Editing Parallel voting

{{short description|Mixed electoral system}}
{{Redirect|Supplementary-member system||Additional-member system|and|Mixed-member proportional representation|and|Majority bonus system}}
[[File:Parallel voting FPTP list.png|thumb|A diagram of a common mixed system using parallel voting. The local tier (here FPTP) and the list tier have no interaction.]]
{{electoral systems}}

In [[political science]], '''parallel voting''' or '''superposition''' refers to the use of two or more [[Electoral system|electoral systems]] to elect different members of a legislature. More precisely, an electoral system is a superposition if it is a mixture of at least two tiers, which do not interact with each other in any way; one part of a legislature is elected using one method, while another part is elected using a different method, with all voters participating in both. Thus, the final results can be found by calculating the results for each system separately based on the votes alone, then adding them together. A system is called fusion (not to be confused with [[Electoral fusion in the United States|electoral fusion]]) or [[Majority bonus system|majority bonus]], another independent mixture of two system but without two tiers. Superposition (parallel voting) is also not the same as "[[Coexistence (electoral systems)|coexistence]]", which when different districts in the same election use different systems. Superposition, fusion and coexistence are distinct from dependent [[Mixed electoral system|mixed electoral systems]] like [[Mixed-member proportional representation|compensatory]] (corrective) and conditional systems.  

Most often, parallel voting involves combining a [[winner-take-all system]] with [[party-list proportional representation]] (PR).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Parallel — |url=https://aceproject.org/main/english/es/ese01.htm |access-date=2022-04-21 |website=aceproject.org}}</ref> While [[first-preference plurality]] with PR is the most common pairing in parallel voting, many other combinations are possible. 

The proportion of list seats compared to total seats ranges widely; for example 30% in Taiwan, 37.5% in Japan and 68.7% in [[Armenia]].<ref>Reynolds et al (2008), ''Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook'', Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, pg. 104</ref> Parallel voting is used in both national parliaments and local governments in [[Italy]], [[Taiwan]], [[Lithuania]], [[Russia]], [[Argentina]], and other countries, making it among the world's most popular electoral systems.{{Cn|date=August 2024}}

== Definition ==
In parallel voting, voters cast two (or more) votes, one for each method the system contains.{{Citation needed|date=April 2022|reason=Do the votes have to be separate? Are systems with a [[mixed single vote]] like the one in Italy's [[Rosatellum]] law not called parallel?}} However, these votes do not interact in any way: the vote in one method has no effect on the calculation of seats in the other methods.

=== Confusion and conflation ===
Under the most common form of parallel voting, a portion of seats in the [[legislature]] are filled by the [[Single-member district|single-member]] [[First-past-the-post voting|first-preference plurality]] method (FPP), while others are filled by [[proportional representation]].<ref name="rc332">Royal Commission on Electoral Systems (1986), ''Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System: towards a better democracy'', Wellington N.Z.: Government Printing, pg. 33.</ref> This sometimes leads to a [[hypercorrection]] that attempts to limit the term parallel voting to refer only to mixtures of first-past-the-post and proportional representation. Parallel voting can use other systems besides FPP, and can have any mixture of [[Winner-take-all system|winner-take-all]], [[Semi-proportional representation|semi-proportional]], and proportional components.

Although the two are often mistakenly [[Conflation|conflated]], [[mixed-member majoritarian representation]] and parallel voting refer to two different things. Parallel voting refers to a ''rule'' for computing each party's representation in a legislature, which involves two voting systems operating in parallel, with one being layered ([[Superposition|superimposed]]) on top of the other. By contrast, mixed-member majoritarian representation refers to the ''results'' of the system, i.e. the system retains the advantage that some parties parties get in the [[Winner-take-all system|winner-take-all]] side of the system.

