German federal election (September 18, 2005)

[jimrtex]

How detailed do you want it?
Here's an overview of relevant law (in German)

I'll explain what I think I know.   I'm not at all clear about what aspects are handled at a state level, and which are handle nationally.

1/2 MPs are elected from single member constituencies, the other half from (national/state?) lists.  Voters cast two votes, one for their constituency MP, and one for a party list.  Constituency MPs are elected on a plurality basis.

To receive list MPs a party must receive 5% or more of the list votes.  Is this 5% nationwide or statewide?   Are the votes for lists that fail to achieve the threshold discarded, and the list shares re-calculated?

Total seats in each state are apportioned on the basis of the list vote (in each state?).   Each list elects the difference between this apportionment and the number of constituency MPs for the party. 

If this difference is negative (a party elected too many constituency MPs), then additional MPs are elected from the state, so as to make this difference zero.  For this to happen, a party with 40% of the vote would have to elect more than 80% of the constituency MPs - but this may be possible when their are significant 3rd parties, and voters split their vote.

Lists are statewide, in an order determined by the party.   Is the list made up entirely of the constituency candidates?  In any case, MPs elected at a constituency level are skipped over on the list.  I assume all FDP and Green candidates are elected from lists, while a majority of the MPs from the two large parties are elected from constituencies.

[minionofmidas]

How detailed do you want it?
Here's an overview of relevant law (in German)

I'll explain what I think I know.   I'm not at all clear about what aspects are handled at a state level, and which are handle nationally.

1/2 MPs are elected from single member constituencies, the other half from (national/state?)

state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nationwide. A party that wins three direct seats is exempted from the threshold.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Total seats are apportioned on the basis of the list vote (national total). These are then apportioned onto the state lists in a second step.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. Notice that significant turnout differences between states also may make this more likely (since the no. of direct seats in the state is fixed but the total no. of seats per state is not.) Parties may keep these extra seats. However, if any extra MPs die or resign, they are not replaced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Or not necessarily (in practice, the CDU, SPD and FDP lists usually are, more or less, though the Green and CSU lists are not. Don't ask me why.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, there is one directly elected Green, Hans-Christian Ströbele, elected in Berlin Kreuzberg/Friedrichshain/Prenzlauer Berg Ost. Also, I think that rather less than half the CDU MPSs were directly elected.

[jimrtex]

To receive list MPs a party must receive 5% or more of the list votes.  Is this 5% nationwide or statewide?

Nationwide. A party that wins three direct seats is exempted from the threshold.

This happened for PDS, didn't it?  If a party misses the threshold, then it leaves states where it had higher support, under-represented?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Total seats are apportioned on the basis of the list vote (national total). These are then apportioned onto the state lists in a second step.[/quote]
Is this complicated, or is it simply a matter of allocating seats based on the number of votes in a each combination of state and lists (eg if there were 1000 seats, and a party in a state would receive as many seats as it had 0.1% of the national vote share).  But the simple method might discriminate against smaller parties in the smaller states like Bremen or Saarland.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. Notice that significant turnout differences between states also may make this more likely (since the no. of direct seats in the state is fixed but the total no. of seats per state is not.) Parties may keep these extra seats. However, if any extra MPs die or resign, they are not replaced.[/quote]
Votes for parties that don't reach the threshold effectively count as non-turnout?  So if PDS misses the threshold, the eastern states are considered to have lower turnout?

Does the CDU/CSU appear as such on the ballots, or do they use CDU everywhere but Bavaria?   Or does the CSU receive its own seats because Bavaria has a large enough population, plus they can elect 3 direct members?

[minionofmidas]

To receive list MPs a party must receive 5% or more of the list votes.  Is this 5% nationwide or statewide?

Nationwide. A party that wins three direct seats is exempted from the threshold.

This happened for PDS, didn't it?  If a party misses the threshold, then it leaves states where it had higher support, under-represented?

