Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Again: If you believe in quintupling the size of a party in a single election cycle, then you're sniffing glue, not engaging in political analysis.

Though from the look of it, UPyD almost quadrupled its vote.  The unfair Spanish electoral system robbed them of the benefits of that massive growth, so they only got 4 more seats (taking them to 5, rather than the 15 - 16 they would expect in a fair system)

by IdiotSavant on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 05:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So they quadrupled their vote but quintupled their seats...

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 05:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Compromis also quadrupled their vote in their region (Valencia) going from 30 thousand to 125 thousand and winning their first seat.

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Nov 20th, 2011 at 06:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The system sees to give regional parties like CiU and aimaru a major advantage over t national parties with a similar or even bigger vote share like UPyD or IU.
by IM on Mon Nov 21st, 2011 at 07:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
D'Hondt with small constituencies will do that.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Nov 21st, 2011 at 01:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I prefer a more proportional system, and one in with the electoral circumscription would be the autonomous comunity, even with the current D'Hondt rule that last point would give more proportionality. However that would not solve the fact that the lists are closed and decided by the party.

res humą m'és alič
by Antoni Jaume on Mon Nov 21st, 2011 at 01:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Finland has proportional representation with closed lists, but the order on the lists is decided by voter preference.

So you vote for party X and candidate 7 on their list. This appears to give parties an incentive to include smaller movements - if one of their candidates is popular enough to grab a seat, it is probable that the party gained at least a seat by including them. Of course, it also means you might get some Big Brother-winners in parliament.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Nov 21st, 2011 at 01:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's the same system in Sweden, except that there are minimum vote limits so as to make it harder for voters to change the order the candidates are put in.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon Nov 21st, 2011 at 02:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And since the minimum vote limit is in percentage of votes the party gets, the larger the constituencies, the higher the limit.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Mon Nov 21st, 2011 at 03:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A really stupid rule, in my opinion, and glaringly obvious that the political parties try to steal away power that rightly should belong to the voters.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon Nov 21st, 2011 at 04:14:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Similar to the way in Australia the "simplified" Senate voting system is not voting parties in preference order rather than individual Senate Candidates ... but instead voting one party above the line, and then your preferences flow as directed by the party.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Nov 21st, 2011 at 11:09:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series