Amixed electoral system is one that uses differentelectoral systems to fill different seats in alegislature.^[1][2][3] Most often, this involves aFirst Past the Post combined with aproportional component.^[4] The results of the combination may bemixed-member proportional (MMP), where the overall results of the elections are proportional,^[2] ormixed-member majoritarian, in which case the overall results aresemi-proportional, retaining disproportionalities from the majoritarian component. Systems that use multiple types of combinations are sometimes calledsupermixed.^[5]

Mixed-member systems also often combine local representation^[6] (most oftensingle-member constituencies) with regional or national (multi-member constituencies) representation, having multiple tiers.^[7] This also means voters often elect different types of representatives who might have different types of constituencies. Some representatives may be elected by personal elections where voters vote forcandidates, and some by list elections where voters vote forelectoral lists of parties.

In most mixed systems, every voter can influence both the district-based and PR aspects of an election, such as underparallel voting; however, some countries havemultiple coexisting electoral systems that each apply to different voters.^[5][8]

A major distinction is often made between mixedcompensatory systems and mixednon-compensatory systems.^[9] In both types of systems, one set of seats is allocated using a plurality or majoritarian method, usually first past the post. The remaining seats are allocated to political parties partially or wholly based on a proportional allocation method such ashighest averages orlargest remainder. The difference is whether or not the results of the district elections are considered when allocating the PR seats.

In mixed non-compensatory systems, such asparallel voting,^[10] the proportional allocation is performed independently of the district election component.

In mixed compensatory systems, the allocation of the top-up seats is done in such a way as to compensate as much as possible for dis-proportionality produced by the district elections. MMP generally produces proportional election outcomes, meaning that apolitical party that winsn percent of the vote will receive roughlyn percent of the seats.

The following hypothetical example based on the one by Massicotte^[10] illustrates how "top-up" PR seats are typically allocated in a compensatory system and in a non-compensatory system. The example assumes a 200-seat legislative assembly where 100 seats are filled usingFPTP and the other 100 seats are awarded to parties using a form of PR. The table below gives thepopular vote and FPTP results. The number of PR seats allocated to each party depends on whether the system is compensatory or non-compensatory.

Party		Popular vote	FPTP seats	PR seats	Total seats (FPTP + PR)	FPTP seats
	Party A	44%	64	?	?
	Party B	40%	33	?	?
	Party C	10%	0	?	?
	Party D	6%	3	?	?
	TOTAL	100%	100	100	200

In non compensatory system, each party wins its proportional share of the 100 PR seats. Under such a system, the total number of seats (FPTP + PR) received by each party would not be proportional to its share of the popular vote. Party A receives just slightly less of the popular vote than Party B, but receives significantly more seats. In addition to its success in the district contests, Party A receives almost as many of the PR seats as Party B.

Party		Popular vote	FPTP seats	PR seats (non-compensatory)	Total seats (FPTP + PR)	PR seats (non-compensatory)	Total seats (FPTP + PR)
	Party A	44%	64	44	108 (54% of assembly)
	Party B	40%	33	40	73 (36.5% of assembly)
	Party C	10%	0	10	10 (5% of assembly)
	Party D	6%	3	6	9 (4.5% of assembly)
	TOTAL	100%	100	100	200

If the PR seats are allocated in a compensatory system, the total number of seats awarded to each party is proportional to the party's share of the popular vote. Party B wins 33 of the district seats and its proportional share of the 200 seats being filled is 80 seats (40 percent of the total 200 seats) (the same as its share of the popular vote) so it is awarded 47 of the PR seats.

