In NY they came up with allowing the people to vote on propositions which sounds like a great idea, until you realize the people in power get to decide what those propositions are, and the worst part is that they're worded in such a confusing way that you don't know weather a yes vote would be in favor of it or opposition to its intent.
Naja, sie bestimmen je die Hälfte der Abgeordneten, die dann im Endeffekt im Bundestag sitzen (Überhangmandate und Ausgleichsmandate mal außen vor gelassen). Nur was die prozentuale Zusammensetzung je nach Partei betrifft, das bestimmt (fast) ausschließlich die Zweitstimme.
This helps avoid the division we see in the US, where our system became a two party system. When the US founding fathers established the election system political parties did not exist, and at a time when indentured servitude was being replaced by a legal institution of slavery. A product of its time.
also the wealthy , " learned " landowners who were the writers of the US constitution didn't want the " common ppl " ( EG the corn farmer in Iowa / pig farmer in Kansas ) to have a direct voice ( they thought they were too uneducated to vote directly ) so they put in an " arms length distance " ( the electoral college ) which required them to vote for someone who would THEN vote on their behalf . this crazy complicated system remains !
@@numbat0072 and many of those learned landowners learned to grow sugar cane, and then tobacco from the slaves they bought, many born into slavery in Cuba. Knowing more than your boss is never rewarded when authority is measured by ownership, so when you're on the operating table and the surgeon is about to make a mistake, the nurse keeps her mouth shut because it's outside her pay status to question the boss. And that's how 2020 came about.
American instituitons were some of the first, while they are somewhat effective it is telling that no other nation has adopted our model and survived. The founding father were ahead of their time somewhat but they definitely didn't have the forsigt that a lot of people wish they did
So if a party doesn't get at least 5% or win at least three constituent seats they're not represented at all? What if they just win one constituent seat?
Let's see it from the other side: parties with more than 3 direct seats or/and >5% have the status of a "faction" , which brings several rights and plights (committee heading, deputy lead of committees, ability to create special types of formal requests, etc). If a party, or better: Only one of them wins a single direct mandate, he/she is not entitled as "faction" - and thus not having the full rights.
to be clear: Of course everybody who wins a direct seat joins the parliament. The status of a fraction, which was described by moewi75 already, would possibly result in additional seats, depending on the second vote share and even if it is below 5%. Example: A party wins 4% of the second vote and three constituenties. Then they would be entitled to seat the three direct candidates and additionally 20 representatives from their party list. Would they have won just two seats, just these two direct-candidates would be seated.
We already had it one time. In the election 2002 the PDS today Die Linke had won 2 constituent seats but was under 5%. So their 2 members of the Bundestag had full rights as regular members but weren`t in a franction because their Party wasn`t in the Bundestag just the two members for their constituents and to represent these specific regions were atleast offical their real duty. Remember the two members could became members of the Bundestag because they had won in the personalized election otherwise they wouldn`t beable to became a member. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2002
Yeah that was a flaw from the video. A party or individual can still be elected for the bundestag by winning in 1 constituencey. The 5% or 3 constituenties rule is for being granted any added seats (like they explained at the end after 1 party get's Overgangseats).
I have one of those Sozial Beruf Kunde subjects which is now having a new name PGB .... I think and Mensch! Im struggling. Ive been in Germany for 3 yrs and honestly the politics here is too EXTRA. THANKS ALOT FOR THIS VIDEO. When the teacher was teaching this...I DIDNT GET IT. Jetzt ist alles klar.
What's the point of the FPTP here since the additional seats will be allocated to ensure proportionality? Isn't this system, de facto, like an open list PR?
open list PR would indeed be better, since you're not achieving actual proportionality in this system. Only half the seats are proportional, while the rest are favoring the big parties. Additionally, unlike open list, voters aren't in control of who gets elected, the parties are. It would be way better if your party vote also went to a specific person from that party, such as how we do it in Denmark.
