German federal election (September 18, 2005)

[jimrtex]

How can I remember, when I didn't know in the first place   I was trying to find Hare-Niemeyer, and came across a mention in Britannica that said the Germany uses D'Hondt.  Has this changed?  Looking at the ratio of proportional seats to direct seats, it looks like there may have been a change in 1987.  Before then, Bremen, Saarland, Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein tended to (less often for the latter 2) had a ratio lower than 2:1, even though their turnout was comparable.

correct. Britannica is horrible on these things, btw. Seldom less than fifteen years out of date. Into the 90s, Britannica claimed that European Parliament members were elected indirectly, from the member state's parliaments. That was done exactly once, in 1974.

My Britannica is about from the time of the change.  It did bother me that the particular article kept referring to the "Lague" method (a Baptist author?).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Never heard of Vinton's method and the Alabama paradox...not very active. Anyways I don't think it would usually make a difference in the no. of seats per party (seats per state is a different matter.)[/quote]
Vinton's method is the name applied in the United States to the method of largest fractions or Hare-Niemeyer where it was used for apportioning representatives (and hence presidential electors) among the states.  The Alabama paradox refers to the fact that a state could under certain circumstances lose representation if the the total number of representatives was increased.  It was so-named because it was discovered when tables of apportionment based on different numbers of representatives were prepared.  In one case, Alabama would have lost a representative if the total elected was increased.

Consider a state that was entitled to 8.54 of 200 representatives, and another that was entitled to 13.52.   Under Vinton's method, the smaller state would have a better claim on a 9th representative, than the larger state for a 14th.  But if you increase the number of representatives to 201, then the entitlements increase to 8.5827 and 13.5876, and the larger state can move in front of the smaller state based on its larger fraction.

I suspect that you could see the phenomena, where a party might gain an extra seat by increasing its vote share, but costing the party a seat in one of the smaller states.  Because of the small number of states, there is a reasonable probablity that the median fraction will not be that close to 0.5 and the apportionment can be almost capricious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both. There will be shifts in 2005 once again...there's a no. of minor intrastate changes, plus Thuringia will lose a seat and Bavaria will gain one.[/quote]
What is triggering the more frequent changes?  The previous apportionment (in the west) lasted from 1980 to 2002, and even that was partially due to the reduction in the size of the Bundestag after the increase that occured in 1990.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would suppose so...what would be the point?
[/quote]
I don't know.  It would appear to be the only advantage would be to game the system based on fortuitous rounding.  Smaller parties would probably want to avoid the use because it might cost them seats.  This could apply to both large and small states.   A larger state can sometimes take an extra seat based on a party's national vote share, including votes in a smaller state.

[minionofmidas]

As to the Alabama paradox...yeah, I've noticed that before.
I once distributed state's electoral votes to candidates using different proportional methods, and Nader would have won one of 8 EV from Colorado in 2000...but he wouldn't have if the state had already had 9 EVs (as it had in 2004).

[Middle-aged Europe]

PDS/WASG:

The WASG has given in and accepted the name "Democratic Left - PDS". However, individual state chapters of the party are allowed to strike the "PDS" and to carry only the "Democratic Left" as their name.

Now we will have to see how the base (of both parties) will react.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Maybe some of our German friends on the site can help me out with this...why doesn't the Federal Republic make it as difficult for the Communists to run as they do for the extreme right-wing parties?  Wasn't it the communists of the DDR that had nearly one in ten East Germans spying on their neighbors and reporting back to the Stazi?  Wasn't it also the communists of the DDR that shot their fellow citizens who tried to seek freedom by escaping to the west?  Why the double standard?

[minionofmidas]

Huh? The far right can and does run.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Any recent polls?

[minionofmidas]

Worse than ever.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh. Any chance of Schroeder getting dumped by his party, or does that sort of thing not happen in Germany?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Maybe some of our German friends on the site can help me out with this...why doesn't the Federal Republic make it as difficult for the Communists to run as they do for the extreme right-wing parties? 

Are you referring  to the failed attempt to ban the NPD a few years ago? Well, that´s history. But it´s not harder for them run in a election than for the PDS or any other party. They even receive campaign money from the government (as every party else).

Any recent polls?

Go to my first posting on page 1 of this topic. There are two links which lead to sites where the latest poll results are summerized.

Oh. Any chance of Schroeder getting dumped by his party, ...

No, I don´t think so. What would be the alternative? Müntefering? Brilliant idea, that would reduce their chances even further.

... or does that sort of thing not happen in Germany?

Well, yes and no. It´s probably less common than in the UK (?). And Chancellors were more often dumped by their coalition partner (when they leave the coalition), than their own party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Go to my first posting on page 1 of this topic. There are two links which lead to sites where the latest poll results are summerized.

I've had a look and... eek!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone who's not Müntefering ot Schroeder? I would recommend my cat, but she died a few months ago

[Middle-aged Europe]

I've had a look and... eek!

LOL, yeah.

Anyone who's not Müntefering ot Schroeder?

No. All those who could be considered "rising stars" in the SPD aren´t supid enough to waste their chances in this election. They´re all waiting for Schröder to lose, so that the field is clear for 2009.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. All those who could be considered "rising stars" in the SPD aren´t supid enough to waste their chances in this election. They´re all waiting for Schröder to lose, so that the field is clear for 2009.

Fair enough. Could one of their cats run then?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Fair enough. Could one of their cats run then?

I´m not sure how this is handled in the UK, but cats aren´t eligible here.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Well, I was bored again, so I tried to answer the questions of the Political Compass as if I was one of the party´s main candidates. So, let´s see how screwed the Compass really is.



