Closed List
The party decides the order of candidates before the election. Voters choose a party and nothing else. Whoever the party placed at the top of the list gets the seats.
Used in: Israel, Spain, South Africa, Argentina
Party-List Proportional Representation
Party-list systems are the most common form of proportional representation worldwide. Voters choose a party, seats are divided in proportion to each party's vote share, and the details â open or closed lists, thresholds, allocation formulas â determine how much power voters have over which candidates actually take those seats.
How party-list proportional representation works
The core idea is straightforward: voters choose a party, and seats in parliament are divided in proportion to how many votes each party received. A party that wins 30% of the vote gets roughly 30% of the seats. The differences between party-list systems come down to three questions: how much say voters get over which candidates fill those seats, what minimum vote share a party needs to qualify, and which formula is used to convert votes into seat numbers.
1
Vote for a Party
Each voter picks a party. In open-list systems, voters can also mark preferred candidates within that party.
2
Count the Votes
Total votes for each party are tallied nationally or regionally, depending on the country.
3
Allocate Seats
A mathematical formula (such as D'Hondt or Sainte-Laguë) converts each party's vote share into a number of seats.
4
Fill the Seats
Candidates take their seats in the order determined by the list â either the party's ranking (closed) or the voters' preferences (open).
Open, closed, and flexible lists
The biggest practical difference between party-list systems is how much control voters have over which candidates actually take the seats their party wins. This ranges from none at all (closed lists) to full control (open lists), with a middle ground (flexible lists) that lets voters override the party's order if enough of them agree.
Open List
Voters can vote for individual candidates within a party. The candidates with the most personal votes rise to the top of the list, regardless of the party's original ordering.
Used in: Finland, Brazil, Poland, Latvia
Flexible List
The party sets a default candidate order, but voters can express preferences. A candidate needs enough personal votes to override the party's ranking â otherwise the default order holds.
Used in: Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria
Electoral thresholds
Most party-list systems set a minimum vote share that a party must reach before it qualifies for any seats. The purpose is to prevent extreme fragmentation â a parliament with dozens of tiny parties, each holding one or two seats, can make stable government difficult. But higher thresholds also shut out smaller parties that may represent real constituencies of voters.
| Country | Threshold | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 7% | Highest in Europe; raised from 10% in 2022 |
| Germany | 5% | Or 3 constituency seats (mixed system) |
| Sweden | 4% | Or 12% in a single constituency |
| Israel | 3.25% | Single nationwide district |
| Denmark | 2% | Compensatory seats lower the effective bar |
| Netherlands | 0.67% | Effectively one seat's worth of votes |
The trade-off is real. Germany's 5% threshold kept the Bundestag manageable for decades but also excluded parties with millions of supporters. The Netherlands' near-zero threshold produces a highly fragmented parliament that typically requires complex coalition negotiations. There is no objectively correct number â it depends on how much a country values broad representation versus governmental stability.
How votes become seats: allocation methods
Once you know each party's vote total, you need a formula to convert those totals into a specific number of seats. The three most common approaches are D'Hondt, Sainte-LaguĂ«, and Largest Remainder. They all aim for proportionality, but they differ in how they handle the rounding problem â votes rarely divide into seats perfectly.
D'Hondt
Also called the Jefferson method
Divide each party's vote total by 1, then 2, then 3, and so on. The highest quotients across all parties win seats. This method slightly favours larger parties because their early quotients (divided by 1 and 2) tend to stay high.
Used in: Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Finland, Poland, Argentina, Japan (party list tier)
Sainte-Laguë
Also called the Webster method
Divide each party's vote total by 1, then 3, then 5, then 7, and so on (the odd numbers). This produces more proportional results for smaller parties because the divisors grow faster, reducing the advantage that large parties get from early rounds.
Used in: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany (Bundestag), New Zealand (party list tier), Latvia
Largest Remainder
Using the Hare quota
Divide total votes by total seats to get a quota. Each party gets one seat per full quota of votes. Leftover seats go to the parties with the largest remaining fractions. Simple and intuitive, but can produce paradoxes where winning more votes costs a party a seat.
