they voted for. While FPTP is simple and easy to understand, it often fails to provide proportional representation, especially in multi-party systems.

One of the key advantages of MMP over FPTP is its ability to provide more proportional outcomes. MMP ensures that the distribution of seats in the legislature closely matches the distribution of votes cast, giving smaller parties a chance to gain representation. This can lead to more diverse and inclusive governments that better reflect the electorate's preferences. Additionally, MMP can encourage the formation of coalitions and promote cooperation between parties, potentially resulting in more effective governance.

However, MMP systems can also be more complex and may require voters to have a higher level of political engagement and understanding. The use of party lists, for example, can be seen as a disadvantage, as voters may have less direct control over who their representatives are. MMP systems can also be more susceptible to strategic voting and manipulation by major parties, as seen in the case of South Korea, where decoy lists were used to neutralize compensation seats.

In contrast, FPTP is a well-established and straightforward system used in many countries, particularly former British colonies. It often results in strong single-party governments and can provide a clear mandate for the winning party. However, FPTP has been criticized for its tendency to favour majority parties and produce unrepresentative outcomes, especially in multi-party systems.

In conclusion, the choice between MMP and FPTP depends on the specific context and goals of a country's electoral system. MMP offers greater proportionality and can lead to more diverse and representative governments, but it may also be more complex and susceptible to strategic manipulation. FPTP, meanwhile, provides simplicity and the potential for strong single-party rule but often falls short in terms of proportional representation.

The constitutional history of proportional representation

The concept of proportional representation has a long history, with its roots in the American Revolution, which was partly a dispute about the nature of representation. At the time, British subjects in North America were only "virtually represented" in Parliament, with no say in the British policies imposed on them.

The US Constitution, drafted in 1787, enshrined the idea of proportional representation in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

> "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..."

This clause established the principle that representation in the US House of Representatives should be based on state population, with each state guaranteed at least one representative. This was reaffirmed in Amendment XIV, Section 2, which states that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers".

However, the interpretation and implementation of proportional representation have evolved over time. In 1793, the Marquis de Condorcet led the drafting of the Girondist constitution, which proposed a limited voting scheme with proportional aspects. Unfortunately, this constitution was never adopted, as the Montagnards took over the National Convention and passed their own constitution specifying first-past-the-post voting.

In more recent times, various countries have experimented with different forms of proportional representation. For example, Germany adopted a system of personalised proportional representation in 1949, resulting from inter-party bargaining. South Korea introduced a two-vote hybrid system for its 2019 National Assembly elections, with single-member constituency seats, supplementary seats, and compensatory seats. In New Zealand, which uses mixed-member proportional representation, the electoral threshold is 5% of the national vote, ensuring that small parties have a chance to gain representation.

While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to writing mixed-member proportional representation into a constitution, certain key considerations include:

• Determining the appropriate number of representatives for each district, taking into account population changes and historical boundaries.
• Addressing the potential for gerrymandering in mixed-member systems and considering measures to mitigate its impact.
• Specifying the type of voting system to be used, such as single-vote or two-vote versions, and whether voters will rank candidates or make multiple choices.
• Establishing electoral thresholds to limit the representation of small, extreme parties, recognising that this may reduce the overall proportionality of the system.
• Considering the potential impact on political coalitions and the formation of new parties.

The constitutional implications of MMP

Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) is a voting system that combines two types of ballot papers: a first-past-the-post system and a party-list proportional representation system. This system aims to provide a proportional parliament while also ensuring local representation. MMP is currently used in seven countries, including New Zealand, Germany, and South Korea.

The constitutional implications of implementing MMP are significant. Firstly, it requires a constitutional reform that would typically need a two-thirds majority to pass. This high threshold reflects the importance of ensuring broad support for any changes to the fundamental rules governing a country's democratic processes. Secondly, MMP introduces a more proportional representation of the electorate's preferences in the elected body. This can lead to more effective governance through modest multi-party activity and prevent dangerous levels of gridlock caused by a two-party system. However, it can also lead to the formation of many parties, which may cause instability.

Thirdly, MMP provides a mechanism for independent candidates to be elected, addressing the issue of unrepresentative outcomes in winner-take-all systems. This was a key factor in South Africa's move towards MMP after its Constitutional Court declared the Electoral Act unconstitutional in 2020 due to the inability of independents to gain office. Fourthly, MMP reduces the impact of gerrymandering and other forms of election manipulation due to its proportional nature.