That happened for PDS in 1994. In 1998, they had over 5% of the vote anyways. In 2002, they only won 2 direct seats. They've only two MPs right now. And yes, the East is underrepresented in the current German Bundestag. (Then again, it was overrepresented in the last one, thanks to Überhangmandate, see below.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Total seats are apportioned on the basis of the list vote (national total). These are then apportioned onto the state lists in a second step.[/quote]
Is this complicated, or is it simply a matter of allocating seats based on the number of votes in a each combination of state and lists (eg if there were 1000 seats, and a party in a state would receive as many seats as it had 0.1% of the national vote share).  But the simple method might discriminate against smaller parties in the smaller states like Bremen or Saarland.[/quote]Remember that Germany uses Hare-Niemeyer, not D'Hondt. Still, it's pretty difficult for the Bremen FDP to ever win a seat. It is done in two steps, not one (since the 5% threshold is applied nationwide, a party's nationwide tally is added up anyways, so why not use it?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. Notice that significant turnout differences between states also may make this more likely (since the no. of direct seats in the state is fixed but the total no. of seats per state is not.) Parties may keep these extra seats. However, if any extra MPs die or resign, they are not replaced.[/quote]
Votes for parties that don't reach the threshold effectively count as non-turnout?  So if PDS misses the threshold, the eastern states are considered to have lower turnout?[/quote]In a sense, yes. It's not what I meant though - they also have lower turnout anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The latter.

[Middle-aged Europe]

How detailed do you want it?
Here's an overview of relevant law (in German)

For an English description of the German electoral system just go to page 1 of this thread and click on the first link in my first posting there.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'd appreciate it if you could provide more information about the Free Democrats.

[Colin]

I'd appreciate it if you could provide more information about the Free Democrats.

Well from what I can tell they are economically right and socially centrist to liberal. They are basically a classical liberal, right of centre liberal, or libertarian party. I believe they are also the most economically far right party in Germany.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'd appreciate it if you could provide more information about the Free Democrats.

Well from what I can tell they are economically right and socially centrist to liberal. They are basically a classical liberal, right of centre liberal, or libertarian party. I believe they are also the most economically far right party in Germany.

Thank you.

What you posted was my understanding.

What I would like to know in more detail is their foreign policy position (have they gone the way of the UKs Liberal Democrats as an anti-American party), and why they seem to be perpetually locked in the 4 - 10% category.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I'd appreciate it if you could provide more information about the Free Democrats.

Using American terms, it´s bacially a libertarian party, but compared to the U.S. Libertarian Party a much more moderate (= pragmatic) one. I guess this happens, when you´re a governing party for several decades, instead of a highly insignificant party which recieves less than 1% of the vote most of the time.

On economic issues alone, they´re clearly the most conservative party in Germany, even more conservative than the CDU/CSU. And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, they have the reputation of being the party for the segment of the population, which is, uh, more well off.

They´re usually the smaller coalition partner for the CDU. Including NRW, there are currently five states where the FDP is part of the governing coalition.... in four of them as the partner of the CDU, in only one of them of the SPD.

[Middle-aged Europe]

What I would like to know in more detail is their foreign policy position (have they gone the way of the UKs Liberal Democrats as an anti-American party),...

On matters of foreign policy there are probably somewhere in the middle between the CDU/CSU and the SPD. For example, while the CDU/CSU was in favor of the Iraq war and the SPD totally opposed it, the FDP´s position was somewhat... neutral. Their offical stance on the invasion of Iraq was like "well, maybe it´s a good idea, but not without an additional mandate from the UN security council".

On the issue of an EU membership of Turkey they´re also taking a middle ground between the total opposition of the CDU/CSU and the total support of the SPD. I guess you could call them "centrist" on foreign policy.

...and why they seem to be perpetually locked in the 4 - 10% category.

Well... see my comment about the FDP being "the party for the well off".

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thank you for the elaboration.

Haven't been to Germany in a loooong time.  Back then there were two Germanies.

I did get the impression at that time (don't know to what extent its true today) that the parties were largely occupationally based (manual workers = Social Democrats, Farmer = CDU/CSU, professionals = Free Democrats).

