File talk:Electoral systems map.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

DR Congo in pink

[edit]

Hello, DRC should be in pink and not blue, as it got Parallel voting (party-list PR and FPTP)--Aréat (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akeosnhaoe: Thanks for the large map. Could you please also make the update above about DRC? I don't know how to make changes of svg files. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked up a few more countries, and it seem Armenia's color is outdated as well. It changed to full proportional system in 2017, and thus should be blue here. ;) --Aréat (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Togo, which should be full proportional blue. ;) --Aréat (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easy, SVG files are just text files. Download the original version of the file and then open it in Notepad (or TextEdit on macOS). You'll then see a bunch of two letter codes like .cd for Congo or .ca for Canada (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 for a complete list) above some color code. You can move those around, save the file and then open it in a web browser to view the changes. Then upload that file once you're happy with the changes. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea/Bangladesh

[edit]

@Glide08 and JDuggan101: I'm not able to edit svgs, so could one of you update North Korea to a two-round system per the IPU. Only one candidate is put up in each seat, and if they fail to get 50% of the votes cast, it seems another round of voting is held.

This map is also inconsistent with File:Countries That Use a First Past the Post Voting System.png – mostly in cases where countries have reserved seats for women that are assigned based on national vote totals. Are these really parallel voting (note that Bangladesh also has reserved seats assigned this way, but is listed here as purely FPTP)? Cheers, Number 57 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the reserved seats:
  • In Tanzania, the seats for women are assigned proportionally to the popular vote, so yes, Tanzania counts as parallel voting.
  • In Pakistan, the lists are not proportional to the vote totals, but to the FPTP seat totals, so that's a borderline case.
  • Bangladesh is a definite no, since the women members are elected indirectly by STV, with the directly-elected FPTP members serving as an electoral college.
Glide08 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind modifying the map and I was just going to personally say when it comes to Pakistan, IPU calls it a simple majority system so having it as FPTP is fine by me. JDuggan101 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glide08: The women's seats in Bangladesh are assigned to parties based on national vote shares. Which women take the seats for each party are in theory voted on by the elected MPs of that party; however, as the IFES note (see p6), these elections have never been held as parties have only ever nominated as many candidates as they have seats assigned to them. I would say the selection of which women take the seats is a form of internal primary election, but the seats themselves are assigned to parties based on parallel voting. Number 57 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Number57: Oh. Apparently, what I said about women's seats in Bangladesh being elected by the elected MPs by STV only applies if we're going by the Constitution of Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glide08 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Barthélemy

[edit]

Okay, so I found the electoral system for St. Barthélemy on the French wiki and it seems rather odd, which leaves me unsure of how it should be classified on the map. The procedure is as follows:

If, in the first round, a list wins an absolute majority of the votes cast plus one vote, a second round is not carried out. Otherwise, lists with more than 10% of votes proceed to a second round. According to the electoral code of Saint-Barthélemy, the list that came first gets seven seats, while the rest are allocated by proportional representation, i.e. one seat for each electoral quotient (division of the number of votes cast by 19), with the remaining seats filled according to the highest average method. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 21:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the electoral system used in all french regional-level elections, although the percentage of seats of the "Prime majoritaire" is of one fourth of the total for the regions, while it varies in territories ones. Here in St Barth it's one third, rounded up. We categorize it as a majority system by proportional party list with a majority prime (not sure of the translation here).--Aréat (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Leone

[edit]

Sierra Leone now use a proportional system [1]. Could you please make the change? Cordially. Aréat (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand in pink

[edit]

Update: Thailand currently uses a parallel voting / mixed member majoritarian election system after amending the constitution in 2021.[2] Preime TH (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused colours

[edit]

What's with the "unused (later for[...])" colours? And why are so many of them later for the same thing? I propose removing "Blue", and restructuring the Party-list PR as such

While removing the other unused colours:

GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The greener blue should be open list/panachage, as STV is green.
Blue blue can be closed list, and a darker shade - majority jackpot Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're proposing swapping Light Blue and Persian Green like this:
?
Or are you proposing replacing Light blue with blue?
I don't understand your majority jackpot remark however, as while I was fiddling around with the legend, I changed the majority jackpot colour to Indigo (as it was previously a darker shade of Indigo).
  •  
    (Indigo) Majority jackpot system
GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Light blue for closed list is fine. Why the partially open list? it's only one country, probably should be counted as open list. The two greens can be the open list systems where panachage is and isn't allowed.
Majority jackpot is fine with indigo but it should be distinct from MMP, AMS Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reset New Zealand to purple. AMS is sometimes differentiated from MMP, but the principle is the same.
New Zealand is MMP with some extra seats if there are overhang seats, but not like the former German one, not enough for full proportional
Therefore is is very similar to the other too AMS/MMP countries which are one vote MMP, so they are potentially more proportional than New Zealand.
It's not ideal if these all had a different color because of small differences.
The outlier country is Germany, which was a higher order or proportional MMP before as well, but now it's more like list PR than MMP. I'll leave it alone in the Dark Blue, to show it's not exactly close or open list PR, but is closed list + local FPTP with restrictions.
South Korea is questionable, now it is okay in the partiall AMS, partial compensatory category even if very different from both Mexico and Hungary, we cannot have 3 colors for all 3.
But I read it will switch to full two vote AMS. Which because of ratios and tactics is going to be significantly less proportional than NZ or the one vote MMPs. Maybe it can be left in its current group.
The light magenta thing was never a good color for MMP, since the proportional ones are blue/green, and fptp is red, so it makes sense the intermediate ones are more blue if more proportional.
Instead I used it for majority bonus/jackpot, as that looked too similar to MMP. Now the difference is obvious. Also I looked at Monaco and it seemed it wasn't SNTV but block voting/panachage Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AMS & MMP are two distinctly different systems, they're different enough to have a comparison of their methods and results on the AMS page. An absolute majority of seats can be won of purely FPTP seats under AMS, but MMP makes that impossible. They must be differentiated. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An absolute majority of seats can be won of purely FPTP seats under AMS, but MMP makes that impossible."
Even if that is the case, which is not clear from the AMS/MMP pages (also in need of some work), New Zealand is AMS by that definion, since a majority of seats are from FPTP and thus can be won by FPTP alone.
We can argue about the South Korea / Mexico / Hungary categorozation, but I don't see why New Zealand would be that special to get it's own category. And if it is, the color scheme is quite wrong Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy to talk about adjusting the colour of MMP, but the only reason NZ has a "special category" is because it's the only country that uses actual MMP. And no, in New Zealand, a party can't win an outright majority (without more than 50% of the party vote) out of just FPTP seats, that's what the overhang seats are for. No party has won an outright majority of seats in New Zealand without more than 50% of the party vote since the introduction of MMP in 1996, that is the key distinguisher between classical MMP and the revised AMS. Overhang seats (excluding cases where a significant amount of parties fall below any electoral threshold in place, which is rare and no examples come to mind) deprive parties of majority governments without a clear majority of votes (or in New Zealand's case, of party votes, with its two-vote system). I'd be happy to workshop different colours for classical MMP with you, do you have any suggestions? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what overhang seats are though. Overhang seats are the seats that a party wins above their proportional entitlement. Maybe this is not well explained on the MMP/AMS pages, I'll look.
There are 4 ways of dealing with them:
-The new German way: not allow them. If you win too many seats in FPTP, you cannot keep them, the district will go without a local representative. This makes Germany very different from traditional MMP
-The old German way: allow overhang seats but add as many list seats as needed, with virtually not limit (hard limit might have been like 2000 seats in total, potential 4x the size), this is perfect MMP, now no place has it
-The NZ way. You can keep overhang seats, but you since you would take these away from other parties, you add that many seats. Last election in NZ this was 2 seats. This approach doesn't make it proportional, it's closer to simple AMS then full (old German) MMP
-The AMS way. You can keep overhang seats and its no problem, other parties will have that much less list seats to share amongst them
So in NZ too you can win a majority from FPTP. Let say a party has 45% of the vote all 71 districts. 45% would only give them 54 seats of 120, so they have 17 overhang seats. 17 seats are added, so parliament is now 137 seats. The party still has a majority. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I was using "overhang" wrong in this instance, I was meaning it as a term (that is currently unnamed I believe?) for the additional seats provided under NZ's system when an overhang occurs. Alright, fair enough, you've described a hypothetical example where the New Zealand system would fail to secure a considerably proportional House, but allow me to explain how it's still a notably different system to AMS. There are a set amount of list seats in AMS, but only a set minimum amount of list seats in MMP. NZ 2023 example: 72 seats are won in FPTP SMDs, 48 seats are won in a nationwide list. If this were AMS, like in Scotland or Wales before 2026, that would be all, 61 seats could be won in FPTP districts with 43% of the vote and one party would have a majority without even worrying about the list seats. But because in this example, this party won more seats than they're entitled to, a compensatory ("overhang" in my previous responses) seat is given, they're deprived of a majority. That's my issue with lumping in classical MMP (modern NZ and pre-2013 Germany) with AMS, since the set amount of "additional member seats" makes it noticeably less proportional than MMP, and it's much more likely to have disproportionate results under one than the other. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rankedchoicevoter, what's your opinion on
 
Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP)

? I've tried to compare it to other colours, and I think it looks close enough to AMS that it's clear they're related to each other, but has enough contrast to be differentiated from other shades of purple/magenta. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sure, that's better then now. Now it looks like NZ is more majoritarian than Hungary, Korea or Mexico. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it looks more majoritarian than HU, RK, and MX, then do you think it should be bluer? I mostly chose the colour for contrast purposes, but I do personally believe NZ's MMP to be more proportional than the Scorporo of HU. Hmmmm, a conundrum. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rankedchoicevoter would it be better to make Scorporo that colour instead and use the current Lavender for NZ? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As proportionality goes, it's probably in this order:
German MMP (this currently seems like a shade of blue, I would leave it like this, its not really MMP anymore, more like a special list PR case, but the jury is still out on that one)
New Zealand MMP, this is the most MMP-like MMP that currently exists on this map, after Germany cancelled leveling seats. I think this should be the bluest shade of purple currently used
AMS - As I see it only Lesotho and Bolivia are for sure here, this should be a less blue shade of purple then, but clearly separate from the magentas of parallel voting (closest is probably the TRS+PR now, if it is far enough from that it's fine). Maybe South Korea can also join if they did in fact change, I cannot find a good source. But since that is two-vote and de facto parallel voting, it might as well remain with the odd ones out.
Mexico - this is parallel voting with some extra rules, I'd say this should stay Lavender, together with South Korea. Different theoretically, but very similar in practice probably.
Hungary - This is almost like parallel voting, but the decoy list tactic that works in Korea doesn't work here, so it might be slightly proportional, can stay in Lavender
South Korea - for all intents and purposes this is still parallel voting, but technically an AMS+parallel hybrid, probably can stay in Lavender Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the Lavenders can stay, AMS Purple becomes MMP Purple, and perhaps the slightly redder Royal Purple shown above becomes AMS? What do you think? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rankedchoicevoter, what do you think of these changes? Would there be anything you'd suggest?
– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, Royal Purple can be swapped out for
 
(Dark Lilac) Additional-member system (party-list PR and FPTP) (semi-proportional implementation of of MMP)
if the contrast looks wrong (which I'm just starting to realise might be the case, especially with Purple). What do you think? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, after testing out these colours, I think all the examples for AMS so far that I've suggested are too similar to other colours, I think the Dark Violet I've selected here provides the best contrast while still visibly being more red/majoritarian than MMP.
– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rankedchoicevoter I'm awaiting a response from you to update the colours, is the above list of colours suitable? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's almost perfect. the only thing I'm unsure about is that the majority jackpot is so similar to MMP, when in practice it leads to very different results. But I don't have a better proposal for now. Will you modify it? Also, I don't remember if you added the disputed countries, but if yes, can you make them editable without image editor? Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe it was me who added the disputed countries, however I thought they were already text-editable, is there a problem with them? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will check, maybe I just didn't find them.
I saw the latest edits it is good, but bonus and jackpot were switched up. I think no change in needed, the jackpot can remain in the pink.
There is no perfect solution here, since the 3 of the 4 systems (Greece, Armenia/San Marino, Djibouti) are so different. Greece is bonus, so non compensatory, it's less proportional. Current purple is slightly misleading since its not that close to real MMP (New Zealand), so maybe it could be adjusted slightly. Meanwhile, Djibouti is good with the pale magenta, it's a huge 80% jackpot, but technically, the winner of the jackpot doesn't get any of the other seats so its compensatory.
Armenia/San Marino are proportional so they should be close to blue, but for the optional second round its a 50%+ jackpot, so sometimes more of a bonus than Greece. I don't know what color would be best for such a system.
Also, jackpot has it's own page now, I linked to it Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. It is genuinely confusing sometimes, bonus vs jackpot. I rationalised that the jackpot is more majoritarian, so it ought to be a shade of pink, and bonus is reinforced proportionality, so it ought to have more in common with the proportional-adjacent systems. (Please tell me if I've gotten those backwards, though). I'd be fine if we could find a better shade to differentiate it from MMP though, if you think the contrast isn't strong enough. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it is because Greece's bonus is less than 20% while the jackpots are above 50%
But a 50% bonus is always more than a 50% jackpot.
I think its good like this, at least for Greece/Djibouti. Maybe lets make Armenia and San Marino a different color since theirs is two round, I think that would be a very blue one. But it could even be the Indigo that is now Greece, but then what should Greece be?
Or it can be the Dark lilac you proposed for AMS before.
Also, I'd say let's switch up the Colombia dark blue with the normal closed list blue. Because then the normal blue can be in general/default party list/PR, it won't be a problem with more simplistic maps. But where closed list exists the darker shade fits more in an order (bright green is STV the most individual or PR and open list is bluish green, blue is listPR undefined/on party basis and dark blue is closed list. Germany is also close t that drak blue already and thats also based on closed list PR). Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I favour keeping Open List PLPR a more green shade, to point it towards the Mint of STV to show they're both proportional systems where the candidates are chosen by the electorate, whether directly (STV) or indirectly (Open List PR). We could change closed-list to Navy Blue, but would Colombia then be the only country in Blue or are there other countries that are mislabelled now? The only thing I worry about with differentiating all the different types of majority bonus/jackpot is running out of colours, but I think it would be reasonable to have a different category for "Two-round majority bonus", perhaps a lighter, more desaturated version of the Dark Lilac?
 