Used in: Italy (historically), Hong Kong, Colombia, Tunisia
Worked example: D'Hondt vs Sainte-Laguë
Consider three parties competing for 5 seats. Party A received 10,000 votes, Party B received 8,000, and Party C received 3,000. Here is how each method allocates seats differently from the same vote totals.
D'Hondt allocation
| Seat | Winning party | Quotient |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Party A | 10,000 |
| 2 | Party B | 8,000 |
| 3 | Party A | 5,000 |
| 4 | Party B | 4,000 |
| 5 | Party A | 3,333 |
Result: A = 3, B = 2, C = 0
Sainte-Laguë allocation
| Seat | Winning party | Quotient |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Party A | 10,000 |
| 2 | Party B | 8,000 |
| 3 | Party A | 3,333 |
| 4 | Party C | 3,000 |
| 5 | Party B | 2,667 |
Result: A = 2, B = 2, C = 1
With D'Hondt, the larger parties take all five seats â Party C is shut out entirely despite winning 14% of the vote. Sainte-LaguĂ« gives Party C a seat by reducing the advantage that large parties get from early-round quotients. Neither is wrong; they reflect different priorities about how to handle the rounding problem.
Where party-list systems are used
Party-list proportional representation is the most widely used electoral system in the world. Most European democracies use some variant, as do many countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The specific combination of list type, threshold, and allocation method varies considerably.
Closed-list countries
Israel (single nationwide district, 3.25% threshold), Spain (provincial districts, D'Hondt), South Africa (national and regional lists), Russia (parallel system, party-list component), Argentina (provincial districts).
Open-list countries
Finland (D'Hondt, no threshold in practice), Brazil (state-level districts, open list with party coalitions), Poland (5% threshold, D'Hondt), Latvia (Sainte-Laguë), Czech Republic (D'Hondt, 5% threshold).
Flexible-list countries
Sweden (4% threshold, Sainte-Laguë), Belgium (D'Hondt, flexible with preference threshold), Netherlands (D'Hondt, near-zero threshold, 150-seat chamber), Austria (regional and federal tiers), Denmark (Sainte-Laguë with compensatory seats).
Key trade-offs
Strong proportionality
Party-list systems produce some of the most proportional results of any electoral method. Seats closely track votes, which means fewer wasted votes and less distortion than single-member systems.
Weaker local link
Because districts are large (or nationwide), voters typically do not have a single identifiable local representative. This is the most common criticism in countries like the UK that value the constituency link.
Party control varies
Closed lists give party leadership significant power over who enters parliament. Open and flexible lists shift that power toward voters, but at the cost of more complex ballots and intra-party competition.
Simpler than ranking
The ballot is straightforward â pick a party, and in open-list variants, mark a preferred candidate. There is no need to rank multiple candidates in order, which reduces ballot complexity and counting time.
Common questions
Do I lose my local MP?
In a pure party-list system, yes â there are no single-member constituencies. Instead, you would have several MPs representing a larger region. Some countries address this by using a mixed system (like Germany's Additional Member System) that keeps local MPs alongside a party-list tier.
Can independent candidates stand?
It depends on the rules. In most party-list systems, candidates must be on a party's list. Some countries allow independent lists or single-candidate parties, but the system is fundamentally designed around parties. This is one of its limitations compared to candidate-centred systems like the Single Transferable Vote or approval voting.
What stops extremist parties getting seats?
Electoral thresholds are the main mechanism. A 5% threshold means a party needs roughly one in twenty votes before it wins any seats at all. Countries set this bar based on their own judgment about the trade-off between representation and fragmentation. Some also ban parties that violate constitutional principles.
Which version would work best for the UK?
That depends on priorities. An open or flexible list would give voters more say over candidates, which matters in a country used to choosing individual MPs. Regional districts (rather than a single national list) would preserve some geographic connection. A moderate threshold (3â5%) would prevent extreme fragmentation while still allowing new parties to break through. But the UK's strong tradition of local constituency representation is the main reason party-list PR has rarely featured in British reform debates â most proposals focus on systems that keep some form of local MP.
How does this compare to the other systems on this site?
Party-list PR is the most party-centred system covered here. The Single Transferable Vote and approval-based systems are candidate-centred â voters choose people, not parties. The Additional Member System is a hybrid that uses a party-list tier alongside local constituencies. Each approach makes different trade-offs between proportionality, voter choice, and the local link.