Finally, the specific design of the MMP system can vary depending on the country's unique context. For example, the number of regions and ridings, as well as the allocation of seats, can be adjusted to fit the country's geographical and political landscape. This flexibility allows for a more tailored implementation of MMP, ensuring that it aligns with the specific constitutional requirements and traditions of each nation.

Explore related products

A Natural Experiment on Electoral Law Reform: Evaluating the Long Run Consequences of 1990s Electoral Reform in Italy and Japan (Studies in Public Choice, 24)

$90.52 $109.99

Directions in Australian Electoral Reform: Professionalism and Partisanship in Electoral Management

$28

Electoral Reforms In India

$5.38

Electoral College Reform (Election Law, Politics, and Theory)

$210 $72.99

Electoral Reform at Work: Local Politics and National Parties, 1832-1841 (Royal Historical Society Studies in History New Series, 27)

$49.49 $90

Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)

$11.5 $24.95

How to write MMP into a constitution: a step-by-step guide

Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) is a blend of the First Past the Post system and Party List proportional representation (PR). The goal is to provide a proportional parliament while retaining a single local MP. MMP is used in seven countries, including New Zealand, Germany, and South Korea.

• Understand the Basics of MMP: MMP involves dividing the province or state into regions, with each region further divided into constituencies or districts (known as "ridings" in Canada). Voters have two ballot papers: one for their local representative and one for a party list. The first ballot is for the local MP and is won by the candidate with the most votes, even if they do not receive a majority.
• Determine the Number and Size of Regions: Decide on the number of regions and the number of seats in each region. For example, one region might have 25 seats and 15 ridings. Each riding gets one seat, and the remaining seats are allocated to ensure proportionality.
• Allocate Seats Proportionally: The second ballot paper is a list of parties, and voters choose one party. Seats are then allocated to parties in proportion to the votes they receive, taking into account the number of 'first vote' seats they have won. This may involve using a formula or a specific allocation method, such as the largest remainder method or the highest averages method.
• Address Any Overhang Seats: In some cases, a party may win more seats in the first vote than it is entitled to based on the overall proportion of votes. These extra seats are known as "overhang seats." Decide how these overhang seats will be handled. Options include compensatory seats, adjusting the formula, or reducing the size of the legislature.
• Consider Any Additional Rules: You may wish to include additional rules or adjustments to the system. For example, you could set an electoral threshold, requiring parties to win a certain percentage of the vote to be allocated seats. You could also specify rules for independent candidates, as some MMP systems are designed for use with party candidates only.
• Specify Transition and Implementation: Finally, outline the process for transitioning to the new electoral system, including any necessary constitutional amendments and the timeframe for implementation. This may involve seeking input from legal and electoral experts to ensure the system is practical and aligns with existing laws and procedures.

Writing MMP into a constitution requires a detailed understanding of electoral systems and their potential impacts. It is important to consider the specific context and needs of the region and seek input from various stakeholders to ensure the system is fair, effective, and reflective of the population's preferences.

Examples of MMP in constitutions worldwide

Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) is used in seven countries worldwide. Here are some examples of how MMP has been implemented in different constitutions:

Germany

Germany's system of MMP, referred to as "personalized proportional representation," came about in 1949 as a result of inter-party bargaining. Originally, a single vote version was used, but this was switched to a two-vote version before the 1953 election. Levelling seats were established for the 2013 federal election after a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court, with a minor modification in 2021 to reduce the size of the Bundestag. The system was recently modified to an essentially (non-mixed) closed-list proportional system with a local constituency vote to eliminate the need for overhang seats.

New Zealand

New Zealand uses MMP with an electoral threshold of 5% of the national vote. Parties that win at least one constituency seat get their due number of seats even if they do not achieve the threshold.

Wales

Wales has used the additional member system since 1999, with 40 constituency seats and 20 list seats in 5 regions. Starting in 2026, this system will be replaced by a closed-list proportional representation system.

South Korea

From the 2019 elections for the National Assembly, South Korea used a two-vote hybrid system with 253 single-member constituency seats, 17 supplementary seats (parallel voting), and 30 compensatory seats (seat linkage). However, major parties used decoy lists to neutralize compensation, and mixed-member proportional representation was not achieved.

Sri Lanka

In September 2015, Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera announced that the country would adopt an MMP system.

Costa Rica

Costa Rica has considered switching from a closed party-list proportional representation system to MMP based on the German model. The proposed system would create two types of deputies: 42 "national" deputies elected proportionally by party lists, and 42 deputies elected directly by population-based electoral districts on a first-past-the-post basis. As this proposal requires constitutional reform, it would need a two-thirds majority to pass. As of 2019, the caucuses of the four main parties supported the reform.

Frequently asked questions