Party		Popular vote	FPTP seats	PR seats (compensatory)	Total seats (FPTP + PR)	PR seats (compensatory)	Total seats (FPTP + PR)
	Party A	44%	64	24	88 (44% of assembly)
	Party B	40%	33	47	80 (40% of assembly)
	Party C	10%	0	20	20 (10% of assembly)
	Party D	6%	3	9	12 (6% of assembly)
	TOTAL	100%	100	100	200

In practice, compensatory seat allocation is complicated by the possibility that one or more parties wins so many of the district seats ("overhang") that the available number of PR seats is insufficient to produce a fully proportional outcome.^[11] Some mixed compensatory systems have rules that address these situations by adding additional PR seats to achieve overall PR. These seats are used only until the next election, unless needed again at that time.^[10]

The two common ways compensation occurs areseat linkage compensation (or top-up) andvote linkage compensation (or vote transfer).^[11] Like a non-compensatory mixed system, a compensatory mixed system may be based on themixed single vote (voters vote for a local candidate and that vote is used to set the party share of the popular vote for the party that the candidate belongs to) or it may be based on voters casting two separate votes.^[12]

Apart from the compensatory/non-compensatory typology, a more detailed classification is possible based on how component systems relate to each other, according to academic literature. Below is a table of different categories of mixed electoral systems based on the five main types identified by Massicotte & Blais.^[13] According to their terminology, methods of compensation are referred to ascompensation is referred to ascorrection, while another type of dependent combination exists, called theconditional relation between sub-systems. Meanwhile, independent combinations mixed systems might have both local and national/regional tiers (calledsuperposition), but some have only one at-large (national) tier, like themajority bonus system (fusion) or only a single tier for local/regional representation (calledcoexistence).

There are alsosupermixed systems, likerural-urban proportional (RUP), which is a hybrid mixed system that uses two tiers: the lower tier uses a proportional system, likelist-PR orSTV, in urban regions, and the upper tier uses MMP (itself a mixed system) either in rural regions alone or in all regions.^[10]

In ahybrid system, different electoral formulas are used in different contexts. These may be seen incoexistence, when different methods are used in different regions of a country, such as whenFPTP is used in single-member districts and list-PR in multi-member districts, but every voter is a member of only one district (one tier). Some hybrid systems are generally not referred to as mixed systems, such as when as FPTP districts are the exception (e.g. overseas constituency) and list-PR is the rule, the overall system is usually considered proportional. Similarly, when FPTP is in single-member districts and usedblock voting (orparty block voting) is used in multi-member districts, the system is referred to as a majoritarian one, as all components are majoritarian. Most mixed systems are not referred to as hybrid systems

Another distinction of mixed electoral systems is betweenmixed-member proportional representation (MMP) andmixed-member majoritarian representation (MMM).

Parallel voting is a mixed non-compensatory system with two tiers of representatives: a tier of single-member district representatives elected by a plurality/majoritarian method such asFPTP/SMP, and a tier of regional or at-large representatives elected by a separate proportional method such asparty list PR. It is used for the first chamber (lower house) in many countries including Japan and Russia.

This type of parallel voting providessemi-proportional results, but is often referred to asmixed-member majoritarian representation, as the lack of compensation means each party can keep all the overhang seats it might win on the majoritarian side of the electoral system.

Like parallel voting, MMP and AMS also have a tier of district representatives typically elected by FPTP, and a tier of regional or at-large representatives elected by PR. Unlike parallel voting, MMP and AMS are mixed compensatory systems, meaning that the PR seats are allocated in a manner that corrects disproportionality caused by the district tier. MMP corrects disproportionalities by adding as manyleveling seats as needed, this system is used by Germany and New Zealand.

A type of MMP used in the UK which does not always yield proportional results, but sometimes only "mixedsemi-proportional representation" is called theadditional member system. If the fixed number of compensatory seats are enough to compensate the results of the majoritarian FPTP/SMP side of the election, AMS is equivalent to MMP, but if not, AMS does not compensate for remainingoverhang seats. The AMS models used in parts of theUK (Scotland and formerlyWales), with small regions with a fixed number of seats tend to produce only moderately proportional election outcomes.

InLesotho, where a single vote versions seat linkage us used with a relatively large number of compensatory seats, results are usually proportional.

AV+ is a mixed compensatory system similar to theadditional member system, with the notable difference that the district seats are awarded using thealternative vote. The system was proposed by theJenkins Commission as a possible alternative to FPTP for elections to theParliament of the United Kingdom.