Yes, that's correct. This designed just after WWII in Allied-controlled Germany to prevent another Weimar-era crisis from ever happening again, as well prevent instability in a voting system that allows tiny minority parties from elected into power in national and state governments.
yes , it works well in theory . most ruling parties get less than 50% ( they then get greater representation than their opponents in the Parliament / Congress ) this system represents ALL voters ( it is very similar to the US & Australian senate ) . usually every Government is a minority Gov' which forces them to make an alliance . this works until there is the inevitable infighting which forces a new election / Prime Minister which happens very regularly . this system is used in many European countries ( EG Italy where they have a new Prime Minister VERY often ! )
In Australia voting isn't a right - it's a requirement. Fines are issued to those who fail to vote whether they like it or not. It's like how we expect all children to learn how to hunt and cook kangaroos on school camp whether they like it or not.
Are the fines still a thing? In Belgium it is also mandatory but they haven't issued fine for the last decade. Only for those that were called up to assist at voting booth but didn't show up.
In the end it’s quite easy: Germany has about 300 roughly equally populated districts and all Germans above 18 are automatically allowed to cast two votes The first vote directly selects the local representative of one’s district via first past the post, hence every district is represented in the Bundestag by at least one person. The second vote is for a party and the Bundestag is filled up with pre-defined party representatives until its seat distribution represents the distribution of the popular vote, increasing it up to currently a bit above 700. The Bundestag finally elects the Chancellor. As this system does not systematically suppress third parties, coalitions between two or more parties might be necessary. A yes there also is a rule (the 5%/3 seats mentioned) to make sure that the number of parties stays in a reasonable range, currently it’s 7. It also mitigates two more fundamental flaws of e.g. the US system: Gerrymandering is pointless and whoever becomes chancellor is backed by a coalition holding the majority of the popular vote.
What happens if the local representatives don't belong to a party? How is that made up for in the parliament to make everyone's vote is proportionally represented?
@@charlottem5686 everybody that was elected by first vote in his/her district is in the Bundestag independent of how many second votes their party got (they don't even have to be in a party but this practically never happens). As soon as the party wins at least three of these so-called direct mandates or 5% of the second votes, they get at least as many representatives as their second vote percentage allows for. Otherwise it's only those that won directly. The districts can be redrawn every now and then to account for big shifts in geographical demography, e.g. when its number of represented citizens deviates more than 25% from the average of currently approx 250k citizens / district. But due to the complete elimination of gerrymandering this is more or less an administrative act and not as highly political as in the USA.
@@thomasreichert77 thank you, Sorry so just to clarify then if 40%of the first vote went to CDU representatives (so they made up 40% of their half of parliament) but only 20% of the second vote was for the cdu, then what would happen? Would they have to be balanced or do they just have 20% CDU in the other half of parliament? I have to explain this in a class haha😂
@@charlottem5686 well the system is very sophisticated and hence rather complicated... much more complicated than what fits into such a short video ;-) all the cdu reps that won their districtt’s first vote are in, the overall number surpassing the fair second vote share is called „Überhangmandate“ (excess mandates), hence cdu would be overrepresented. a few years ago this was ruled unconstitutional and meanwhile other parties receive additional seats to compensate for such effects so that the fair share condition is fulfilled again. These are called “Ausgleichsmandate” (levelling seats). And to make the system even more complicated... this „Überhang“ and „Ausgleich“ stuff is not calculated on a federal level but in each of the 16 states separately 😂 so I assume you’re a student or teacher. May I ask where? I included some buzzwords that you can google for more information.also this might help en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#Distribution_of_seats
@@thomasreichert77 thank you so much for that... im honestly still slightly confused but im just being really slow😂 i study german at a uni in london (so should definitely understand their voting system by now😂)
I have some questions not expressly answered here: 1) 2:20 - Party A gets exactly 2 direct winners (first vote), but the party only get 4% of the national vote. Do those two directly voted members fail to hold a seat? 2) 2:33 - How exactly is it determined who gets a seat via a party vote (second vote)? To clarify, if a party receives a larger percent share of seats than they got from direct elections, what determines who specifically from that party fills those additional seats? If it's from that Landesliste per district, do all citizens vote for all parties and their respective members, just the party they select, or any amount of parties? (Could I, a theoretical German citizen, cast a vote for a party member in a party I did not vote for in the second vote and/or my party? Am I limited to the list[s] that the district gives me? Can a district withhold a list from me since they only offer the list of other party/parties [i.e. my party of choice isn't running for candidacy in my district]?) 3) 3:10 - What determines the "base rate" for Uberhangmandat seats? Is it the largest party, the largest percent over, or some other mathematical operation? Use the following example: Party A gets 110 direct vote-ins, but only 16.7% of the national votes (meaning 100 seats) and therefore spills over by 10 seats, or 10% of BASE seats; Party B gets 60 direct vote-ins, but only 8.4% of the national votes (meaning 50 seats) and therefore spills over by 10 seats, or 20% of BASE seats. Does Party A get an additional 10% of BASE seats (adding the spill over percent up-to 20%) meaning 10 seats, or 120 seats total after "rebalancing" the seat shares? 4) Finally, are there write-ins allowed at either first or second votings? As in, if my candidate isn't on the ballot in my district for the first vote, may I write in his name? Same for the second vote- If my party of choice didn't run in my district, can I write-in their name? Could I write-in a Landesliste for the party? Could I write-in a candidate not on the official Landesliste for my party?
