Panachage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Part of the Politics series

Electoral systems

show

Plurality/majoritarian

show

Proportional representation

show

Mixed systems

show

Other systems and related theory

 Politics portal

 v
 t
 e

Panachage (English: /ˌpænəˈʃɑːʒ/)[1] is the name given to a procedure provided for

in several open-list variants of the party-list proportional representation system. It
 gives voters more than one vote in the same ballot and allows them to distribute
their votes between or among individual candidates from different party lists. [further
explanation needed]
 It is used in elections at all levels in Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
and Switzerland; in congressional elections in Ecuador, El Salvador,
and Honduras; and in local elections in a majority of German states, and
in French communes with under 1,000 inhabitants.
Among non-proportional systems, plurality-at-large voting, limited voting,
and cumulative voting can also allow individuals to distribute their votes between
candidates from different parties.

Contents

 1Fictitious example
 2Belgium
 3Ecuador
 4El Salvador
 5France
 6Germany
 7Honduras
 8Italy
 9Liechtenstein
 10Luxembourg
 11Switzerland
 12References

Fictitious example[edit]
The Central Strelsau constituency in the Ruritanian Assembly of the Republic elects six
members. Three lists, containing twenty-two candidates in total, are vying for its seats.
There are 6,750 voters, and the voters can each select a maximum of six candidates.

Election results

Social Democratic Party National Consolidation League of Concerned Citizens

Candidate Votes Candidate Votes Candidate Votes

Alice Brown 1,407 Bob Jones 4,662 Sylvia Ambrosetti 3,901

Matt Wright 3,901 David "D-Dog" Ng 4,195 Sam Miller 4,662

Pranav Kapoor 3,213 Allison Cook 3,901 Pat Malkiewicz 1,214

Judy Bogart 3,213 Tricia Chapman 5,873 Rick Vogelman 2,217

Thomas McLeish 3,213 Nikki Jefferson 1,254 David Higgins 749

Maurice Vuong 2,725 Gene MacDonald 536 Duncan Bradshaw 329

Sean Stephens 1,867 Simon Levanshvili 2,087

Megan Vargas 5,455 Raymond Sullivan 905

SDP Total 24,994 NC Total 23,413 LCC Total 13,072

Election results

Party Quotients Seats

Social Democratic Party 24,994 12,497 8,331 6,249 4,999 4,166 3

National Consolidation 23,413 11,707 7,804 5,853 4,683 3,902 2

League of Concerned Citizens 13,072 6,536 4,357 3,268 2,614 2,179 1

The list totals mean that, on the basis of proportionality, the Social Democratic
Party is entitled to three seats, National Consolidation two, and the League of
Concerned Citizens one.

 For the SDP, Megan Vargas and Matt Wright are elected first and second,
and the tie for third place on the SDP list is broken in favor of the highest-
ranked candidate: Pranav Kapoor. However, Megan Vargas – a non-political
celebrity placed last on the list as a sign of endorsement – in the event
declines election; accordingly, her place is taken by the next highest-ranked
candidate: namely, Judy Bogart.
 Tricia Chapman and Bob Jones are the two list members elected for
National Consolidation.
 Sam Miller is initially elected for the LCC, but also declines election – in
this case with the intention of ensuring that his list's leading candidate, Sylvia
Ambrosetti, gets a seat.

The effects that panachage can have on an election can be demonstrated simply by
comparing these results with those that would have been obtained under a closed-list
system:

Election results

Elected candidates
Party
Elected by panachage Elected by closed list voting

Megan Vargas 5,455

Alice Brown 1,407
Judy Bogart 3,213

Social Democratic Party

Matt Wright 3,901 Matt Wright 3,901

Pranav Kapoor 3,213 Pranav Kapoor 3,213

Tricia Chapman 5,873 Bob Jones 4,662

National Consolidation
Bob Jones 4,662 David "D-Dog" Ng 4,195

Sam Miller 4,662

League of Concerned Citizens Sylvia Ambrosetti 3,901
Sylvia Ambrosetti 3,901

Only three of the candidates who would have been elected under the closed list
were also initially elected under panachage. Of the two who declined election,
only one was replaced by a presumptive closed-list electee.