Dual member mixed proportional (DMP) is a mixed compensatory system using the same principle as more common variants of MMP, except that the plurality and PR seats are paired and dedicated to dual-member (two seat) districts. Proposed as an alternative to FPTP forCanadian elections, DMP appeared as an option on a2016 plebiscite inPrince Edward Island and a2018 referendum inBritish Columbia.

Vote linkage compensatory systems are an alternative to seat linkage compensation, currently only used in Hungary as part of a supermixed system. Such systems in use have been (inaccurately^[14]) described as mixed member proportional, but they were more commonly between MMP and MMM in nature, or closer to mixed-member majoritarian representation, offering little compensatory power.

MBTV is a mixed compensatory type of systems similar to MSV, except voters can vote separately for a local candidate and as a transfer vote on the compensatory tier.^{[15][self-published source?]} It is different from MMP/AMS and AV+ in that there is a vote linkage (instead of seat linkage) between the tiers. The two parts of the dual ballot are tied in a way that only those lists votes get counted, which are on ballots that would be transfer votes in an equivalent positive vote transfer MSV system.

Scorporo is a two-tier mixed system similar to MMP in that voters have two votes (one for a local candidate on the lower tier, and one for a party list on the upper tier), except that disproportionality caused by the single-member district tier is partially addressed through a vote transfer mechanism.^[16] Votes that are critical to the election of district-winning candidates are excluded from the PR seat allocation, for this reason the method used by scorporo is referred to as a negative vote transfer system.^[17] The system was used in Italy from 1993 to 2005

Electoral systems with a majority bonus or jackpot have been referred to as "unconventional mixed systems",^[18] which fall into themixed-member majoritarian type, but they may be compensatory (jackpot) or non-compensatory (bonus). Employed byArmenia, Greece, andSan Marino, as well as Italy from 2006 to 2013,^[19] majority bonuses help the most popular party or alliance win a majority of the seats with a minority of the votes, similar in principle to plurality/majoritarian systems. However, PR is used to distribute the rest of seats (sometimes only among the opposition parties) and possibly within the governing alliance.

Most mixed systems allow voters to cast separate votes for different formulas of the electoral system, including:

• Parallel voting
• Most "MMP" systems
• AV+ (the first vote isranked)
• Scorporo

MSV is a type of mixed systems using only a single vote that serves both as a vote for a local candidate and as a party list vote, split ticket voting is not possible. The system was used in Germany in a mixed proportional system,^[12] and is currently used in Hungary as a semi-proportional system as well as Italy in a non-compensatory system. Other mixed systems using a single vote include majority bonus/jackpot systems and DMP.

Other systems that are usually considered mixed, which use a single vote are:

• Majority bonus and jackpot (a single party-list vote)
• DMP (a vote for a single candidate or a two-candidate ticket)

The RUP systems formerly used in Denmark and Iceland used a single vote, applicable both for the lower-tier constituencies - FPTP in the rural single-member constituencies, and list PR in the urban multi-member constituencies - and for the upper-tier nationalleveling seats (and in Denmark, also for the middle-tier regional leveling seats in rural areas). The implementation of RUP proposed in Canada foresees urban multi-member districts that use asingle transferable vote, alongside single-member rural districts that are grouped in large multi-member regions; the rural districts and their corresponding regions.

A simultaneous vote is a single vote that used in more than one elections held at once, which means it is not a typically regarded as a mixed system.^{[citation needed]}

List of countries using mixed electoral systems to elect the lower (or only) house of national legislature

Compensatory   Mixed-member proportional (seat linkage) type compensatory   Vote linkage type partially compensatory (supermixed)   Majority jackpot   Two round majority jackpot	Non-compensatory   Parallel voting (Party list + FPTP)   Parallel voting (Party list + TRS)   Parallel voting (Party list + BV/PBV)   Majority bonus (fusion)

The table below lists the countries that use a mixed electoral system for the primary (lower) chamber of the legislature. Countries withcoexistence-based hybrid systems have been excluded from the table, as have countries that mix two plurality/majoritarian systems. (See also thecomplete list of electoral systems by country.)

