Single Transferable Vote vs Mixed Member Proportional Vote

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

These two systems are normally given the most attention by electoral reformists, but which is better?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I prefer STV but I feel like that's the main one people look at like "THAT THERE IS SO CONFUSING I DUNNO HOW IT WORKS THERE'S TOO MANY NUMBERS!".

[DavidB.]

MMP. Best of both worlds.

[Antonio the Sixth]

MMP easily, though it's far from my favorite.

[Kushahontas]

STV

[PJ]

I prefer MMP, because list seats allow for more proportional representation of how voters feel, while constituency seats still allow local issues and individual politicians to have a stake in the political system, as opposed to national political parties. I would prefer for constituencies to be elected with IRV rather than FPTP though.

STV isn't bad per se, but the electoral system a country uses should be fairly easy for the average voter to wrap their head around, which STV is not.

[DC Al Fine]

MMP is far far easier to understand.

[Antonio the Sixth]

MMP is far far easier to understand.

The outcome of MMP is easy to understand, but its actual workings (and notably the fact that voters cast two ballots) can be somewhat confusing to the non-initiated. The opposite is true for STV.

The reason why MMP is superior to STV is because it effectively produces proportional representation, while STV has all the biases of constituency-based systems.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

@antonio, malta's STV system is topped up to ensure proportionality. Could that be the solution?

[Famous Mortimer]

Half straight list PR + Half individual members elected by IRV.

[Antonio the Sixth]

@antonio, malta's STV system is topped up to ensure proportionality. Could that be the solution?

Yes, Malta's system is one of my favorites. The only ones I'd find preferable are the Danish or Swedish systems, which use PR within small constituencies with individual preferences plus a number of compensatory seats to ensure proportionality at the national level.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

MMP with IRV for the single-member constituencies is the best way of satisfying the goals of both fairness in the sense of the results telegraphing the actual votes and subsidiarity in the sense of having legislators who are attuned to locality-specific issues, and thus the best electoral system going.

[Njall]

MMP, due to the proportionality of result and the continued direct constituency representation.

[Wilfred Day]

MMP with open regional lists as recommended by the Law Commission of Canada. Here's a handy six-minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3guVBhKmDc

[Velasco]

Both MMP (wether with FPTP or IRV for single-member districts) or the Danish and Swedish systems look fine to me. I'd choose one or another depending on the specific characteristics (political culture, geography, etc) of a certain country.

[Oak Hills]

MMP since I feel it puts the focus less on individual politicians and more on party programs.

I could support STV for local government tho.