German Election System - Bundestag 2025 - New Voting System Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- 📝 Find PDF version here: tbsom.de/s/ov
👍 Support the channel on Steady: steadyhq.com/e...
Other possibilities here: tbsom.de/sp
You can also support me via PayPal: paypal.me/brig...
Or via Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/theb...
Or via Patreon: / bsom
Or via other methods: thebrightsideo...
Join this channel on UA-cam: / @brightsideofmaths
German version: • Bundestagswahl 2025 - ...
💬 Access to the community forum: thebrightsideo...
🕚 Early access for videos: thebrightsideo...
❓ FAQ: thebrightsideo...
🛠️ What tools do you use: thebrightsideo...
📚 Download my books: thebrightsideo...
Please consider to support me if this video was helpful such that I can continue to produce them :)
Each supporter gets access to the additional material. If you need more information, just send me an email: tbsom.de/s/mail
We explain the new system that is used in 2025 election for the first time. We also explain "Erststimme", "Zweitstimme", state list, party list, 5%-threshold, and how the Webster method is used to distribute the seats proportionally.
German version here: • Bundestagswahl 2025 - ...
🙏 Thanks to all supporters! They are mentioned in the credits of the video :)
Thanks to all supporters who made this video possible! They are mentioned in the credits of the video :)
For any questions, please leave a comment or come to the community forum of the Bright Side of Mathematics: tbsom.de/s/com...
#Bundestag #Webstermethod #bundestagswahl2025
(This explanation fits to lectures for students in their first or second year of study: Mathematics, Mathematics for physicists, Mathematics for the natural science, Mathematics for engineers and so on)
The Bright Side of Mathematics has whole video courses about different topics and you can find them here tbsom.de/s/start
For questions, you can contact me: steadyhq.com/e...
The calculation of the Webster method is in the description. In the first step, a party gets one seat for every 63550 second votes. So it's just a simple rule of proportion :)
Never thought I'd learn about political systems on a Math channel. We need more such content.
Thanks a lot :)
Any electoral system is essentially a mathematical function turning a vote distribution into a seat distribution, so really not such a strange thing.
This stuff is important, especially during this time of political chaos in the western world. Also, voting systems are an under-appreciated and seldom discussed topic in mathematics. Thanks for this.
Only a Westerner would call it a mess lol.
@@stormsurge1 What would you call it?
Thank you so much for this video. As a german who only speaks english recently moved to germany, you made it way easier to vote
Wow, nice. I am happy that people can really use the English version :)
Gute Erklärung, danke. Trotz der Herausforderungen ist die Demokratie immer noch das Beste, was wir haben.
Very good and complete video. I've searched a lot to find out what happens if a party win more seats in the first vote than it deserves on proportionality.
Thanks. There is also a German version on my German channel :D (If you want to share it to German speaking people)
Wait a minute. Did they get rid of the "Überhangmandate"?
Exactly.
@brightsideofmaths
Oh. Thanks for informing me. As a "Wahlhelfer", I think I should know these things.
I wondered as well. I know they discussed that topic, but somehow I lost track of how it was decided.
And for those wondering, "Überhangmandate" (translates like overhang seats or mandates) granted seats in the parliaments to winning direct candidates, if the number of winning direct candidates for a party exceeded the number of seats they would get through the list. (like in the second example in the end, all winning direct candidates would get a seat).
What may also be added here is, that often direct candidates already have rather high places on that list. if they win, they kind of just remove them from the list if they need to fill up seats from the list.
Also, there was another detail to this, as those "Überhangmandate" shifted the percentage of seats, other parties could get "Ausgleichsmandate" (compensation seats) to get back to the percentage distribution. Until April 2024 the effect of this was, that the parliament had 735 representatives, 34 of those being "Überhangmandate" and 103 "Ausgleichsmandate".
I looked it up and reason for the reformation of the voting laws was that the parliament was constantly growing since 2002, so with the reform that to my surprise already took place in 2023, i really must have missed that memo, the limit was set to 630 seats. Which is actually more than the 598 seats you get from two persons per constituency (Wahlkreis), the additional seats got distributed across the guaranteed seats per state proportionally.
Initially the reform also would have removed so called "Grundmandate", that is the representatives a party may send if they are below 5 % but got 3 direct candidates winning their constituencies. The whole reform ended up at the "Bundesverfassungsgericht" (Federal Cosntitutional Court - our court you may somewhat compare to e.g. the US Supreme Court or whatever the highest court in other countries is) where it was decided that the reform was constitutional, only the Grundmandate had to be kept.
