[Insight & Opinion] Election System Reform Returns to the Debate Over "Parallel System vs. Mixed-Member Proportional System"

With less than five months remaining until the 22nd general election, the election system, which is the rule of the election, has still not been reformed. The National Assembly Speaker's pledge to propose reform plans by one year before the election date, in accordance with the legal schedule, was an initially unrealistic hope. The Political Reform Special Committee presented several alternative options and belatedly went through a public opinion gathering process. However, it is back to square one. The confrontational positions between the ruling and opposition parties from four years ago during the debate over whether to adopt the parallel system or the mixed-member proportional system remain the core issue of the current Political Reform Special Committee.

In Korea's electoral system, where constituency elections are central and proportional representation is secondary, linking the secondary party votes to the total number of seats is not a system with democratic consistency. The German electoral system, which we consider a model case, was originally created by mixing the single-member district system with a fully proportional voting history. We are doing the exact opposite. The mixed-member proportional system we introduced, apart from its democratic representational consistency, can be understood as the dominant parties holding a majority of constituency seats accommodating minority parties in the proportional representation segment. From the perspective of monopoly issues, it is like restricting the business sectors of large corporations.

Most countries adopting a mixed electoral system use the parallel system, not the mixed-member proportional system that we used until the 20th general election. According to data from the Central Election Commission, among 39 countries adopting mixed systems, only seven?including Germany and New Zealand?use the mixed-member proportional system. Thirty-two countries, including Japan, Italy, and France (Senate), use the parallel system. In Germany, the model for the mixed-member proportional system, party proportional voting is central, so some scholars classify it as a proportional voting system rather than a mixed system. Conversely, it is also reasonable to argue that Korea, with its very small proportion of proportional representation, should be seen as a single-member district country rather than a mixed system. Mechanically introducing the German-style mixed-member proportional system into Korea’s single-member district-focused electoral system inevitably has limitations.

On the 21st, 51 lawmakers from the Democratic Party, together with the ‘2024 Political Reform Joint Action,’ held an ‘Emergency Forum to Prevent Satellite Parties’ and agreed to push the Satellite Party Prevention Act as a party stance. Preventing satellite parties is an alternative focused on maintaining the mixed-member proportional system. Of course, there is controversy over the effectiveness and validity of the satellite party prevention alternative. Also, even if the mixed-member proportional system is adopted, the winner-takes-all and wasted vote problems arising from the single-member district system, which was the background for reform, remain. It only compensates slightly in other ways. To resolve the duopoly problem of the two major parties, the proportion of proportional representation must be significantly increased.

The People Power Party argues for a return to the parallel system. There is institutional stability. However, it is difficult to avoid criticism that it is a simple regression to the past, as it offers no solution to the problems of the single-member district system that motivated the electoral reform. Increasing proportional representation or proposing improvements to alleviate the duopoly system of the single-member districts would be necessary to argue for the institutional validity of the parallel system.

For now, the parties’ interests hinge on ‘parallel system or mixed-member proportional system,’ but a strategy to resolve the duopoly of the two major parties must accompany this. The distinction between satellite parties and pure proportional parties also depends on whether the duopoly system operates. In this regard, regardless of which system is chosen, I want to emphasize again today that reforming the candidate number order system, a representative unfair system protecting the duopoly of the two major parties, is the core task of electoral reform. This refers to reforming Article 150 of the Public Official Election Act, which assigns candidate numbers based on the ranking of large parties and places them on the ballot, giving enormous premiums to large parties.

Kim Man-heum, Chair Professor at Hansung University, Former Director of the National Assembly Legislative Research Office

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.