Hungary does this too, and the party list seats are filled in a way that increases the influence of smaller parties. The first seat goes to the party with the most votes, but once that seat's assigned, the winning party's vote total is cut to 1/2. Then the next seat is assigned to whoever has the most votes afterwards, and the winner's total is cut to 1/2 if it's their first time winning, or 1/3 if it's their second time winning. And so on.
The Hungarian system is pretty much useless since the reform in 2013. Before 2013 party candidates that did not win the districts contributed their votes to the list vote totals. This is losers compensation. Since then we have a winners' compensation: winners also contribute their extra district votes (the difference of their votes and the second place candidate's) to the list totals. This exacerbates gerrymandering and pretty much guarantees the 2/3s majority needed for amending the constitution to Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party with their 45%-55% popular vote.
Re:Ugly Gerry – Gerrymandering font
by irishsultan on Thursday January 26, 2023 @04:36AM
(#34529607)
What you're describing seems to be the D'Hondt method which favors larger parties, not smaller parties.
We do the same here in New Zealand. It's called MMP (Mixed Member Proportional). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_repr...
Germany does that. They have districts, which get to send the winner in each district to parliament. But these only account for a part of the total seats available.
The others are filled up from a party list in such a way that the proportions are equal to the proportions of the votes.
That way you get the best of both worlds, you have representatives that have a connection to each district, but you still have the distribution in parliament that represent the actual distribution of the votes.