1) No, all direct winners always get a seat. The difference is that if 3 enter then the party passes the threshold and is included in the allocation of seats. For example if they won 4.5% (and 3 direct madates) this results in 27 seats. If they win only 2 direct madates they only win these 2 seats. 2) If we are specifically talking about the "Bundestagswahl" it works like this: A party list fixes the order of entrance: If the party wins 5 additional seats the 5 people on top of the list are chosen (people already winning a direct madate are excluded). The voters have no real influence on the order; it is determined by the party (potentially in some kind of primary). The allocation of the seats happens on the state level, that is why it is called Landesliste (state list). There are other versions of MMP where the votes influence the proportional mandates for example the state legislature of Baden Würtemberg uses a system where the candidates are ordered by share of first votes. There are also versions out there where you can rank the members of the list you are voting for. This is called "open list" in contrast to "closed list" and these terms apply to proportional systems in general. 3) It is the second option, extending by 20% in your example. You basically just chose the smallest number of total seats such that everything fits. 4) No, write-ins are not a thing in Germany. If wikipedia is right you need 200 signatures to run as an independent in the Bundestagswahl and parties have similar restrictions.
@@f_f_f_8142 Thank you for answering this, the wiki article and other two videos didn't mention minutia like this. But there's still one thing: in your answer to my third question I don't think it was clear what happens in the example. Does your answer mean that Party A would get yet another 10 seats because Party B got 10 (20%)? If so, that seems a little dumb considering how large the roster already is for Party A. Imagine the minimum vote-ins plus 100% base (so, 20 + 20) and then the majority party wins 100 seats, mandating that same party now go to 200 members because a tiny party got double in excess. An extreme case, I hope, but one that can still happen.
@@damon22441 The German wikipedia is quite detailed on it if that helps you. Regarding balancing seats, while the actual system is a little more complicated, this is basically how it currently works. The last election resulted in over 100 additional seats (+18%). It is important to note that the system we used until 2008 did not have balancing seats at all. It was declared unconstitutional, because in some cases more votes for a party result in less seats. (It also allowed tactical voting with two parties teaming up) The current system is a non elegant fix and will hopefully be changed some day. There are by the way countless versions of this voting system, e.g. Scottland does not even have overhang seats and instead takes the seat from the other parties and Canada debated a system only having one vote which they called Dual Member Proportional.
@@f_f_f_8142 Thanks to both of you This really helps. I have been searching for the 1st and 3rd question for lot of time. Finally found it in youtube comments. Funny hmm, even reading books did not help.
For example what happens if let's say a small party's direct representatives won in so many districts out of 299, but in the second vote the party couldn't pass 5% do these representatives go to the Bundestag or no?
Just saying, if one person wins his or her district, he will be a Member of Parliament. Even if his party does not even have one percent of the votes in the whole election.
Great video! It's the best explanation that I've found, really clear and concise. When you're used to a presidential system, like in America, it can be complicated to understand how Germany's system works especially when the explanation goes too much into the details. This kept it basic which makes it much easier to grasp, I got it know.
I want to know how many of the citizens actually understand their own electoral system. Unless they had robust education of the public about how this system works I feel most people would not understand how their votes influence the parliament.
ofcause its simple to vote.. that's not what he meant. he meant that many people don't know how there vote influence the parliament and he is so right. go to any citizen in Germany and ask them how their parliament is formed. they will not give you a complete and good answer I swear
I do not see why they need levelling seats. Just take away their overhang seats and redistribute them to the other parties! You won’t need levelling seats. I think that levelling and overhang seats should only be used to determine which seats go to which party, not to determine how many seats there are.