For this reason, parallel voting is not always mixed-member majoritarian. For example, parallel voting may use a two proportional systems like STV and list-PR and then it would not be mixed-member majoritarian, and a majority bonus system (which is not the same as parallel voting) may also be considered mixed majoritarian. In addition, some mixed-member majoritarian systems are not parallel, in that they allow for interaction (limited compensation) between the two components, for example this is the case in South Korea and Mexico. In South Korea, the hybrid of parallel voting and seat linkage compensation, being between the MMP and MMM type of representation has been called mixed-member semi-proportional representation as well.{{Citation needed|date=April 2022|reason=Do the votes have to be separate? Are systems with a [[mixed single vote]] like the one in Italy's [[Rosatellum]] law not called parallel?}}

Unlike [[mixed-member proportional representation]], where party lists are used to achieve an overall proportional result in the legislature, under parallel voting, proportionality is confined only to the list seats. Therefore, a party that secured, say, 5% of the vote will have only 5% of the ''list'' seats, and not 5% of all the seats in the legislature.

== Advantages and disadvantages ==
=== Representation for smaller parties ===
The major critique of parallel systems is that they cannot guarantee overall proportionality. Large parties can win very large majorities, disproportionate to their percentage vote.

Parallel voting systems allow smaller parties that cannot win individual elections to secure at least some representation in the legislature; however, unlike in a proportional system they will have a substantially smaller delegation than their share of the total vote. This is seen by advocates of proportional systems to be better than elections using only first-past-the-post, but still unfair towards constituents of smaller parties. If there is also a threshold for list seats, parties which are too small to reach the threshold are unable to achieve any representation, unless they have a very strong base in certain constituencies to gain individual seats. 

Smaller parties are still disadvantaged as the larger parties still predominate. Voters of smaller parties may tactically vote for candidates of larger parties to avoid wasting their constituency vote. If the smaller party close to the threshold may refrain from voting for their preferred party in favour of a larger party to avoid wasting their list vote as well. In countries where there is one dominant party and a divided opposition, the proportional seats may be essential for allowing an effective opposition.

Those who favour majoritarian systems argue that supplementary seats allocated proportionally increases the chances that no party will receive a majority in an assembly, leading to [[Minority government|minority]] or [[Coalition government|coalition governments]].{{Citation needed|date=April 2022}}; the largest parties may need to rely on the support of smaller ones in order to form a government. Those who favour proportional representation see this as an advantage as parties may not govern alone, but have to compromise. It is also argued that parallel voting does not lead to the degree of fragmentation found in party systems under pure forms of [[proportional representation]].<ref name="reynolds112">Reynolds et al (2008), ''Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook'', Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, pg. 112</ref>

=== Two types of representatives ===
Because voters have two votes, one for a constituency candidate and one for a list, there is a critique that two classes of representatives will emerge under a parallel voting system: with one class beholden to their electorate seat, and the other concerned only with their party. Some consider this as an advantage as local as well as national interests will be represented. Some prefer systems where every constituency and therefore every constituent has only one representative, while others prefer a system where every MP represents the electorate as a whole as this is reflected in the electoral system as well.

=== Compared to MMP and AMS ===
Parallel systems are often contrasted with [[Mixed-member proportional representation|mixed-member proportional systems]] (MMP) or the [[additional member system]] (AMS). There are a unique set of advantages and disadvantages that apply to these specific comparisons.

A party that can [[gerrymander]] local districts can win more than its share of seats. So parallel systems need fair criteria to draw district boundaries. (Under MMP a gerrymander can help a local candidate, but it cannot raise a major party’s share of seats, while under AMS the effects of gerrymandering are reduced by the compensation)

[[Japan]], and subsequently [[Thailand]] and [[Russia]] adopted a parallel system to provide incentives for greater party cohesiveness.<ref>{{Cite book |date=2016 |title=Mixed-Member Electoral Systems in Constitutional Context |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/book.52095 |doi=10.1353/book.52095|isbn=9780472121588 }}</ref> The party is sure to elect the candidates at the top of its list, guaranteeing safe seats for the leadership. By contrast, under the MMP or AMS system a party that does well in the local seats will not need or receive any compensatory list seats, so the leadership might have to run in the local seats.