Country	Body	Type of body	Type of mixed system	Seats per constituency	Mixed system	Component electoral systems	Total seats	Number of votes	Typical results	Notes
Andorra	General Council	Unicameral national legislature	Non-compensatory	2 (local districts), 14 (nationwide constituency)	Parallel voting (superposition)	Party block voting (PBV) andparty-list PR	28	2	semi-proportional	The parish lists and the national list are independent of one another: the same person cannot appear on both the national list and on a parish list, and voters cast two separate ballots (there is no requirement to vote for the same party for both lists).[20]
Armenia	National Assembly	Unicameral national legislature	Partially compensatory		Majority jackpot system	Party-list PR +party block voting (PBV)	[data missing]	1 (potential two rounds)	semi-proportional
Bolivia	Chamber of Deputies	Lower house of national legislature	Compensatory	1 (local districts), ? (regional constituencies), 7 (indigenous seats elected by theusos y costumbres)	Seat linkage MMP without levelling seats	First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) +Party-list PR	130	2 (list ballot is DSV)	proportional	List ballots are adouble simultaneous vote together with the presidential election[21]
Djibouti	National Assembly	Unicameral national legislature	Partially compensatory	3-28	Majority jackpot system	[data missing]	65	1	semi-proportional	80% of seats (rounded to the nearest integer) in each constituency are awarded to the party receiving the most votes (party block voting), remaining seats are allocated proportionally to other parties receiving over 10% (closed list,D'Hondt method)
Georgia	Parliament	Unicameral national legislature	Non-compensatory	[data missing]	Parallel voting (superposition)	[data missing]	150	[data missing]	semi-proportional
Greece	Hellenic Parliament	Unicameral national legislature	Non-compensatory	[data missing]	Majority bonus	[data missing]	[data missing]	[data missing]	semi-proportional
Hungary	National Assembly (Országgyűlés)	Unicameral national legislature	Partially compensatory	1 (local districts), 93 (national constituency)	Supermixed:parallel voting (superposition) andpositive vote transfer (correction)	First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) +national list-PR	199	2	semi-proportional
Italy	Chamber of Deputies	Lower house of national legislature	Non-compensatory	1 (147 single-member districts) 245 (national constituency, seats redistributed into 49 multi-member districts) 8 (Italians abroad constituency)[22]	Superposition	List PR +First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)	400	1 (mixed single vote)	semi-proportional	mixed single vote
	Senate	Upper house of national legislature	Non-compensatory	1 (74 single-member districts) varies, cannot be less than 2 (20 regional constituencies, seats redistributed into 26 multi-member districts) 4 (Italians abroad constituency)[22]	Superposition	List PR +First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)	200	1 (mixed single vote)	semi-proportional	mixed single vote
Japan	House of Representatives	Lower house of national legislature	Non-compensatory	1 (local districts)	Parallel voting (superposition)	First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) andList PR	465	2	semi-proportional
	House of Councillors	Upper house of national legislature	Non-compensatory	[data missing]	Parallel voting (superposition)	SNTV andList PR	[data missing]	2	semi-proportional
Republic of Korea (South Korea)	National Assembly	Unicameral national legislature	Partially compensatory (de jure) Non-compensatory (de facto)	1 (local districts), 46 additional seats (seat linkage)	Seat linkage system (compensation,de jure) Parallel voting (superposition, de facto)	First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) +Party-list PR	300	2	majoritarian[a]	From 2019 to 2024: supermixedparallel voting (superposition) andadditional member system (correction), with 253 single-member constituencies, 17 supplementary seats (a laparallel voting), and 30 compensatory seats (seat linkage) Since 2024 only seat linkage compensatory system, with very few compensatory seats Use of decoy lists by major parties is widespread and mixed-member proportional representation is not to be achieved:[25]de facto mixed-member majoritarian representation
Kazakhstan	Majilis	Lower house of national legislature	Non-compensatory	1 (local districts), 69 (nationwide constituency)	Parallel voting (superposition)	Party-list PR +First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)	98	2	semi-proportional
Lesotho	National Assembly	Lower house of national legislature	Compensatory	1 (local districts), 40 additional seats (seat linkage)	Seat linkage system (compensation)	Party-list PR +First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)	120	1 (mixed single vote)	proportional
Lithuania	Seimas	Unicameral national legislature	Non-compensatory		Parallel voting (superposition)	TRS andList PR	71		semi-proportional
Mauritania	[data missing]
Mexico	Chamber of Deputies	Lower house of national legislature	Partially compensatory	1 (local districts), 40 (multi-member districts)	Supermixedparallel voting (superposition) and conditionalcorrection	First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) +Party-list PR (Largest remainder:Hare quota)		2	semi-proportional	Since 1996, a party cannot get more seats overall than 8% above its result nationally (i.e., to win 50% of the legislative seats, a party must win at least 42% of the vote nationwide). There are three exceptions on this rule: first, a party can only lose PR-seats due to this rule (and no plurality-seats); second, a party can never get more than 300 seats overall (even if it has more than 52% of the vote nationally); and third, a party can exceed this 8% rule if it wins the seats in the single-member districts.
	Chamber of Senators	Upper house of national legislature	Non-compensatory	3 (local districts), 32 (multi-member districts)	Superposition	Limited (party) block voting locally (2 seats from each constituency to largest party, 1 to the second largest party) +Party-list PR nationwide		1 (mixed single vote)	semi-proportional
Monaco	[data missing]
Mongolia	[data missing]
Morocco	[data missing]
Nepal	[data missing]	Lower house of national legislature
New Zealand	House of Representatives	Unicameral national legislature	Compensatory	1 (local districts), 48 additional seats (seat linkage) + additional seats in case of overhang seats	Seat linkage:mixed member proportional (MMP)	Party-list PR +First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)	120	2	proportional	Following a longelectoral reform process, beginning with theRoyal Commission on the Electoral System in 1985 and ending with the1993 referendum on the voting system. It was first used in anelection in 1996. The system's use wasreviewed by referendum in November 2011, with the majority (56.17%) voting to keep it. In2020 general election, the Labour Party won 65 out of 120 seats, becoming the first party under MMP to receive a majority.
Pakistan	National Assembly	Lower house of national legislature	Non-compensatory		Superposition, seat linkage non compensatory	First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP) for 272 seats + 70 members appointed by parties proportional with seats already won		1	majoritarian
Philippines	House of Representatives	Lower house of national legislature	Non-compensatory		Parallel voting (superposition)				semi-proportional
Russian Federation	State Duma	Lower house of national legislature	Non-compensatory		Parallel voting (superposition)				semi-proportional
San Marino	Grand and General Council	Unicameral national legislature	Non-compensatory		Majority jackpot				proportional (first round)
Senegal	National Assembly	Lower house of national legislature	Non-compensatory
Seychelles	National Assembly	Unicameral national legislature	Non-compensatory
Sri Lanka	[data missing]
Taiwan (Republic of China)	Legislative Yuan	Unicameral national legislature	Non-compensatory		Parallel voting (superposition)
Tajikistan	Assembly of Representatives	Lower house of national legislature	Non-compensatory		Parallel voting (superposition)
Tanzania	National Assembly	Unicameral national legislature	Non-compensatory		Parallel voting (superposition)
Thailand	House of Representatives	Lower house of national legislature	Non-compensatory		Parallel voting (superposition)			2
Venezuela	National Assembly	Unicameral national legislature	Non-compensatory	1 (local districts), 400 (nationwide constituency)	Parallel voting (superposition)			2
Zimbabwe	National Assembly	Lower house of national legislature	Non-compensatory	1 (local districts), 10 (proportional constituencies)	Superposition			1