It was of course mostly two parties that gained most from direct mandates at the last election who went to court.
But then wouldnt parties be incentivized to only formally throw out some of their strongest people out of the party so they can run as indipendent on the first vote to get extra seats?
No, because if an independent candidate wins a district, then the second votes from the people that voted for him are not counted. (This law exists exactly for the case you described.)
@@brightsideofmaths That's actually really smart, why haven't I thought of that
@@brightsideofmaths But worse for the party officially does not necessarily equal worse for the party's goals. What happens if they run as an independent for the election, then join a party after the results? Is there a sudden recalculation? Are they suddenly tossed out?
@@nctpti2073 Party membership does not matter at all. It only matters if the person was listed on the ballot paper as "candidate of the party" or "independent candidate". Note that independent candidates are always on the bottom of the list.
@@brightsideofmaths One might add though, that most parties to increase changes of getting a seat for certain representatives, usually have those direct candidates on top of the list. Usually though, not automatically or always, that is kind of a strategic decission for the party to make. I just cannot remember who those list places are handled if a direct candidate wins, I think that candiadte is removed from the list then automatically or not counted for the list candidates when those are distributed. (Otherwise they might end up with less seats if, like years ago Angela Merkel, a candidate wins both as a direct candidate and from list position)
How do candidates without a party winning a district are handled? Do they just get the seat and the other seats are calculated via Webster?
Exactly! These x winners get the seats first and then we distribute 630-x seats via Webster.
@brightsideofmaths Is that the only reason, why a party would want to win the first vote, if they get more than 5%?
@balderus6562 The first votes are only important for the particular persons. For the parties the second votes are crucial.
Since independent winners in districts practically never happen, the point with the 630-x seats is inconsequential for the parties.
And that is highly problematic because of the statewide distribution of seats. Here a pretty realistic example:
Bavaria has 47 districts. If the CSU repeats the result of 2021 (and predictions are that the CSU will probably fare even better), 45 districts will be won by CSU candidates. But only 36 seats would be the share of seats in the Bundestag according to the proportion of list votes in 2021.
Now imagine that a clever CSU-strategist proposes the following plan:
a) We will not put up any direct candidates.
b) We will „encourage“ independent candidates who are members of the CSU in each Bavarian electoral district.
c) We will recommend these individual candidates to voters with posters ("the CSU recommends Alois Dimpelmoser - he has his heart in the right place").
Then 45 direct candidates could be elected. This number will be subtracted from 630, leaving 585. The number of all list candidates will shrink by about 7%. The CSU would then get about 33 seats.
d) When the Bundestag convenes the 45 independent members and the 33 „real“ CSU-delegates can then join the CDU/CSU-fraction.
This will be disproportionately large.
This is only possible because the CSU is limited to Bavaria, but is extremely strong there.
An obvious solution would be to dispense with the sub-distribution to the federal states. That would make sense anyway, because we elect the FEDERAL Parliament. We have the Bundesrat already to represent the federal states.
@ This plan does not work because if an independent candidate wins, the second votes from his voters do not count.
During every term of such a large parliament, a few MPs do not keep their seat up to the end of the term, eg for death or because they step down. That seat is allocated under §48 of Bundeswahlgesetz to the candidate next in the party list, no matter if the outgoing MP had won his seat by direct vote or through the party list. Notably, by-elections will not be held in that case. The seat would stay vacant if the party list is exhausted, or the outgoing MP had not run for a party or if the constitutional court had designated that party as counter-constitutional, anyway without by-elections.
EDIT: There is some discussion about this comment, see below. The law stated §48 says that the ranking that I have shown in the video is also applied to vacant seats. This is the logical step.
Original comment: Guessing does not help so much because the rules for refilling of a vacant seat are different. As I understand it, the direct mandates (coming from people winning a district) might not able to be replaced and could stay empty. On the other hand, candidates from the state list will always be filled up by going further down the list.
EDIT: I might be wrong here, see below.
@@brightsideofmaths That is a common misunderstanding. In my view, it was already the case before the electoral law reform that directly elected MPs could be replaced by a list candidate, but with the electoral law reform it is unavoidable. The reason why this supposedly does not happen is that directly elected MPs do not change the balance of power of the parties in parliament, but the fact that direct candidates are now prioritized over the list, as described in 10:25, must also mean that a directly elected MP can be replaced by a list candidate, as otherwise the balance of power changes.
@@Tommek Can you show me the corresponding law for your claim? I guess it's § 48 BWahlG and you might be right.
The only thing that is clear to me: independent winners will never be replaced. Which makes sense.
Logically all party seats should be replaced.