Certain types of AMS can be made ''de facto'' parallel systems by tactical voting and parties using decoy lists, which (other) MMP systems generally avoid. This specific type of tactical voting does not occur in parallel voting systems as there is no interaction between its systems to exploit in a way that makes it irrelevant. However, other types of tactical voting (such as compromising) are more relevant under parallel voting, than under AMS, and are virtually irrelevant under MMP.{{Citation needed|date=April 2022}} Tactical voting by supporters of larger parties in favour of allied smaller parties close to a threshold, to help their entry to parliament are a possibility in any parallel, AMS or MMP system with an electoral threshold.

Parallel systems support the creation of single-party majorities more often than MMP or AMS systems, this may be a positive or a negative depending on the view of the voter.

== Use ==
===Current use===
Parallel voting is currently used in the following countries:<ref>Reynolds et al. (2008), ''Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook'', Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, pg. 30–33</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! rowspan="2" |Country
! rowspan="2" |Body
! colspan="3" |Members elected in constituencies
! colspan="3" |Members elected by proportional representation
! colspan="3" |Other members
|-
!Total
!%
!System
!Total
!%
!System
!Total
!System
!%
|-
| '''{{Flagicon|Andorra}} [[Elections in Andorra|Andorra]]'''
|[[General Council (Andorra)|General Council]]
|14
|50%
|[[General ticket|PBV]]
|14
|50%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|
|
|
|-
| rowspan="4" | '''{{Flagicon|Argentina}} [[Elections in Argentina|Argentina]]'''
|'''{{Flagicon|Córdoba}}''' [[Legislature of Córdoba|Legislature of Córdoba Province]]
|26
|37%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|44
|63%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|
|
|
|-
|'''{{Flagicon|Río Negro Province}}''' [[Legislature of Río Negro|Legislature of Río Negro Province]]
|24
|52%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|22
|48%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|
|
|
|-
|'''{{Flagicon|San Juan}}''' [[Chamber of Deputies of San Juan]]
|19
|53%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|17
|47%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|
|
|
|-
|'''{{Flagicon|Santa Cruz}}''' [[Chamber of Deputies of Santa Cruz]]
|14
|58%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|10
|42%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|
|
|
|-
| '''{{Flagicon|Guinea}} [[Elections in Guinea|Guinea]]'''
|[[National Assembly (Guinea)|National Assembly]]
|38
|33%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|76
|67%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]] ([[Hare quota]])
|
|
|
|-
| rowspan="2" | '''{{Flagicon|Japan}} [[Elections in Japan|Japan]]'''
|[[House of Representatives (Japan)|House of Representatives]]|| 289 
|62%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]|| 176
|38%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]||
|
|
|-
|[[House of Councillors]]
|147
|60%
|[[Single non-transferable vote|SNTV]]
|98
|40%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|
|
|
|-
|'''{{Flagicon|Kazakhstan}} [[Elections in Kazakhstan|Kazakhstan]]'''
|[[Mazhilis|Majilis]]
|69
|30%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|69
|70%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|
|
|
|-
|'''{{Flagicon|Kyrgyzstan}} [[Elections in Kyrgyzstan|Kyrgyzstan]]'''
|[[Supreme Council (Kyrgyzstan)|Supreme Council]]
|36
|40%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|54
|60%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|
|
|
|-
| '''{{Flagicon|Lithuania}} [[Elections in Lithuania|Lithuania]]'''
|[[Seimas]]
|71
|50%
|[[Two-round system|TRS]]
|70
|50%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]] ([[largest remainder method]]): [[Open list|open lists]]
|
|
|
|-
| '''{{Flagicon|Mexico}}''' '''[[Elections in Mexico|Mexico]]'''
|[[Chamber of Deputies of Mexico|Chamber of Deputies]]|| 300 
|60%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]|| 200
|40%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]] ([[Hare quota]])||
|
|
|-
| '''{{Flagicon|Mongolia}}''' '''[[Elections in Mongolia|Mongolia]]<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Marissa |title=Parliamentary Elections 2024: Yet Another New Election System |url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/mongolia/2024/yet-another-new-election-system/ |access-date=2024-04-19 |website=Mongolia Focus |publisher=University of British Columbia |language=en-US}}</ref>'''
|[[State Great Khural]]||78
|62%
|[[Block plurality voting|BPV]]|| 48
|38%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]: [[Closed list|closed lists]]||
|
|
|-
|  '''{{Flagicon|Nepal}}''' '''[[Elections in Nepal|Nepal]]'''
