WHERE ARE ITS EYESIT HAS NO EYES OH GOD <| sep |> Really I think for everything except strategic voting and the ballot , it ' s hard to justify any differences between FPTP and AV . Only ~ 23 % of seats changes hands compared to FPTP . There ' s not much daylight between the two . Do you have a link supporting this ? I ' d love to see it . In terms of fairness to supporters of small parties , in practice STV has been easier for small parties to take seats in than MMP . I ' d suggest setting both of those to equal at around 2 , with STVMMP being the system with maximum fairness there . And this , too ? Also , by MMP here , do you mean FPTPMMP and AVMMP both ? In terms of fairness to supporters of small parties , in practice STV has been easier for small parties to take seats in than MMP . I ' d suggest setting both of those to equal at around 2 , with STVMMP being the system with maximum fairness there . And this , too ? I don ' t see how that could be true that STV outperforms FPTPMMP and AVMMP on fairness to small parties with less than 15 % or 20 % support . Again , AVMMP and FPTPMMP should probably be the same in terms of negative campaigning , but the need for coalition building does reduce negative campaigning compared to just FPTP or AV . Maybe set that to a 2 on the party side for both ? And 0 for the candidate side ? AV candidates need those 2 nd and 3 rd choice votes , and so can ' t bash their opponents without voter backlash . The need for coalitionbuilding is another benefit against negative campaigning layered on top of that . I think you ' re right , though , it ' s a mistake to have FPTPMMP listed as 0 0 on negative campaigning . But as we ' ve seen in the recent US elections , it is possible to bash your opponents and then come together to some degree afterwards , so it feels more like a 1 to me on the party side , not a 2 , for FPTPMMP . But with AVMMP , there ' s some mutual reinforcement going on between the candidate and party perspectives , so that one might be a 2 on the party side . ? What isn ' t technically fully proportional is the version of MMP talked about in this country , which is technically called AMS and technically only semiproportional . How relevant that distinction is depends a lot on the details of the system . In practice though Scotland and and previously Germany even under true MMP have been more vulnerable to false majorities than Ireland ' s STV . Obviously it ' s not 100 % possible to prevent these , but your chart should reflect the relative incidence of both . I guess I ' m assuming that we ' d study and learn from past mistakes and implement a version which is the most effective in the important details . AVMMP is likely a little bit more vulnerable to false majorities too but how significant that distinction is is somewhat debatable . Again , we ' re talking 23 % of seats , and this is on the local side only . You ' re saying that AVMMP is more vulnerable to false majority than FPTPMMP ? How so ? STV is also miscategorized here as semiproportional . It ' s not . It ' s a fully proportional system . STV implemented in a typical 5 member district is not fully proportional in any practical sense , even though it is theoretically for a district with dozens or hundreds of seats which no one would ever do in practice . For example , the green party would not have their 10 % support reflected in anything near 10 % of seats under pure STV with 5 member districts . Other than this serious flaw of underrepresenting small parties , it is a very strong system indeed , beaten in this comparison only by STVMMP . Also I have a hard time seeing how one could consider STVMMP easier to understand than just STV lol . I scored it that way just because the MMP mark an x portion of the ballot is identical to FPTP which is the easiest to understand . I really like the concept and the presentation here a lot though . Fair Voting BC is doing something similar right now and I hope you don ' t mind if I pass this along . Thanks , and please do !