Country	Body	Type of body	Type of mixed system	Seats per constituency	Mixed system	Component electoral systems	Total seats	Number of votes	Typical results	Notes
Argentina	Legislature of Córdoba Province		Non-compensatory	1 (local districts), 44 (nationwide constituency)	Parallel voting (superposition)		70	2	semi-proportional
	Legislature of Río Negro Province		Non-compensatory						semi-proportional	[data missing]
	Legislature of San Juan Province		Non-compensatory						semi-proportional	[data missing]
	Legislature of Santa Cruz Province		Non-compensatory						semi-proportional	[data missing]
Germany	State parliaments, except Bremen, Hamburg Saarland	varies by state	Compensatory	varies by state	Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) - with levelling seats	Party-list PR +First-past-the-post (FPTP/SMP)	varies by state	varies by state	proportional	Bavaria uniquely uses anopen-list system for its party-list seats.Baden-Württemberg usesMMP without lists.
South Africa	Municipal elections including: Local municipalities Metropolitan municipalities		Compensatory	1	MMP with ca. 50% FPTP and 50% seat linkage	Varies by municipality 7 -270				Two ballots - one with FPTP candidates (Ward) and the other with just party names (PR). Compensatory seats are based on the sum of both ballots, effectively allocated using the D'Hondt method.
United Kingdom	Scotland -Scottish Parliament	Devolved legislature	Compensatory		Additional member system (AMS)			semi-proportional	2	MMP with each electoral region normally electing 9 local MSPs (with exceptions to 3 regions) and 7 regional MSPs
	Local elections in London (Assembly)	Municipal	Compensatory		Additional member system (AMS)			semi-proportional	2	MMP with 14 constituencies each electing 1 local AM and 11 Londonwide AMs.