|[[House of Representatives (Nepal)|House of Representatives]]
|165
|60%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|110
|40%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]: [[Closed list|closed lists]]
|
|
|
|-
| rowspan="2" | {{Flagicon|Philippines}} '''[[Elections in the Philippines|Philippines]]'''
|[[House of Representatives of the Philippines|House of Representatives]]|| 253 
|80%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]|| 63
|20%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]] ([[Hare quota]]): [[Closed list|closed lists]]||
|
|
|-
|[[Bangsamoro Parliament]]
|32
|40%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|40
|50%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|8
|
|10%
|-
| '''{{Flagicon|Russian Federation}} [[Elections in Russia|Russian Federation]]'''
|[[State Duma]]|| 225 
|50%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]|| 225<ref>{{Cite news|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/world/europe/putin-orders-new-system-for-russian-parliamentary-elections.html|title = Putin Orders New System for Russian Parliamentary Elections - NYTimes.com| work=The New York Times |date = 2013-01-03|access-date = 2014-09-09| last1=Herszenhorn | first1=David M. }}</ref><ref>Since the 2016 election, and from 1993 to the [[2003 Russian legislative election|2003 election]].</ref>
|50%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]] ([[Hare quota]]): [[Closed list|closed lists]]||
|
|
|-
| '''{{Flagicon|Senegal}} [[Elections in Senegal|Senegal]]'''
|[[National Assembly (Senegal)|National Assembly]]
|105
|64%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|60
|36%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]] ([[largest remainder method]])
|
|
|
|-
|'''{{Flagicon|South Ossetia}} [[Elections in South Ossetia|South Ossetia]]'''
|[[Parliament of South Ossetia|Parliament]]
|17
|50%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|17
|50%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|
|
|
|-
|'''{{Flagicon|Taiwan}} [[Elections in Taiwan|Taiwan]] (Republic of China)'''
|[[Legislative Yuan]]
|73
|65%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|34
|30%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|6
|[[Single non-transferable vote|SNTV]] for indigenous seats
|5%
|-
|'''{{Flagicon|Tajikistan}} [[Elections in Tajikistan|Tajikistan]]'''
|[[Assembly of Representatives (Tajikistan)|Assembly of Representatives]]
|41
|65%
|[[Two-round system|TRS]]
|22
|35%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|
|
|
|-
| '''{{Flagicon|Tanzania}} [[Elections in Tanzania|Tanzania]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Art. 66, Constitution of Tanzania |url=https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Tanzania_1995?lang=en#857 |website=Constitute Project}}</ref>'''
|[[National Assembly (Tanzania)|National Assembly]]
|264
|67%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|113 
|29%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]
|26
|5 via indirect elections, 11 nominated by the president, including the attorney general.
|4%
|-
| '''{{Flagicon|Thailand}} [[Elections in Thailand|Thailand]]'''
|[[House of Representatives (Thailand)|House of Representatives]]|| 400
|80%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]|| 100
|20%
|[[Party-list proportional representation|List PR]]||
|
|
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+For dependencies
! rowspan="2" |Country
! rowspan="2" |Body
! colspan="3" |Members elected in constituencies
! colspan="3" |Members elected by proportional representation
! colspan="3" |Other members
|-
!Total
!%
!System
!Total
!%
!System
!Total
!System
!%
|-
|'''''Realm of New Zealand'''''
|{{Flagicon|Niue}} [[Elections in Niue|Niue]] [[Niue Assembly|Assembly]]
|14
|70%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|6
|30%
|[[Plurality block voting|Plurality block voting (BV)]]
|
|
|
|-
| rowspan="3" |'''''British overseas territories'''''
|{{Flagicon|Anguilla}} [[Elections in Anguilla|Anguilla]] [[Anguilla House of Assembly|House of Assembly]]
|7
|54%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|4
|31%
|[[Plurality block voting|Plurality block voting (BV)]]
|2
|2 ''ex officio''
|15%
|-
|{{Flagicon|Turks and Caicos Islands}} [[Elections in the Turks and Caicos Islands|Turks and Caicos Islands]] [[House of Assembly (Turks and Caicos Islands)|House of Assembly]]
|10
|48%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|5
|24%
|[[Plurality block voting|Plurality block voting (BV)]]
|6
|4 appointed, 2 ''ex officio''
|28%
|-
|{{Flagicon|British Virgin Islands}} [[Elections in the British Virgin Islands|British Virgin Islands]] [[House of Assembly of the British Virgin Islands|House of Assembly]]
|9
|60%
|[[First-past-the-post voting|FPTP]]
|4
|27%
|[[Plurality block voting|Plurality block voting (BV)]]
|2
|2 ''ex officio''
|13%
|}