@@ProfTydrim If you want to keep local representation in the Parliament, and choose to grant a particular party as many local seats as they deserve, then yes, it is a mathematical necessity to have the system this way. I’m not exactly sure what I meant back then, but what I understand is that, since the reason for the existence of levelling seats is to compensate for any overhang seats, I thought that they were not necessary if the overhang seats were redistributed in the first place. However, this would leave several constituencies without local representation, or with candidates representing them that didn’t win the local election there. A fair way of getting rid of overhang and levelling seats would be to simply remove all local representation and switch to a purely proportional system of representation.
The problem with the sysrtem is that if there are too many parties in the Bundestag and lets say a party with 20% of the national vote gaines 200 Direktmandate the parliament will have 1000 seats instead of 598. Somehow the system has to be changed to prevent this.
Not really just a combination of 2 systems. The FPTP like in the UK (where the person on your profilepicture lost 7 times) and proportional representation. STAR is fun for places like the UK or Canada. But it will always result in less representation of the national public compared to PR.
In NY they came up with allowing the people to vote on propositions which sounds like a great idea, until you realize the people in power get to decide what those propositions are, and the worst part is that they're worded in such a confusing way that you don't know weather a yes vote would be in favor of it or opposition to its intent.
this video explains it really well, better than some german ones :)
Das ist falsch. Nicht die erste und zweite bestimmen je die Hälfte der Stimmen
Naja, sie bestimmen je die Hälfte der Abgeordneten, die dann im Endeffekt im Bundestag sitzen (Überhangmandate und Ausgleichsmandate mal außen vor gelassen).
Nur was die prozentuale Zusammensetzung je nach Partei betrifft, das bestimmt (fast) ausschließlich die Zweitstimme.
This helps avoid the division we see in the US, where our system became a two party system. When the US founding fathers established the election system political parties did not exist, and at a time when indentured servitude was being replaced by a legal institution of slavery. A product of its time.
also the wealthy , " learned " landowners who were the writers of the US constitution didn't want the " common ppl " ( EG the corn farmer in Iowa / pig farmer in Kansas ) to have a direct voice ( they thought they were too uneducated to vote directly ) so they put in an " arms length distance " ( the electoral college ) which required them to vote for someone who would THEN vote on their behalf . this crazy complicated system remains !
@@numbat0072 and many of those learned landowners learned to grow sugar cane, and then tobacco from the slaves they bought, many born into slavery in Cuba. Knowing more than your boss is never rewarded when authority is measured by ownership, so when you're on the operating table and the surgeon is about to make a mistake, the nurse keeps her mouth shut because it's outside her pay status to question the boss. And that's how 2020 came about.
@@blank2588 Your conclusion is clearly not what Grey meant...
American instituitons were some of the first, while they are somewhat effective it is telling that no other nation has adopted our model and survived. The founding father were ahead of their time somewhat but they definitely didn't have the forsigt that a lot of people wish they did
This is easily the best explanation for this topic, that I've come across. Kudos!
perfect! The best I have ever seen.
my brain.... it hurts. German elections are really complicated.
1Lost Muffins so true it's complicated but for a good reason
German elections are indeed complicated. But it is also one of the best election system in the world.
It's really not that complicated. And if you think about it, it does make sense.
My brain hurts because the German election system is so much better than the American one. Our system blows.
@@PaulyIzACracker Fuck off, idiot! 😠
So if a party doesn't get at least 5% or win at least three constituent seats they're not represented at all? What if they just win one constituent seat?
Let's see it from the other side: parties with more than 3 direct seats or/and >5% have the status of a "faction" , which brings several rights and plights (committee heading, deputy lead of committees, ability to create special types of formal requests, etc). If a party, or better: Only one of them wins a single direct mandate, he/she is not entitled as "faction" - and thus not having the full rights.
to be clear: Of course everybody who wins a direct seat joins the parliament. The status of a fraction, which was described by moewi75 already, would possibly result in additional seats, depending on the second vote share and even if it is below 5%.
Example: A party wins 4% of the second vote and three constituenties. Then they would be entitled to seat the three direct candidates and additionally 20 representatives from their party list. Would they have won just two seats, just these two direct-candidates would be seated.
