Editing Proportional representation (section)

===Fairness===
PR tries to resolve the unfairness of single-winner and [[Winner-take-all system|winner-take-all]] systems such as [[plurality voting]], where the largest parties typically receive an "unfair" seat bonus and smaller parties are disadvantaged, always under-represented, and on occasion win no representation at all ([[Duverger's law]]).<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Optimal apportionment |journal=Journal of Political Economy |volume=121 |issue=3 |pages=584–608 |date=2013 |first1=Y. |last1=Koriyama |first2=A. |last2=Macé |first3=J.-F. |last3=Laslier |first4=R. |last4=Treibich |doi=10.1086/670380 |s2cid=10158811}}</ref><ref name="Norris" />{{rp|6–7}} Under FPTP, an established party in UK elections has been elected to majority government with as little as 33.7% of votes ([[2024 United Kingdom general election|in 2024]],) and ten times on record [[1830 United Kingdom general election|since 1830]], a government obtained the most seats while losing the popular vote to another party. In certain Canadian elections, majority governments have been formed by parties with the support of under 40 percent of votes cast ([[2011 Canadian federal election|2011 Canadian election]], [[2015 Canadian federal election|2015 Canadian election]]). If turnout levels in the electorate are less than 60 percent, such outcomes allow a party to form a majority government by convincing as few as one quarter of the electorate to vote for it. 

That same situation can occur elsewhere as well. In the [[2005 United Kingdom general election|2005 UK election]], for example, the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] under [[Tony Blair]] won a comfortable parliamentary majority with the votes of only 21.6 percent of the total electorate.<ref>{{cite web |first1=Colin |last1=Rallings |first2=Michael |last2=Thrasher |title=The 2005 general election: analysis of the results |url=http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/167891/UK-Parliament-elections-2005-Electoral-data-Report.pdf |website=Electoral Commission, Research, Electoral data |publisher=[[Electoral Commission (United Kingdom)|Electoral Commission]] |access-date=29 March 2015 |location=London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171020142823/http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/167891/UK-Parliament-elections-2005-Electoral-data-Report.pdf |archive-date=20 October 2017}}</ref>{{rp|3}} Such misrepresentation has been criticized as "no longer a question of 'fairness' but of elementary rights of citizens".<ref name="hansard1976" />{{rp|22}}

However, some PR systems with a high [[electoral threshold]], or other features that reduce proportionality, are not necessarily much fairer: in the [[2002 Turkish general election]], using an open-list list PR system with a 10 percent threshold, 46 percent of votes were wasted.<ref name="ideaEsd">{{cite web |year=2005 |title=Electoral System Design: the New International IDEA Handbook |url=https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/electoral-system-design-new-international-idea-handbook |access-date=9 April 2014 |publisher=[[International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance]]}}</ref>{{rp|83}} The other 54 percent of the votes did receive fair level of representation, though. 

Under first-past-the-post, a third or so of members are elected with less than half the votes cast in their district, the majority of voters in such districts not getting any local representation and, with no levelling seats being used, getting no representation entirely.

District-based winner-take-all systems also benefit regional parties by allowing them to win many seats in the region where they have a strong following even though they have less support nationally, while other parties with support that is not concentrated in a few districts, like various [[Green politics|Green parties]], win few or no seats. An example was Canada's [[1993 Canadian federal election|1993 election]], when the [[Bloc Québécois]] won 52 seats, all in [[Quebec]], on 14 percent of the national vote <!-- Norris's figure of 18% is wrong, see following UBC ref -->, which was 12 more seats than it would have earned if seats were allocated based on the popular vote. The [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada|Progressive Conservatives]] collapsed to two seats on 16 percent of the votes spread nationally, when it was due 48. The Conservative party, although strong nationally, previously had won many of its seats in the West, In 1993, many of its Western supporters turned to the Reform party (a regional party), which won all its seats west of Ontario and most of its seats west of Saskatchewan. 

The Conservative vote was spread so thin that in only one riding did it take a majority of votes, and in only two ridings did it take enough votes to win the seat. In about 150 districts, the Conservative candidate received more than 15 percent of the vote, but in only two cases did the candidate take enough votes to win the seat. Under PR, the Conservative party's 16 percent of the votes would have been mirrored by elected representation (likely about 48 seats), while under FPTP, the use of 295 separate election contests, with no overarching mechanism of proportionality, meant almost all of the Conservative votes were wasted.<ref name="Norris">{{Cite journal |last=Norris |first=Pippa |year=1997 |title=Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/019251297018003005 |journal=International Political Science Review |publisher=[[Harvard University]] |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=297–312 |doi=10.1177/019251297018003005 |s2cid=9523715 |issn=0192-5121 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150705000416/https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/Choosing%20Electoral%20Systems.pdf |archive-date=5 July 2015 |access-date=9 April 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=1993 Canadian Federal Election Results |url=http://esm.ubc.ca/CA93/results.html |publisher=University of British Columbia |access-date=25 January 2016 |archive-date=30 August 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170830154131/http://esm.ubc.ca/CA93/results.html}}</ref> 

Similarly, in the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015 UK general election]], conducted using single-winner FPTP, the [[Scottish National Party]] gained 56 seats, all in [[Scotland]], with a 4.7 percent share of the national vote, while the [[UK Independence Party]], with 12.6 percent, gained only a single seat.<ref>{{cite web |title=Election 2015{{snd}}BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results|website=BBC |access-date=11 May 2015}}</ref>