[Middle-aged Europe]

I did get the impression at that time (don't know to what extent its true today) that the parties were largely occupationally based (manual workers = Social Democrats, Farmer = CDU/CSU, professionals = Free Democrats).

Well, they were... to some extent this is still the case but voting behaviour became less consistent (and less predictable) in the last years. But it would be still a fair bet that only few workers are voting FDP.

[minionofmidas]

How detailed do you want it?
Here's an overview of relevant law (in German)

For an English description of the German electoral system just go to page 1 of this thread and click on the first link in my first posting there.

That would have been too easy, though.

[minionofmidas]

Thank you for the elaboration.

Haven't been to Germany in a loooong time.  Back then there were two Germanies.

I did get the impression at that time (don't know to what extent its true today) that the parties were largely occupationally based (manual workers = Social Democrats, Farmer = CDU/CSU, professionals = Free Democrats).

In a way...
If that were literally true, though, there wouldn't be much of a CDU/CSU left.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Obviously, I gave but one example for each party.

Businessmen seem to predominately support the CDU/CSU as well.

[minionofmidas]

Obviously, I gave but one example for each party.

Businessmen seem to predominately support the CDU/CSU as well.

Let's say White-Collar Private Business Employees.
Although that's going to the other extreme...if these all voted CDU, that'd likely be a majority in perpetuity...

[CARLHAYDEN]

To what extent is the CDU making inroads in what used to be East Germany?

[Colin]

To what extent is the CDU making inroads in what used to be East Germany?

Their best results have been in Saxony and Brandenburg but this is mostly because of very popular CDU politicians in both of those areas. CDU does better in state elections in the east but they are still no where near as powerful as they are in the west.

[minionofmidas]

To what extent is the CDU making inroads in what used to be East Germany?

Their best results have been in Saxony and Brandenburg but this is mostly because of very popular CDU politicians in both of those areas. CDU does better in state elections in the east but they are still no where near as powerful as they are in the west.

No...Saxony is the CDU's best state over there, Brandenburg the SPD's, both due to local figures.
Both CDU and SPD do worse in the east than the west, obviously, thanks to the presence of the PDS, although for the SPD the difference was actually rather minimal in 2002. The CDU swept most of the East in 1990 (on reduced percentages due to the PDS, yadda,yadda, yadda), most of the East save Brandenburg in 94, while in 98 and 2002 the SPD swept most of the East except most of Saxony.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So. would it be true that what used to be East Germany still hasn't been brought up to (West) German economic standards, and that this is a major factor in the voting patterns?

[jimrtex]

For an English description of the German electoral system just go to page 1 of this thread and click on the first link in my first posting there.

Thank you.  Very helpful was the spreadsheet (link in the description).

[Middle-aged Europe]

So. would it be true that what used to be East Germany still hasn't been brought up to (West) German economic standards, ...

Definitely. The average unemployment rate in the east is still twice as high as in the west.

... and that this is a major factor in the voting patterns?

Well, perhaps in a way that East German voters are more likely to vote for protest parties than in the west (either PDS or far right parties).

[jimrtex]

Is this complicated, or is it simply a matter of allocating seats based on the number of votes in a each combination of state and lists (eg if there were 1000 seats, and a party in a state would receive as many seats as it had 0.1% of the national vote share).  But the simple method might discriminate against smaller parties in the smaller states like Bremen or Saarland.

Remember that Germany uses Hare-Niemeyer, not D'Hondt. Still, it's pretty difficult for the Bremen FDP to ever win a seat. It is done in two steps, not one (since the 5% threshold is applied nationwide, a party's nationwide tally is added up anyways, so why not use it?)

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.

Once that I found a definition of Hare-Niemeyer (along with reference to largest fractions, Vinton's method, and Alabama paradox), I was going to ask why St. Lague wasn't used (with a relatively large number of seats being apportioned, and the number of parties restricted through thethreshold, there would be little risk of a lot of tiny parties getting 1 representative on a vote share equivalent to about 1/2 representative.   Then in one of the links that Old Europe provided, I found out that St.Lague was indeed being considered.   How active is the consideration?

