Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
You seem to be adopting an American perspective here. I personally don't see why there's anything wrong with having a party that wins by a large majority in a few areas and loses by a small majority in others, ends up running the show. In fact I far prefer it to the American system which effectively makes voters in most parts of the country irrelevant as only swing states count - i.e. a Republican candidate doesn't care whether he loses by ten points or fifteen in NY or RI, the reverse is true as well.  On the other hand, while the SPD hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning Bavaria or BW the margin matters a lot.  And of course you can't get the perverse Bush 2000 style 'victory.' However, all electoral systems have their flaws. In this case it is basically certain that voters won't get the government they were voting for - no chance of a straight red-green or black-yellow coalition.
by MarekNYC on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 11:09:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where to begin? First off, it's not the existence of swing states that's a problem with a more federalist electoral system. What is a problem in the States is that there are fewer and fewer swing states, as polarization of the electorate has been steadily increasing. But you can't blame that on the federalist system. And under any kind of electoral system, there is always a particular segment of the population that is more in play than others - it just so happens that under a federalist election systems, that sought-after segment has a geographic definition. And you're saying that the swing states wield more power in a federalist system - well gee, doesn't that mean in the worst possible case you're replacing one geography-based imbalance - the one I'm complaining about here, which heavily favors the German conservatives, with another? Meaning, in the worst possible case at least you're not doing any worse than you're doing now? What's more, swing states at least gain there special status because their vote is not a foregone conclusion. The German system gives disproportionate power to a few states whose vote is absolutely predictable. I would not consider that a structural advantage - nor would I consider it more democratic. And then, the fact is, if Germany had an electoral college - and please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it should adopt one, see below - Schroeder would have crushed Merkel tonight. Now do you consider that a bad outcome? Just asking.

But all this is a discussion I didn't really mean to get into. I wasn't making a point about Germany's electoral system - I was just trying to point out that I'm really pretty darn impressed with the SPD's performance in these elections, and I think there's something to be said for the legitimacy of Schroeder's claim of a mandate.

If you can't convince them, confuse them. (Harry S. Truman)

by brainwave on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 01:23:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The German system gives disproportionate power to a few states whose vote is absolutely predictable.

No it doesn't. And I have no idea why you think it does.

And then, the fact is, if Germany had an electoral college - and please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it should adopt one, see below - Schroeder would have crushed Merkel tonight. Now do you consider that a bad outcome? Just asking

Yes, I would absolutely consider that a bad outcome. Very bad! I have this quaint idea that in a democracy you should not be able to 'crush' an opponent who gets more votes than you do.  

As to the EC in America, the main problem I have is with the winner takes all rule, not the minor distortions in the number of electoral votes.

by MarekNYC on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 03:01:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series