• Albania usedparallel voting in the 1996 and 1997 elections (before switching tomixed-member proportional representation from 2001 to2005).^[26][27]
• Argentina:Santiago del Estero Province (1997–2009)
• Armenia
• Azerbaijan'sNational Assembly (the Milli Məclis) had previously used an SM system in which 100 members were elected for five-year terms in single-seat constituencies and 25 were members were elected by proportional representation. Since the latest election Azerbaijan has returned to electing members from single-member constituencies. Due to the corruption present within Azerbaijan,^[28] the limited proportionality that SM was able to offer had little effect.
• Bulgaria (1990, 2009)
• Croatia (1993–2001)
• Egypt (2020)
• Georgia (1990–2024): Georgia initially used a two-round system for its constituency seats. Up until 2016, 73 seats out of 150 seats were allocated in constituencies. In the 2020 election, this number was reduced to 30 out of 150 as a result of the2019 protests. By 2024, Georgia will switch to a fully proportional electoral system.^[29]
• Guinea
• Italy (1993–2005,with modifications)
• Kyrgyzstan (until 2025)
• North Macedonia (1998)
• Palestinian Authority (2005), for thenext election, the system was changed toparty-list proportional representation.
• South Korea: (1988-2024)National Assembly used parallel voting from 1988 to 2019. From 2019 to 2024, it uses a hybrid system of parallel voting and mixed-member proportional, with both compensatory seats (30) and supplementary seats (17).
• Ukraine: In thelast elections to theVerkhovna Rada, a parallel voting system was used. 50% of seats are distributed under party lists with a 5%election threshold and 50% throughfirst-past-the-post insingle-member constituencies. The method of 50/50 mixed elections was used in the 2002, 2012, 2014 and 2019 elections; however, in 2006 and 2007, the elections were held under a proportional system only. According to the election law that became valid on 1 January 2020 thenext election to the Verkhovna Rada again will be held under a proportional scheme.
• Wales (Senedd) until 2026

• Electoral systems
• List of electoral systems by country
• Proportional representation
• Semi-proportional representation
• Representative democracy
• Types of democracy

• Chamber 1 Electoral Systems Map from theACE Electoral Knowledge Network

• Electoral systems
• Mixed electoral systems

• Harv and Sfn no-target errors
• CS1 Italian-language sources (it)
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• All articles with unsourced statements
• Articles with unsourced statements from August 2024
• Articles with hatnote templates targeting a nonexistent page
• All articles with self-published sources
• Articles with self-published sources from April 2025
• Articles with unsourced statements from April 2022
• All articles with lists with data missing
• Data missing from May 2025