in my research I have found a system very similar to the one proposed for Canada that is named Rural-Urban PR
Hungary (partial PR mixed system adopted in 1990. 152 members 20 regional districts (MMDs), D'Hondt; 176 members in single-member districts (FPTP). The district results are corrected by 58 national top-up members. (International Encyclopedia of Elections, p. 167) unlike Hungary's system, Canada's R-UPR would have - the MMD seats filled by STV - the top-up would be subprovincial or provincial, not national. in Hungary 54 percent of seats are PR. voter casts two votes -- district vote and party vote dual candidacy is allowed.
But the PR system in Hungary is not highly proportional (as it would be if they truly had a proper version of RU-PR).
see Real Lavergne's Fair Vote Canada analysis
the country table for Hungary (see the commentary tab).
Lavergne says "It is in fact the disproportional nature of the system that has enabled FIDESZ to seize a two-thirds majority and from there to further adjust the system in its favour (see row 6 in the commentary, highlighted in yellow). Also important is to note that the system became less proportional after the reforms of 2010. The Gallagher index then drops in 2022, because the two main factions basically ran as two big-tent parties in that election."
======================
later research
Hungary's high number of single-member districts (more than the number of seats in MMDs through list PR) and the low number of top-up seats (only about 16 percent of overall seats) is where the disproportionality is created.
even Denmark's mixed member system that uses list PR in all districts has more top-up than that
in my research today I came across wiki article "Rural-urban proportional representation"
who knew such an article existed?
FVC is prominently mentioned.
mentions use of RUPR in Denmark and Iceland (but see below for corrective)
excerpt:
"Rural–urban proportional systems were first devised in Denmark and Iceland; Denmark's implementation used party-list proportional representation in urban areas, and a combination of first-past-the-post voting and regional leveling seats (which functioned similar to a mixed-member proportional system) in semi-urban and rural areas, alongside nationwide leveling seats; while Iceland's used party-list proportional representation in urban and semi-urban areas, pure first-past-the-post voting in rural areas, and nationwide leveling seats."
Denmark's FPTP and double top-up does not seem to be the case today.
I say double top-up because it says
"a combination of first-past-the-post voting and regional leveling seats (which functioned similar to a mixed-member proportional system) in semi-urban and rural areas,"
today system described as (from wiki 2022 Danish general elelcton
"The 179 members of the Folketing are elected in Denmark (175), the Faroe Islands (2) and Greenland (2).
The 175 seats in Denmark include:
135 seats elected in ten multi-member districts, using the d'Hondt method (kredsmandater),
and 40 levelling seats, allocated to parties in order to address any imbalance in the distribution of the constituency seats (tillægsmandater). The main threshold for levelling seats is 2 percent."
so no rural-only top-up and no single-member districts at all. (no STV either)
so Denmark does not use the RUPR as envisioned for Canada at all.
Iceland also has no FPTP districts:
"The 63 members of the Althing are elected by open-list PR in six multi-member districts, with 54 seats distributed between parties at the constituency level with no electoral threshold and 9 levelling seats assigned to party lists at the national level with a threshold of 5 percent required in order to ensure proportionality with the election result." (from (Wiki 2021 Icelandic parliamentary election)
so again no single-member districts. (no STV either)
so neither Denmark nor Iceland use RUPR as we envision it.
so other than Hungary's bungled attempt at RUPR, it seems to be strictly a Canadian thing!
===========================
R-UPR does not actually require STV or single-member districts (those just happen to be elements of the one proposed in BC in 2019)
RUPR is based on top-up added over results of elections in multi-member districts.
Perhaps an open-list PR model (one X) for the district votes as it is first adopted.
Ranked ballots or some other refinement could be introduced down the line.
(any use of MMDs and fair voting (single voting - one person one vote) would be an improvement on the present FPTP system!)
========================================
single-member districts alongside MMDs, or just MMDS alone, plus top-up members are the distinguishing feature of RUPR.
top-up is necessary for RUPR.
just SMD districts with top-up is MMP
just MMDs with top-up is Danish mixed member PR (lower case used to distinguish it from normal sort of MMP) (a form of RUPR)
STV not necessary but was envisioned in choices in 2018 BC referendum.
wiki article "Rural-urban PR"
says
"Rural–urban proportional is the only proportional voting system proposed in BC's 2018 electoral reform referendum to include an approach previously used in Canada. [that is part of the RUPR (the R part) is rural single-member districts; the U part and some of the PR part is MMD and fair voting; these were done in AB and MB in the old days. the PR part also is top-up which was never yet done in Canada]. Alberta and Manitoba used STV in major cities and single-member ridings in rural areas to elect provincial members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) for 30 years"
so we (and future CA) face this trade-off for election system in MMDs if RUPR is chosen as way to go:
for the district elections:
STV which was used in Canada, but only more than 50 years ago, but needs ranked voting, not used in 50 years except London city election
OR
list PR which has never been used in Canadian history at all but is used in most PR countries in the world, and anyway would be part of a future RUPR for the top-up component.
I came across how Krygyzstan uses preferential voting in its list PR, so there is another refinement/option/complication.
Some Australia system with above-the-line (party list style voting allow back-up preferences, I think.
so perhaps there can be blurring of lines between STV and list PR, if back-up preferences are an option (say for votes cast small parties too small to get over the threshold),
and blurring between SNTV and open-list PR, if open-list PR is used.
if system is organic and intuitive, the voter does not need to know how sophisticated it is - he or she would be just asked to vote once (or twice) and provide back-up preferences if desired, and the election officials would go to work to produce mixed proportional rep. through high number of effective votes and low GI results.
anyways my hope is simplicity through good mechanics...
(any use of MMDs and fair voting (single voting - one person one vote) would be an improvement on the present FPTP system!)
any party-list top-up or back-up preferences to prevent waste would be just extra goodness.
======================================================================
Comments