==== Philippines ====
The Philippines' electoral system for Congress is an exceptional case. Political parties running for party-list seats are legally required to be completely separate from those running in constituency seats. Furthermore, political parties are capped at 3 seats (out of 20% of seats, or about 60 seats). As a result, the mixed-member system utilized in the Philippines is not representative at all of the share of the vote that "normal" political parties obtain (even amongst mixed-member majoritarian systems), let alone for those in full proportional representation systems.

=== Hybrid use and similar systems ===

* '''[[Hungary]]''''s [[National Assembly (Hungary)|National Assembly]] uses a system where the parallel voting component shares a pool of seats (93) with the vote transfer system and with the minority list seats with a reduced entry threshold. This means the number of seats effectively assigned proportionally based on the parallel party list votes is unknown/unknowable before the election takes place.<ref>Political Capital (2012) The new electoral law in Hungary - In-depth analysis http://www.valasztasirendszer.hu/wp-content/uploads/PC_ElectoralSystem_120106.pdf</ref>
* '''Italy''': Starting with the [[2018 Italian general election|2018 election]], both houses of the [[Italian parliament]] are elected using a system similar to parallel voting. 62.5% of the seats are assigned proportionally to party lists; party lists are also linked in coalitions supporting constituency candidates running for the remaining 37.5% of the available seats, who are elected by means of a first-past-the-post system. Electors have a single vote with two-fold effects for a party list (proportional) and its associated local candidate (majoritarian). Split-ticket voting is not allowed, a voter may mark their ballots only next to a list, a candidate, or a list and a candidate associated with it and all of these votes has the same effect. If a voter marks a candidate not associated with the list they marked, like voters may under parallel voting, the vote is invalid under the Italian system.
* '''Jersey (UK)'''
* '''Monaco'''
* '''Mexico''': In contrast to the parallel voting system for the Chamber of Deputies, for electing the Chamber of Senators (upper house), a single (party list) vote is used similarly to the Italian system. However, constituencies have 3 seats with a type of limited (party block) voting being used: 2 seats are given to the largest party and 1 to the second largest party. [[Party-list proportional representation|Party-list PR]] is used for the nationwide seats.
* '''Pakistan'''
* '''Seychelles'''