(Pale Lilac) Two-round majority jackpot system
If we're to use Navy Blue for closed-list though, I'd propose making it a little bit lighter, maybe something like
 
(Navy Blue) Party-list proportional representation (party-list PR, closed list)
not a drastic change, but a bit less dark and overpowering. What do you think? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rankedchoicevoter it's been a while since you've responded, what do you think of these colours? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I think it works. I think it's fine if Colombia is the only one staying in blue. Maybe the two open lists could be switched up too, so the lighter one is the more open/panachage Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we'd end up with
 
(Blue) Party-list proportional representation (party-list PR, partially open list)
(for Colombia)
 
(Navy Blue) Party-list proportional representation (party-list PR, closed list)
(for all the current regular Blue ones)
and
 
(Persian green) Panachage (party-list PR, open list)
 
(Blue Sapphire) Party-list proportional representation (party-list PR, open list)
Personally, I'm fine with switching up the (Light) Blue and Navy Blue, but the colour palette is too overpoweringly dark if Blue Sapphire and Persian Green are switched. I prefer if they stayed as they are.
Also, I'd like to add, I've tested out the Pale Lilac now, and it doesn't work, it looks too similar to Scorporo. I've made a few changes to some of the other pink shades as well. This time, I hope you don't mind, I'll just upload the new version of the file with the changes I've made in testing and you let me know if there are any changes you'd make, it'd save time. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also, if you want to reuse that Magenta for Majority Bonus/Jackpot, I'd have no qualms, I was mostly just surprised that you changed the file immediately, without a discussion first. I'm glad we can have a civil talk about this now, sorry for my initial brash reaction, that's on me. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry too, I shouldn't have changed it up so fast, since there are other pages to edit too as a consequence. It's that both of use made several changes at once and then those have to be reset too. Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So what do you think of my suggestion to use the current Lavender for NZ's MMP and the new "Royal Purple" for Hungary's Scorporo? Since I think it's better to show a... I guess it's a "flawed proportional system" as more proportional than an "almost proportional majoritarian system" you know? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, majority jackpot/bonus is also a head scratcher.
There's majority bonus, which is technically non-compensatory, and often a small bonus, currently here it's only Greece. It's also called reinforced proportionality. Ideally if it's just Greece it should get something similar to proportional
Then theres majority jackpot, which is technically compensatory, but usually a much larger majoritarian component. It doesn't feel right putting Djibouti, with a token 20% proportional part together with
Armenia, which also has minority jackpot
San Marino, which is proportional and only the optional second round has a jackpot
what do we do about this? Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I didn't notice that about jackpot vs bonus when I amalgamated them a couple months ago. I suppose jackpot could be a shade of magenta/desaturated pink to differentiate it from the parallel voting systems, and maybe the bonus could remain the same shade of Indigo? To point it towards Scorporo/AMS? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Electoral_systems_map.svg&oldid=911867603"