Also, don't forget. There are 42 parties on the election ballot this year. You have to set the limits somewhere.
We already had it one time. In the election 2002 the PDS today Die Linke had won 2 constituent seats but was under 5%. So their 2 members of the Bundestag had full rights as regular members but weren`t in a franction because their Party wasn`t in the Bundestag just the two members for their constituents and to represent these specific regions were atleast offical their real duty. Remember the two members could became members of the Bundestag because they had won in the personalized election otherwise they wouldn`t beable to became a member.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2002
Yeah that was a flaw from the video. A party or individual can still be elected for the bundestag by winning in 1 constituencey. The 5% or 3 constituenties rule is for being granted any added seats (like they explained at the end after 1 party get's Overgangseats).
I bet they have voter ID laws. I bet they don't just allow anyone with a copy of the local obituary's to vote.
I have one of those Sozial Beruf Kunde subjects which is now having a new name PGB .... I think and Mensch! Im struggling. Ive been in Germany for 3 yrs and honestly the politics here is too EXTRA. THANKS ALOT FOR THIS VIDEO. When the teacher was teaching this...I DIDNT GET IT. Jetzt ist alles klar.
What's the point of the FPTP here since the additional seats will be allocated to ensure proportionality? Isn't this system, de facto, like an open list PR?
Local representation is still preserved in this system.
open list PR would indeed be better, since you're not achieving actual proportionality in this system. Only half the seats are proportional, while the rest are favoring the big parties.
Additionally, unlike open list, voters aren't in control of who gets elected, the parties are. It would be way better if your party vote also went to a specific person from that party, such as how we do it in Denmark.
It was done due to the failings of the Weimar Republic.
Nice Video
If your preferred party are going to win many constituencies, you have no incentive to vote for that party with your second vote?
Just a grate our days im peter
Isn't this system just called MMP (Mixed-Member Propotional)
Yes, that's correct. This designed just after WWII in Allied-controlled Germany to prevent another Weimar-era crisis from ever happening again, as well prevent instability in a voting system that allows tiny minority parties from elected into power in national and state governments.
yes , it works well in theory . most ruling parties get less than 50% ( they then get greater representation than their opponents in the Parliament / Congress ) this system represents ALL voters ( it is very similar to the US & Australian senate ) . usually every Government is a minority Gov' which forces them to make an alliance . this works until there is the inevitable infighting which forces a new election / Prime Minister which happens very regularly . this system is used in many European countries ( EG Italy where they have a new Prime Minister VERY often ! )
How many of the list-seats go to candidates who failed to win a direct mandate?
In Australia voting isn't a right - it's a requirement. Fines are issued to those who fail to vote whether they like it or not. It's like how we expect all children to learn how to hunt and cook kangaroos on school camp whether they like it or not.
Are the fines still a thing? In Belgium it is also mandatory but they haven't issued fine for the last decade. Only for those that were called up to assist at voting booth but didn't show up.
In the end it’s quite easy:
Germany has about 300 roughly equally populated districts and all Germans above 18 are automatically allowed to cast two votes
The first vote directly selects the local representative of one’s district via first past the post, hence every district is represented in the Bundestag by at least one person.
The second vote is for a party and the Bundestag is filled up with pre-defined party representatives until its seat distribution represents the distribution of the popular vote, increasing it up to currently a bit above 700.
The Bundestag finally elects the Chancellor.
As this system does not systematically suppress third parties, coalitions between two or more parties might be necessary. A yes there also is a rule (the 5%/3 seats mentioned) to make sure that the number of parties stays in a reasonable range, currently it’s 7.
It also mitigates two more fundamental flaws of e.g. the US system: Gerrymandering is pointless and whoever becomes chancellor is backed by a coalition holding the majority of the popular vote.
What happens if the local representatives don't belong to a party? How is that made up for in the parliament to make everyone's vote is proportionally represented?
@@charlottem5686 everybody that was elected by first vote in his/her district is in the Bundestag independent of how many second votes their party got (they don't even have to be in a party but this practically never happens). As soon as the party wins at least three of these so-called direct mandates or 5% of the second votes, they get at least as many representatives as their second vote percentage allows for. Otherwise it's only those that won directly.
