My use of "ratify" is ironic. It implies that a voter has no choice to vote but only to ratify a choice made by someone else. Further, a voter with his vote, authorizes that "someone else" to do whatever he wants with the voter's vote after the election.

For national elections, a voter has only one vote for each branch of parliament. You put a cross on a coalition symbol.

Basically, for the national elections, each coalition prepares and blocks a list of candidates in a rigorous hierarchy of preferences for each region. Of course many of these candidates may reflect local and regional preferences as part of the electoral offer. Other candidates will be in the regional lists because of their national prominence and vote catalyzing power. (Then there are plenty of other considerations that have little to do with political contests). For example, imagine a coalition is likely to win 55% of a particular region which translates into 16 seats. The coalition need only put the 16 people it wants elected at the top of the list. Since the coalition needs jollies to redistribute seats for chums on a national level there are certain candidates who are on all or most of the lists throughout the nation.

Once the elections are over and proportions have been assigned in each region, this reservoir of "pluri-elected" jollies are translated into individual seats according to each coalition's criteria. In the end, an MP owes his seat to centralized party bargaining rather than to the electorate.