|
Badger of Basra posted:Germany and New Zealand (and maybe other places idk) use the same system but they call it MMP instead of AMS. There are separate wikipedia articles for MMP vs. AMS and I have no idea why because I'm pretty sure they're exactly the same. In addition to what Perestroika said above, the Scotland system gives more room for a bit more disproportionality than the German system, because the regional vote caps out at some point. In a German-style system, the SNP would have likely gotten a few fewer seats than 64 (probably closer to the mid 50's, but it would depend on wasted votes on parties <5% and I don't want to do the math). Greens would have gotten about 10 or 11 seats though total, so it'd probably be a narrow majority between the two. EDIT: This also assumes a nationwide PR vote, so tactical voting at the region vote level may or may not change the above as well. JosefStalinator fucked around with this message at 09:23 on May 12, 2021 |
#
¿
May 12, 2021 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
i say swears online posted:right, thanks for articulating that. germany (and i believe mexico) use what i was thinking of originally. if not nationally, then multi-member regions decided on PR and like you said irrespective of constituency results. i didn't expect scotland to be big enough to incorporate the region model and totally didn't understand the cap based on constituency results Mexico uses a parallel voting system, as do most mixed PR/FPTP systems. What makes Germany's unique is that they have no set limit on the number of MP's - they keep increases the size of the parliament until the seat count most closely matches the PR vote percentages. Mexico, Scotland, and most PR/FPTP places still have a set max amount of PR seats, leaving more room for disproportionality.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 09:55
|
|