How are constituencies determined?   I found a requirement of a maximum deviation of 15%, with mandatory re-districting if deviation exceeds 25%.  Are seats apportioned among the states?  There were changes made in 1965 (to correct a somewhat large mal-apportionment at that time); in 1980 (only 3 seats shifted); in 1990 (inclusion of former East Germany); and 2002 (reduction of size of Bundestag).

The 2002 reductions were evenly split between east and west in absolute terms, though much larger for the east on a proportionate basis.  Was this due to population shifts, or the 1990 apportionment being somewhat generous?

Is (was?) the threshold applied separately to eastern and western Germany?  I noticed that in 1990, B90/Gruene received seats in the eastern states based on a 6.2% vote, but Gruene received nothing on a 4.8% share in the west (and there was a combined 5.1% share).   On the other hand, it looks like Nordrhein-Westfalen gained a single PDS seat because seat because of its size and the largest fraction rule (I suspect all the western seats had a fractional apportionment less than 0.5, so that they summed to a seat or two).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a sense, yes. It's not what I meant though - they also have lower turnout anyways.[/quote]

The differential turnout was around 8%, the PDS support was around 15% in the eastern states.

The difference in turnout has been quite volatile, closing to 3% in 1998 (Sachsen was just below the overall averageand ahead of Hamburg).  What is the cause?  Another curiousity is that in the early elections from 1950s onward Baden-Württemberg had noticeably lower turnout (4-5%), but in the 2002 election it had the highest turnout in the country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The latter.[/quote]

I found a reference that says a state list can declare that it wishes to be apportioned seats directly from the national level (rather than based on the state party share of the national party vote), but that the national threshold is still applied.   It sounds like this is different than the CDU/CSU case.  Is this something that is possible, but not used in practice?

[minionofmidas]

So. would it be true that what used to be East Germany still hasn't been brought up to (West) German economic standards, and that this is a major factor in the voting patterns?

I don't think that's the sole factor (although it's certainly relevant). This is unpopular to say even in germany, but a) most of the east was underdeveloped and poor before 1945 (all the lowest population densities in Germany are there) b) 40 years of separation have done a lot to cement cultural differences between east and west as well. Being East German is not the same as being a member of an ethnic minority...not quite. Anyways, much of the reason for voting PDS is cultural.

[minionofmidas]

Is this complicated, or is it simply a matter of allocating seats based on the number of votes in a each combination of state and lists (eg if there were 1000 seats, and a party in a state would receive as many seats as it had 0.1% of the national vote share).  But the simple method might discriminate against smaller parties in the smaller states like Bremen or Saarland.

Remember that Germany uses Hare-Niemeyer, not D'Hondt. Still, it's pretty difficult for the Bremen FDP to ever win a seat. It is done in two steps, not one (since the 5% threshold is applied nationwide, a party's nationwide tally is added up anyways, so why not use it?)

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.

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.)

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was done in 1990 only, due to a court decision. (It was also done in the Berlin city elections held at the same time.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a sense, yes. It's not what I meant though - they also have lower turnout anyways.[/quote]

The differential turnout was around 8%, the PDS support was around 15% in the eastern states.

The difference in turnout has been quite volatile, closing to 3% in 1998 (Sachsen was just below the overall averageand ahead of Hamburg).  What is the cause?[/quote]Good question. I've noticed that before. Next question?  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never heard of that...although I did once notice that Baden-Württemberg had underaverage turnout in state elections early on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The latter.[/quote]

I found a reference that says a state list can declare that it wishes to be apportioned seats directly from the national level (rather than based on the state party share of the national party vote), but that the national threshold is still applied.   It sounds like this is different than the CDU/CSU case.  Is this something that is possible, but not used in practice?
[/quote]I would suppose so...what would be the point?