Belgium[edit]
Until an 1899 reform in favour of an open-list electoral system and
the parliamentary elections in 1900, panachage was possible in provincial and
parliamentary elections in Belgium. Candidates were placed on lists in
alphabetical order of surname.[2]
Municipal elections were held under the panachage system until passage of the
5 July 1976 Law. This change was adopted before the first elections (October
1976) following the 1976 communes merger, which reduced the number of
Belgian communes from 2,359 to 596. Bills were introduced in 1995 and 1999
by senators from the Volksunie to reinstitute panachage, but they were never put
to votes.[3][4]

Ecuador[edit]
In the Ecuadorian parliamentary elections, voters have as many votes as there
are seats to be filled. They may use their votes to support candidates across
party lines (and they may also give several votes to a single candidate). [5]

El Salvador[edit]
El Salvador adopted an open list proportional system for the 2012 legislative
elections. It introduced panachage for the 2015 elections:
"For the first time, voters will be able to select individual candidates from any
party rather than being forced to vote for a single party with an established list of
candidates. Voters can still opt to simply choose a party.".
[6][7][8]

France[edit]
Since 2014, voters in municipal elections in communes having fewer than 1,000
inhabitants (at the time: 26,879 communes, representing 73.5% of the total) have
been able to cast ballot papers indicating their preference for candidates either
listed or named individually, and, in addition, cross out if they so wish the names
of one or more candidates. (Before that time, the upper population limit for
communes qualified for this system of voting had been 3,500.) The number of
candidates selected by a voter must not, however, exceed the total number of
available seats.[9]
Until a reform effective 17 May 2013, voters had been able to write in the names
of other, unlisted eligible citizens. But now all nominations must be filed in
advance with the prefecture or sub-prefecture, and voters may no longer add
names on election day.[10]

Germany[edit]
Of sixteen federal states, two (Bremen and Hamburg) adopted electoral systems
including panachage (Panaschieren) for state and municipal elections. Eleven
others use the system only for municipal elections. Except in Schleswig-Holstein,
in the states allowing panachage, the voter may give more than one vote for one
or several candidate(s) (Kumulieren). Berlin, North Rhine-
Westphalia and Saarland are three states that do not use panachage at all. [11][12]

Honduras[edit]
Panachage within an open list proportional system has been used since 2005 for
legislative elections in Honduras.[13]

Italy[edit]
The Italian concept of voto disgiunto is not equivalent to the panachage concept
as understood in other countries. It means the possibility at regional and
municipal elections (in communes over 15,000 inhabitants) to vote for a list or a
specific candidate on it (whose name has to be written on the ballot paper by the
voter), and for a candidate to the presidency or the mayorship who may be on
another list. This system is not used for provincial elections.

Liechtenstein[edit]
For legislative elections in Liechtenstein, there are two constituencies, Oberland
and Unterland. The first has 15 seats, the second ten. The voter must use only
one ballot paper from one party, and has the right to vote for as many candidates
as there are seats to be filled: this may mean either all the candidates on the
party list, or some of them and other candidates, added in handwriting under
"deleted" candidates. Using highlighters, writing comments on the ballot paper, or
putting more than one ballot paper in the ballot envelope voids the vote. [14]

Luxembourg[edit]
In all proportional elections,[15] such as those for the Chamber of Deputies, a voter
in Luxembourg has as many votes as there are seats to be filled in that
constituency. The individual may vote either for candidates on the same list or for
candidates on different lists and may allocate up to two votes to a single
candidate.[16]

Switzerland[edit]
In Switzerland, in addition to being able to distribute their votes between different
lists (panachage), voters may add names to lists, and/or delete one or more of
the names appearing on others. This system was also used in Austria until the
1970s.[17]

References[edit]
1. ^ "Merriam-Webster – panachage". Retrieved 14 Aug  2019.
2. ^ (in French) "Evolution de la législation électorale", SPF Intérieur - Direction des
Elections (Federal Public Service Interior  - Elections Office), 26 January 2010
3. ^ (in French) Jan Loones, Bert Anciaux, Christiaan Vandenbroeke, "Proposition de loi
modifiant la loi électorale communale et instaurant le vote panaché", Senate of Belgium, 13
July 1995
4. ^ (in French) Vincent Van Quickenborne, "Proposition de loi modifiant la loi électorale
communale et instaurant le vote panaché", Senate of Belgium, 24 November 1999
5. ^ Craig Arceneaux, Democratic Latin America, Routledge,
2015 ISBN 9781317348825p.339
6. ^ George Rodriguez, "Voters head to the polls in El Salvador to elect legislators,
mayors", Tico Times, 28 February 2015
7. ^ (in Spanish) "Papeletas para las elecciones 2015 (reproduction of ballot papers and
explanation of the new voting system)", Tribunal Supremo Electoral