As I understand the Swiss/ Luxembourg system… say your Canton elects 10 deputies. You submit a list with up to 10 names (no name more than twice). If all 10 are, say, Socialist Party [*] candidates then the Socialist Party list is credited with 10 votes for the purposes of inter-party allocation. But if, say, only seven are Socialist candidates and the other three names are Liberals, then you’ve given three of your party votes to the Liberals. I think if you write-in names of individuals who are not on a party list, then it works like a cross between MNTV and cumulative voting. Some Cantons allow full cumulation, I believe.

In other words, 100 voters submitting lists with the same seven Socialists and the same three Liberals will affect inter-party numbers exactly as if 70 had voted a straight Socialist ticket and 30 had done the same for the Liberals.

===========

[*] Not only is the main German centre-left party called “the Social Democratic Party” while the main French centre-left party is called “the Socialist Party”, but within Switzerland, the same political party is called “the Social Democratic Party” in German but “the Socialist Party” in French. Interesting.

I read both of those descriptions, but I am not sure I understand how it works. If a voter changes around one party’s list, then the voter wants the party to earn seats and influence who will fill those seats. But if a voter creates his own list composed of candidates from different parties, how does that list determine which parties earn seats? Or does making one’s own list effectively state that the voter is more interested in picking candidates for seats awarded by other voters than in choosing which parties are awarded seats?

I am not aware of definitions in the literature that disagree fundamentally, although some might focus on the inter-party dimension of the rules rather than the intra-party: one tier majoritarian, one PR.

In most cases, these get us to the same place. The differences would come in with something like the old Korean rules where the list tier was also majoritarian. I suppose if you use the second definition, AND if you classify SNTV as “PR” you could wind up with the Puerto Rican system as “mixed-member.” I think that would be inaccurate, and I don’t think I have ever seen that system called mixed-member (then again, then most ignore it entirely).

MMP and MMM system where there are two front doors can create problems especially with a country like NZ which was use to FPTP, which is so simple, and the country wasn’t use to the idea of closed party lists which make things more complicated.

Perhaps the MMP and MMM zombies should be called the biggest losers or worst winners because even though they lost in a single member district, and won a list seats.

As for Japan, the new electoral system is better than SNTV, but it seems as if the MMM system could be tweaked to make it better. It seems to me that if Japan had used SNTV, why wasn’t anybody suggesting STV system or an open party list PR system, but I would think Japan would be best served with a close party list system as to reduce patronage.

Which electoral system reduces patronage spending? Which is the best electoral system to insure the nation’s resources are evenly distributed nationwide and not on some small little district?.

Would the Puerto Rican system, with some elected fptp (in smds for the house and two seaters for the senate) with 11 elected island wide by SNTV be considered mixed member (esp with the urging for voters to vote their party’s top listed candidate in the SNTV, though retaining the option to vote for one of the others)?