The districts can be redrawn every now and then to account for big shifts in geographical demography, e.g. when its number of represented citizens deviates more than 25% from the average of currently approx 250k citizens / district. But due to the complete elimination of gerrymandering this is more or less an administrative act and not as highly political as in the USA.
@@thomasreichert77 thank you,
Sorry so just to clarify then if 40%of the first vote went to CDU representatives (so they made up 40% of their half of parliament) but only 20% of the second vote was for the cdu, then what would happen? Would they have to be balanced or do they just have 20% CDU in the other half of parliament?
I have to explain this in a class haha😂
@@charlottem5686 well the system is very sophisticated and hence rather complicated... much more complicated than what fits into such a short video ;-) all the cdu reps that won their districtt’s first vote are in, the overall number surpassing the fair second vote share is called „Überhangmandate“ (excess mandates), hence cdu would be overrepresented. a few years ago this was ruled unconstitutional and meanwhile other parties receive additional seats to compensate for such effects so that the fair share condition is fulfilled again. These are called “Ausgleichsmandate” (levelling seats).
And to make the system even more complicated... this „Überhang“ and „Ausgleich“ stuff is not calculated on a federal level but in each of the 16 states separately 😂
so I assume you’re a student or teacher. May I ask where? I included some buzzwords that you can google for more information.also this might help
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#Distribution_of_seats
@@thomasreichert77 thank you so much for that... im honestly still slightly confused but im just being really slow😂 i study german at a uni in london (so should definitely understand their voting system by now😂)
9c
Such a complicated system!
Ig India has the simplest one which is responsible for all its problems.
I have some questions not expressly answered here:
1) 2:20 - Party A gets exactly 2 direct winners (first vote), but the party only get 4% of the national vote. Do those two directly voted members fail to hold a seat?
2) 2:33 - How exactly is it determined who gets a seat via a party vote (second vote)? To clarify, if a party receives a larger percent share of seats than they got from direct elections, what determines who specifically from that party fills those additional seats? If it's from that Landesliste per district, do all citizens vote for all parties and their respective members, just the party they select, or any amount of parties? (Could I, a theoretical German citizen, cast a vote for a party member in a party I did not vote for in the second vote and/or my party? Am I limited to the list[s] that the district gives me? Can a district withhold a list from me since they only offer the list of other party/parties [i.e. my party of choice isn't running for candidacy in my district]?)
3) 3:10 - What determines the "base rate" for Uberhangmandat seats? Is it the largest party, the largest percent over, or some other mathematical operation? Use the following example: Party A gets 110 direct vote-ins, but only 16.7% of the national votes (meaning 100 seats) and therefore spills over by 10 seats, or 10% of BASE seats; Party B gets 60 direct vote-ins, but only 8.4% of the national votes (meaning 50 seats) and therefore spills over by 10 seats, or 20% of BASE seats. Does Party A get an additional 10% of BASE seats (adding the spill over percent up-to 20%) meaning 10 seats, or 120 seats total after "rebalancing" the seat shares?
4) Finally, are there write-ins allowed at either first or second votings? As in, if my candidate isn't on the ballot in my district for the first vote, may I write in his name? Same for the second vote- If my party of choice didn't run in my district, can I write-in their name? Could I write-in a Landesliste for the party? Could I write-in a candidate not on the official Landesliste for my party?
1) No, all direct winners always get a seat. The difference is that if 3 enter then the party passes the threshold and is included in the allocation of seats. For example if they won 4.5% (and 3 direct madates) this results in 27 seats. If they win only 2 direct madates they only win these 2 seats.
2) If we are specifically talking about the "Bundestagswahl" it works like this: A party list fixes the order of entrance: If the party wins 5 additional seats the 5 people on top of the list are chosen (people already winning a direct madate are excluded). The voters have no real influence on the order; it is determined by the party (potentially in some kind of primary).
The allocation of the seats happens on the state level, that is why it is called Landesliste (state list).
There are other versions of MMP where the votes influence the proportional mandates for example the state legislature of Baden Würtemberg uses a system where the candidates are ordered by share of first votes.
There are also versions out there where you can rank the members of the list you are voting for. This is called "open list" in contrast to "closed list" and these terms apply to proportional systems in general.
3) It is the second option, extending by 20% in your example. You basically just chose the smallest number of total seats such that everything fits.
4) No, write-ins are not a thing in Germany.
