4.3 Mixed/Parallel System

The rule: the two systems' combination — the FPTP's seats AND the PR's seats, filled side by side. The two designs (the exam's crucial pair): the parallel system (the PR seats filled from the PR vote independently — no compensation: Nepal's design) vs the mixed-member proportional(MMP) (the PR seats' compensatory top-up to repair the FPTP's disproportionality — Germany's- and-New Zealand's model). Nepal's parallel design (Article 84): 165 FPTP + 110 PR = 275, with the two ballots (the voter's FPTP-and-PR votes) and the two logics' sum: the constituency's link preserved plus the inclusion's list (the post-2008 settlement: the CA's 60/40 design continued). The virtues: the balance (the geography's MP and the group's representation); the reform's compromise (the old-and-new politics' bridge — the 2008 CA's negotiated design); the proportionality's moderation (the fragmentation's brake — the PR's capped 40%). The vices: the two-vote complexity; the parallel's own disproportionality-preservation (the PR half never repairs the FPTP half — the MMP critique); the two classes of MPs (the constituency's-and-list's members — the mandate's inequality debate); the dual candidacy's games (the lost-FPTP- candidate's list rescue — the Act's discipline); the system's tinkering risk (the Neupane-era demand to perfect the inclusion). The comparative table (the exam's synthesiser): | System | Seats' logic | Nepal's face | Signature virtue | Signature vice | |---|---|---|---|---| | FPTP |…