Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム

Jump to content

Coexistence (electoral systems)

Add links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use of different electoral systems in different districts

A diagram of a coexistence based mixed electoral system combining first-past-the-post and party-list proportional representation.

Social choice andelectoral systems
A jointPolitics andEconomics series

Social choice Mechanism design Comparative politics Comparison List (By country)
Single-winner methods Single vote –plurality methods First preference plurality (FPP) Two-round (US:Jungle primary) Partisan primary Instant-runoff UK: Alternative vote (AV) US: Ranked-choice (RCV) Party block voting Plurality block voting Condorcet methods Condorcet-IRV Round-robin voting Minimax Kemeny Schulze Ranked pairs Maximal lottery Positional voting Plurality (el.IRV) Borda count (el.Baldwin,Mdn.Bucklin) Antiplurality (el.Coombs) Cardinal voting Score voting Approval voting Majority judgment STAR voting
Proportional representation Party-list Apportionment Highest averages Largest remainders National remnant Biproportional List type Closed list Open list Panachage List-free PR Localized list Quota-remainder methods Single transferable vote (Hare,Droop) Schulze STV CPO-STV Quota Borda Approval-based committees Thiele's method Phragmen's method Expanding approvals rule Method of equal shares Fractional social choice Direct representation Interactive representation Liquid democracy Fractional approval voting Maximal lottery Random ballot Semi-proportional representation Cumulative SNTV Limited voting
Mixed systems By results of combination Mixed-member majoritarian Mixed-member proportional By mechanism of combination Non-compensatory Parallel (superposition) Coexistence Conditional Fusion (majority bonus) Compensatory Seat linkage system UK:'AMS' NZ:'MMP' Vote linkage system Negative vote transfer Mixed ballot Supermixed systems Dual-member proportional Rural–urban proportional Majority jackpot By ballot type Single vote Double simultaneous vote Dual-vote
Paradoxes and pathologies Spoiler effects Spoiler effect Cloning paradox Frustrated majorities paradox Center squeeze Pathological response Perverse response Best-is-worst paradox No-show paradox Multiple districts paradox Strategic voting Lesser evil voting Exaggeration Truncation Turkey-raising Wasted vote Paradoxes ofmajority rule Tyranny of the majority Discursive dilemma Conflicting majorities paradox
Social and collective choice Impossibility theorems Arrow's theorem Majority impossibility Moulin's impossibility theorem McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem Gibbard's theorem Positive results Median voter theorem Condorcet's jury theorem May's theorem Condorcet dominance theorems Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem VCG mechanism Quadratic voting
Politics portal Economics portal Mathematics portal
v t e

Inpolitical science,coexistence^[1] involves different voters using differentelectoral systems depending on whichelectoral district they belong to.^[2] This is distinct from othermixed electoral systems that useparallel voting (superposition) orcompensatory voting. For example, therural-urban proportional (RUP) proposal forBritish Columbia involved the use of a fully proportional system oflist-PR orSTV in urban regions, combined with MMP in rural regions.^[3]

Coexistence of electoral systems exist in multiple countries, like theDemocratic Republic of the Congo andPanama, as well as for elections of theEuropean Parliament.^{[citation needed]}. Historically, variants have been used in Iceland (1946–1959), Niger (1993, 1995) and Madagascar (1998).^[4]

Types of coexistence

[edit]


Type	System	Example(s) for use
Coexistence	e.g.FPTP/SMP in single-member districts,list-PR in multi-member districts	Democratic Republic of the Congo, Panama
Supermixed	e.g.FPTP/SMP in single-member districts, conditionalparty block voting in multi-member districts	Cameroon, Chad
	Rural-urban proportional representation (RUP)	Denmark (formerly), Iceland (formerly)
	Seat linkage compensatory mixed system (MMP) and FPTP in special constituencies	Bolivia

References

[edit]

^Massicotte & Blais (1999). "Mixed electoral systems: a conceptual and empirical survey".Electoral Studies.18 (3):341–366.doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(98)00063-8.
^Herron, Erik S; Nishikawa, Misa (2001-03-01)."Contamination effects and the number of parties in mixed-superposition electoral systems".Electoral Studies.20 (1):63–86.doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(00)00002-0.ISSN 0261-3794.
^Massicotte, Louis (2004).In Search of Compensatory Mixed Electoral System for Québec(PDF) (Report).
^Golder, Matt (2005-03-01)."Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946–2000".Electoral Studies.24 (1):103–121.doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2004.02.008.ISSN 0261-3794.

Thispolitical science article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coexistence_(electoral_systems)&oldid=1292420928"

Categories:

Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