[EM] Preferential Party-List Proportional Representation (PPLPR)

Juho Laatu juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Nov 9 14:24:38 PST 2014

On 09 Nov 2014, at 20:01, Vidar Wahlberg <canidae at exent.net> wrote:

> If naming PPLPR semi-proportional instead (PPLSPR) is deemed more
> accurate, then that is quite fine by me. Arguably most party-list
> systems are in fact semi-proportional systems.

I tend to call all such methods that seem to aim at giving x% of the seats to a party with x% of the votes proportional methods. Most practical methods have some flaws like thresholds or district size related problems, so I can't be very strict. The intent to be roughly proportional is enough.

If I hear term semi-proportional, my first guess is that we are somewhere between accurate PR and a winner takes it all approach. This may mean e.g. a method where part of the seats are allocated proportionally and others not.

PPLPR / PPLSPR does not fall very well in this category since it is not really short of being proportional, but it adds a new feature to proportionality, namely the tendency to favour compromise parties. It is quite far from the winner takes it all / big parties take it all approach. For this reason I'd like to categorize it in some other group than those "semi-proportional" methods. It could be classified based on its tendency to elect compromise candidates from compromise parties, to make the results less extreme and more moderate, to seek balanced centrist allocation (instead of direct proportional allocation). But it's your method, so you pick the best way to describe it. Also "semi-proportional" is ok if it's ok to you.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list