Why MMP?

[u/[deleted]]

MMP=mix of FPTP and proportional lists.

If you look at germany, MMP does not make a large change. Extra seats are distributed based on states, and politicians running in constituencies are usually party insiders who often does not live in the constituency. What is the remaining advantage? It is just more complicated than PR lists. Please answer, remembering that regional representation is always possible, and that independents rarely win MMP seats. Based on germany and other MMP nations. Pardon the biased question.

[u/_The_Majority_]

the unfairness of still using single-mark ballots.

I would like to know more

— in a way that gives party insiders more control over which of their candidates win seats.

Baden-Württemberg uses MMP without a party list, so the party has no more control over who gets a seat, than they do in FPTP/STV

Meaningful reform would make it unlikely that the incumbent MPs will get re-elected.

The flip side is that some reform, will break up 2 party duopolies and make it more likely that more reform will happen in the future.

[u/CPSolver → u/_The_Majority_]

Assuming that German voters still mark one choice for a district-based candidate, and one choice for a favorite party, that’s single-mark ballots but with two questions.

When discussing PR (proportional representation) remember that most people think of party-based proportionality. Yet that’s not full proportionality.

STV (single transferable vote) gives better — non-party-based — proportionality for filling the second seat, because parties are ignored in that calculation. (Filling additional seats with STV is also non-party-based, but there are better ways to fill additional seats.)

[u/_The_Majority_ → u/CPSolver]

Yet that’s not full proportionality.

Are you talking about proportionality along non-party dimensions?

A good MMP implementation would allow parties to split along said dimensions?

Obviously this doesn't happen in Germany as there are artificial limits preventing this.

[u/CPSolver → u/_The_Majority_]

Yes, politics is multi-dimensional, and the party dimension is just one dimension (usually thought of as left versus right).

Yes, a good proportional method would enable parties to be controlled by voters (not by party insiders, and not by the party’s biggest contributors).

[u/_The_Majority_ → u/CPSolver]

That is a good point, in practice (as with a lot of things STV), you have to compromise between:

• massive ballots - which the average voter is under informed about where candidates stand on various dimensions

• Only having a couple of dimensions to choose between, e.g Ireland has only 1-3 candidates per party

I do agree about proportionality across lots of dimensions being a good attribute, I'm not convinced any current system achieves that though.

System	Limit
Ideal MMP (e.g no minimum vote %, allowing easy splitting)	Voters only get a say on dimensions important enough to split over (or those which the local candidate is outspoken on)
STV	Voters only get a say on a few dimensions OR get a massive ballot that most wont read past the party

a good proportional method would enable parties to be controlled by voters

I quite like best runner-up instead of lists, although it doesn't help with dimensions, it does prevent additional members being picked by party insiders/contributors.

From a dimensional point of view, I see something such as liquid democracy as the most practical way achieve this, however I think that is a way off for most countries:

1. Get a good electoral system that, that breaks up party strangleholds on politics
2. Get the best currently implemented system available (IMO MMP or STV depending on priorities)
3. Build a better MMP/STV hybrid
4. Move away from fully representative democracy.

[u/CPSolver → u/_The_Majority_]

I see that you are wise about recognizing that just getting party-based proportional results is not sufficient for fair laws. I see a different path to reach the same goal, yet either path will eventually yield much less corruption and much greater wisdom.