===Former use===
* [[Albania]] used parallel voting in the 1996 and 1997 elections (before switching to [[mixed-member proportional representation]] from 2001 to [[2005 Albanian parliamentary election|2005]]).{{sfnm |1a1=Gallagher |1y=2011 |1p=185 |2a1=Gallagher |2y=2014 |2p=18}}<ref>{{cite web |last=Lublin |first=David |title=Albania |website=Election Passport|url=http://www.electionpassport.com/electoral-systems/albania/ |publisher=American University |access-date=24 March 2016}}</ref>
* Argentina: [[Santiago del Estero Province]] (1997–2009)
* [[Armenia]]
* [[Azerbaijan]]'s [[Azerbaijan's National Assembly|National 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,<ref>Election Rigging and How to Fight It ''Journal of Democracy'' - Volume 17, Number 3, July 2006, pp. 138-151.</ref> the limited proportionality that SM was able to offer had little effect.
*[[Bulgaria]] (1990, 2009)
* [[Croatia]] (1993&ndash;2001)
* [[Egypt]] (2020)
* [[Georgia (country)|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 the [[2019 protests in Georgia (country)|2019 protests]]. By 2024, Georgia will switch to a fully proportional electoral system.<ref>{{cite news|title=Key Points of Newly Adopted Constitution|url=http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=30474|access-date=27 September 2017|work=Civil Georgia|date=27 September 2017}}</ref>
* [[Italy]] (1993&ndash;2005, with modifications)
* [[Elections in North Macedonia|North Macedonia]] (1998)
* [[Palestinian Authority]] ([[2005 Palestinian presidential election|2005]]), for the [[2014 Palestinian general election|next election]], the system was changed to [[party-list proportional representation]].
*[[South Korea]]: (1988-2024) [[National Assembly (South Korea)|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 the [[2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election|last elections]] to the [[Verkhovna Rada]], a parallel voting system was used. 50% of seats are distributed under party lists with a 5% [[election threshold]] and 50% through [[first-past-the-post]] in [[Single-member constituency|single-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 the [[Next Ukrainian parliamentary election|next election]] to the Verkhovna Rada again will be held under a proportional scheme.
===Proposals for use===
In [[New Zealand]], the [[Royal Commission on the Electoral System]] reviewed the electoral system in 1985–86 and considered parallel voting as a possible replacement for the [[First-past-the-post|single-member plurality (SMP)]] system in use at the time.

The commission came to the conclusion that parallel voting would be unable to overcome the shortcomings of New Zealand's previous SMP system. The total seats won by a party would likely remain out of proportion to its share of votes—there would be a "considerable imbalance between share of the votes and share of the total seats"—and it would be unfair to minor parties (who would struggle to win constituency seats).<ref name="rc392">Royal Commission on Electoral Systems (1986), ''Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System: towards a better democracy'', Wellington N.Z.: Government Printing, pg. 39.</ref> In the [[Electoral reform in New Zealand|indicative 1992 electoral referendum]], parallel voting was one of four choices for an alternative electoral system (alongside [[Mixed-member proportional representation|MMP]], [[Instant-runoff voting|AV]] and [[Single transferable vote|STV]]), but came last with only 5.5 percent of the vote. An overwhelming majority of voters supported MMP, as recommended by the Royal Commission, and the system was adopted after the [[1993 electoral referendum]].

In [[2011 New Zealand voting method referendum|another referendum in 2011]], 57.77% of voters elected to keep current the MMP system. Among the 42.23% that voted to change to another system, a plurality (46.66%) preferred a return to the pre-1994 SMP system. Parallel voting was the second-most popular choice, with 24.14% of the vote.{{Cn|date=August 2024}}{{Portal|Politics}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://www.idea.int/publications/esd/index.cfm A Handbook of Electoral System Design] from [[International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance|International IDEA]]
* [http://www.aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es Electoral Design Reference Materials] from the [http://www.aceproject.org ACE Project]
* [https://www.accuratedemocracy.com/e_intro.htm Accurate Democracy] suggests Parallel Voting by PR and Condorcet rules to make a balanced council with a few central swing voters.

{{voting systems}}

[[Category:Electoral systems]]
[[Category:Semi-proportional electoral systems]]
[[Category:Mixed electoral systems]]