List MP

This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. Find sources: "List MP" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2017)

A list MP is a member of parliament (MP) elected from a party list rather than a geographic electoral district. The place in Parliament is due to the number of votes the party won, not to votes received by the MP personally. This occurs only in countries with an electoral system based wholly or partly on party-list proportional representation.

In some countries, seats in a legislative chamber are filled solely in accordance with the share of votes won by each individual party. Thus, all Knesset (MKs) members in Israel are list members. Under this system, MKs are appointed from lists of candidates created by each party until the party has reached its allocated number. In other countries, a more complicated system is used. In the method used in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, some seats are filled using party lists, while others are filled by the "traditional" first-past-the-post (FPP) voting system. Under the mixed member proportional (MMP) system, the method used in Germany and New Zealand, a merger of party-list representation and geographic representation is employed — parties contest geographic seats (districts) but are then "topped up" with members from a party list.

New Zealand has at least 120 members of Parliament (MPs), out of which there are 72 electorate seats elected using FPP, and the other MPs are selected from the party lists. The number of list MPs each party receives is the difference between a party's proportional allocation of parliamentary seats and its number of electorate MPs. Since the introduction of the list of MPs, New Zealand parliaments have been more proportionate.^[1]

The existence of a list of MPs has caused controversy in some countries. It is sometimes complained that because list MPs do not have a geographic electorate, they are not properly accountable to anyone. In addition, the methods used to create party lists are sometimes criticised as undemocratic — in a closed list system, the public has no way of influencing the composition of a party list. In this situation, the public cannot support one candidate without supporting other candidates from the same party. Supporters of party-list proportional representation sometimes retort that the public often has little control over the selection of local candidates, either — if a voter's preferred party selects a poor candidate, the voter is forced to either vote for a candidate they dislike or vote for a party they dislike. Under a party list system, voters can support their preferred party even if they are unwilling to vote for its local candidate.

An open list system,^[2] however, may go some way to addressing the concern that voters can only support all the candidates the party proposed. A notable example of this was in the 2006 Dutch general election. The VVD had chosen Mark Rutte as their list puller (lijsttrekker). In the Netherlands, the party leader usually gets a large majority of the votes for that party, but in 2006, the number 2 on the list, Rita Verdonk, got over 10% more votes than Mark Rutte. This eventually led to Rita Verdonk leaving the VVD and starting her own party.

There is also debate about the right of a list MP to switch parties. Because list MPs gain their seats by virtue of being on a party list rather than by winning votes personally, some contend that the party, not the MP, is the rightful "owner" of the seat. In New Zealand, there have been several controversies regarding list MPs who left their parties — Alamein Kopu, elected from the Alliance list, controversially became an independent,^[3] and Donna Awatere Huata, elected from the ACT list, similarly became an independent. In the latter case, Awatere Huata's former party went to the Supreme Court to expel her from Parliament under so-called waka-jumping or "party-hopping" legislation. ACT alleged that it was ACT, not Awatere Huata, who was awarded the seat in the last election and that when Awatere Huata left ACT, she should not have been able to take the seat with her. ACT's view was accepted, and Awatere Huata was expelled from Parliament.^[4]