If wikipedia is right you need 200 signatures to run as an independent in the Bundestagswahl and parties have similar restrictions.
@@f_f_f_8142 Thank you for answering this, the wiki article and other two videos didn't mention minutia like this.
But there's still one thing: in your answer to my third question I don't think it was clear what happens in the example. Does your answer mean that Party A would get yet another 10 seats because Party B got 10 (20%)? If so, that seems a little dumb considering how large the roster already is for Party A. Imagine the minimum vote-ins plus 100% base (so, 20 + 20) and then the majority party wins 100 seats, mandating that same party now go to 200 members because a tiny party got double in excess. An extreme case, I hope, but one that can still happen.
@@damon22441 The German wikipedia is quite detailed on it if that helps you.
Regarding balancing seats, while the actual system is a little more complicated, this is basically how it currently works. The last election resulted in over 100 additional seats (+18%). It is important to note that the system we used until 2008 did not have balancing seats at all. It was declared unconstitutional, because in some cases more votes for a party result in less seats. (It also allowed tactical voting with two parties teaming up)
The current system is a non elegant fix and will hopefully be changed some day.
There are by the way countless versions of this voting system, e.g. Scottland does not even have overhang seats and instead takes the seat from the other parties and Canada debated a system only having one vote which they called Dual Member Proportional.
@@f_f_f_8142
Thanks to both of you
This really helps.
I have been searching for the 1st and 3rd question for lot of time.
Finally found it in youtube comments. Funny hmm, even reading books did not help.
For example what happens if let's say a small party's direct representatives won in so many districts out of 299, but in the second vote the party couldn't pass 5% do these representatives go to the Bundestag or no?
Yes they do, a party can go to the Bundestag if they have at least 3 direct mandates
Just saying, if one person wins his or her district, he will be a Member of Parliament. Even if his party does not even have one percent of the votes in the whole election.
thanks for the video ...
Great video! It's the best explanation that I've found, really clear and concise. When you're used to a presidential system, like in America, it can be complicated to understand how Germany's system works especially when the explanation goes too much into the details. This kept it basic which makes it much easier to grasp, I got it know.
I want to know how many of the citizens actually understand their own electoral system. Unless they had robust education of the public about how this system works I feel most people would not understand how their votes influence the parliament.
In Germanz everyone learns about the voting system and it's really not that complicated.
Everyone understands it. It's not complicated at all.
It is pretty simple.
It is a pretty easy. All you have to do is vote for a person and a party.
ofcause its simple to vote.. that's not what he meant. he meant that many people don't know how there vote influence the parliament and he is so right. go to any citizen in Germany and ask them how their parliament is formed. they will not give you a complete and good answer I swear
I do not see why they need levelling seats. Just take away their overhang seats and redistribute them to the other parties! You won’t need levelling seats. I think that levelling and overhang seats should only be used to determine which seats go to which party, not to determine how many seats there are.
They are a mathematical necessity if you want the seats to still be proportionally distributed to the 2nd vote
@@ProfTydrim If you want to keep local representation in the Parliament, and choose to grant a particular party as many local seats as they deserve, then yes, it is a mathematical necessity to have the system this way. I’m not exactly sure what I meant back then, but what I understand is that, since the reason for the existence of levelling seats is to compensate for any overhang seats, I thought that they were not necessary if the overhang seats were redistributed in the first place. However, this would leave several constituencies without local representation, or with candidates representing them that didn’t win the local election there. A fair way of getting rid of overhang and levelling seats would be to simply remove all local representation and switch to a purely proportional system of representation.
@@BoraCM The problem is that the bundestag gets too big every year. An idea is to make 250 districts instead of 299 with would lead to less seats
turn your lil drawings into NFTs
The problem with the sysrtem is that if there are too many parties in the Bundestag and lets say a party with 20% of the national vote gaines 200 Direktmandate the parliament will have 1000 seats instead of 598. Somehow the system has to be changed to prevent this.
DerVersteherPlus But this does Not happen. 700 seats yeah, but Not a 1000
I'm pro-STAR voting. This system is super complicated.
Ty willett How? the only extra step is to vote for a party as well?
Not really just a combination of 2 systems. The FPTP like in the UK (where the person on your profilepicture lost 7 times) and proportional representation.
STAR is fun for places like the UK or Canada. But it will always result in less representation of the national public compared to PR.