Gerhard Schröder (SPD)
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82

Comment: Well, that´s probably about right. Perhaps even a bit closer to 0/0? But it´s noteworthy thats this result is more liberal than Schröder´s actual position on the "International Chart" (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/internationalchart.gif).



Angela Merkel (CDU)
Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.92

Comment: Merkel is probably much farther to the right on economic issues. On social issues however, it´s true that she´s more liberal than the mainstream of her own party. I´m not sure though, if she really should be on the Libertarian side of the axis. +0.92 would be closer.



Joschka Fischer (Greens)
Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90

Comment: About right. But I should try to take the test as the Fischer of the year 1980 or even 1970. This would be real fun



Guido Westerwelle (FDP)
Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

Comment: I assume he´s much more rightist/libertarian than that, especially on economic issues.



Gregor Gysi (PDS)
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38

Comment: Perhaps a bit too far left? In comparison with Lafontaine Gysi sometimes appears to me like moderate these days.



Oskar Lafontaine (WASG)
Economic Left/Right: -8.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38

Comment: About right.



Udo Voigt (NPD)
Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.69

Comment: Wtf? Considering the usual anti-big business/anti-globalization/anti-American/anti-Semitic rethoric of the party, the economic score is about right. But the 3.69 is just hilarious. It should be more something like 8.00. They should include more questions like "democracy should be abolished" etc. Part of the problem is, for example, that the NPD doesn´t care if people who have sex are married or not, as long as both are of the same race.

[Bono]

Part of the problem is, that the NPD doesn´t care whether people who have sex are married or not, for example, as long both are of the same race.

LOL

[Notre Dame rules!]

Huh? The far right can and does run.

I've read the the government is trying to make it more difficult for such parties on the far right to run, or even assemble.  I'm not necessarily opposed to the government's actions, just curious as to why they don't do the same thing to the far left.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I've read the the government is trying to make it more difficult for such parties on the far right to run, ...

This would be totally new for me.

Actually, the CDU unsuccessfully tried to change the "three direct seats/constituencies clause" (http://www.wahlrecht.de/english/bundestag.htm) just recently, which would have made it harder for the PDS to get into the Bundestag.

This was kind of ironic, because the "three constituencies clause" was originally established by the CDU in the early 50ies with the purpose of getting their conservative allies from the "German Party" (Deutsche Partei/DP) into the Bundestag.

But I´m not aware of an effort of making it for the NPD harder to run. I don´t how something like this should be realized in practice anyway.

... or even assemble.

That´s right, there was something in relation to the new Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, I believe. Demonstrations were restricted there.

[Notre Dame rules!]

I've read the the government is trying to make it more difficult for such parties on the far right to run, ...

This would be totally new for me.

Actually, the CDU unsuccessfully tried to change the "three direct seats/constituencies clause" (http://www.wahlrecht.de/english/bundestag.htm) just recently, which would have made it harder for the PDS to get into the Bundestag.

This was kind of ironic, because the "three constituencies clause" was originally established by the CDU in the early 50ies with the purpose of getting their conservative allies from the "German Party" (Deutsche Partei/DP) into the Bundestag.

But I´m not aware of an effort of making it for the NPD harder to run. I don´t how something like this should be realized in practice anyway.

... or even assemble.

That´s right, there was something in relation to the new Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, I believe. Demonstrations were restricted there.

perhaps I'm combining the two issues.  Sorry!

[Middle-aged Europe]

No problem.

Perhaps you´ve catched up something about the issue that NPD and DVU weren´t allowed to run with a joined list of candidates? But this is the same problem PDS and WASG were facing, therefore the whole trouble with the question if, how and under what name they´ll run.


Speaking about names... the PDS had a change of mind... again. After having changed the proposed name from "Democratic Left - PDS" to "Democratic Left.PDS" first, they´re now favoring the probably simplest name possible: "Die Linkspartei." ("The Left Party."? "The Leftist Party."? "The Left-wing Party."?).

And I wonder what´s the point of those dots at middle/end of the name. Is this supposed to look trendy? Perhaps the Republicans should officially rename themselves "The Republican Party.GOP", for example.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So is this all because of the economy? I was hearing about how the new numbers are misleading and the economy's not really as bad as they imply, but based on these poll numbers it looks like the CDU is reaping what you would expect with numbers actually like this.

[Middle-aged Europe]

So is this all because of the economy? I was hearing about how the new numbers are misleading and the economy's not really as bad as they imply, but based on these poll numbers it looks like the CDU is reaping what you would expect with numbers actually like this.

CDU/CSU was originally defeated in 1998 because of the bad shape of the economy, they lost in 2002 despite the bad shape of the economy, and they´ll now win back the majority in the Bundestag again because of the bad shape of the economy.

[minionofmidas]

So is this all because of the economy? I was hearing about how the new numbers are misleading and the economy's not really as bad as they imply, but based on these poll numbers it looks like the CDU is reaping what you would expect with numbers actually like this.

the SPD will lose not so much, or not just, because of the state of the economy but because of their response to it.
Once again, as with their late 01/early 02 poll leads, the CDU's supporters are highly motivated but they're not making (m)any new converts.
The difference is that I don't see how the hell the other side is going to be motivated to go to the polls...or why we should (needless to say I'll go anyways). It's just Poison  vs Diet Poison.

[Middle-aged Europe]

According to a projection I´ve found on election.de the new Bundestag would look like this (if the election were held today):

CDU/CSU: 291 (+43)
SPD: 166 (-85)
PDS/WASG: 56 (+54)
Greens: 49 (-6)
FDP: 43 (-4)

In brackets are the changes to the last election.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

PDS/WASG: 56 (+54)

Bloody hell

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

PDS/WASG: 56 (+54)

whoa, quite a shock but at least one good thing might happen.