@@brightsideofmaths §48 BWahlG looks right, even if it is written in a very complicated way and refers to two other sections. Thank you for that, now I also have a legal basis that I can quote.
6:16 I have a problem with that part of the reform. Before the reform you could run for a direct mandate without your party providing a list for second votes in that state, but they casually put in the requirement of having a list, if you want to run as a direct mandate.
You always can run as an independent candidate. You get a seat in the Bundestag, if you win your electoral district.
@@ClaudiusAO Well we have the difficulty of defining what a political party is. Nowadays a political organization which is listet in the Parteien-Verzeichnis, but originally a party was just a group of like minded people, which means that every independent candidate with a fanbase would also have a party. That’s why before the reform the lists were the deciding factor for everything. There would be absolutely no problem with allowing listless candidates (for example from small parties) to run for the first votes.
Even as a party member you are allowed to run as an independent candidate. But you are definitely right, you cannot run as a candidate for a small party if that party does not have a valid state list. How would you change that?
Nicely done! Thanks for the effort!
You are welcome :)
Perhaps I've misunderstood but I thought the 2023 changes meant that a party which doesn't hit 5% but gets 3 or more direct seats only gets those seats and not a percentage of the total? So Party J in your example would be allocated only 10 seats?
Maybe, there is some confusion about what was initially planned (only 5% threshold) versus what the Federal Constitutional Court decided in the end (5% + the old 3 mandate rule). Therefore, the rule for the 2025 election is exactly how I stated it :)
Party J without the most recent Constitutional Court ruling would've received 0 seats. Since the latest ruling, they would be allocated seats in proportion to their second vote (because they won at least 3 direct mandates), as would also have happened before the 2023 reforms.
Party J would have received their 10 seats! Direct mandates would still have been in place. The remaining (2.1%*630-10≈13-10=3) people wouldn't move into the Bundestag. But rightfully, imo, the change was ruled anti-institutional
@ No, the essential change was not ruled anti-institutional. The opposite is the case: the new system is now in place and only the old 3-mandate rule was added by the Federal Constitutional Court because they ruled that just the 5%-threshold is too strong.
@@brightsideofmaths exactly, the court in Karlsruhe decided that getting rid of Überhangs und Ausgleismandate is within their legislative boundaries, only an entry threshold without exceptions was not constitutional.
Thank you very much for the introduction. In economics, there is a theorem called Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, which is basically about aggregating the rational preference of voters and the election results. How about implementing the same preference approach in such a real-world election scenario and checking whether this system in theory reflects people's preferences? Of course in reality people do not follow rational decision-making, just for fun.......
Hello there, Irish here. Thanks for the video. It is so very different from our election system.
Is it possible for one Bundestag to be formed by more than 3 political parties? ( I do believe the last coalition was exactly the reason for new elections now ). So, is there a limit to how many parties can form that coalition?
Thanks for the question! There is no limit on the parties in the Bundestag. Usually, we have around 6 different parties with seats in the parliament. A chancellor has to be elected by the majority of members in the parliament. So for 2025, this means at least 316 seats. To reach that number, different parties form a coalition and agree to form a government. In theory, there is no limit how many parties come into such a coalition, but the more players, the more difficult it gets.
Also, it's usually an accepted rule that the party with the most seats in the parliament (=winner of the election) leads the talks for a coalition and puts their candidate as the chancellor for the new government. However, this is not a law at all. Small parties could work together to form a government against the biggest party, in theory.
Thank you!
for parties who get less seats than their district winner, is this part of the new rule from 2023? Are there no more overhang mandates ?
Yes, this is new and there are no overhang mandates anymore :)
@@brightsideofmaths perfect thank you so much
q1 so each party can only have exactly one candidate in each electoral district? q2 is it possible that someone on the party list is also a direct candidate winner? what happens if she should get a seat from the list too? Theoretically if every seat was won by a non-party independent direct candidate then there would be 1260 seats? :) If a party qualifies with 3 direct candidates but not 5%, are they eligible for seats in the whole of the country based on proportionality?
q1: Yes!
q2: Yes, it possible. If she wins the direct mandate, she will be crossed from the state list.
There can be at most only 299 independent winners. Then only 630-299 seats go to the parties.
If a party wins 3 districts with the first vote, they are not crossed out (as shown in the video).
I remember when I went to the parliament from our university, we were given a tour explaining all these lol.
Interesting to see that Germany would allow some number of seats to be empty immediately after the election if there happened to be a list that was awarded more seats than it contained candidates. In the Netherlands any such empty seats would be returned into the seat distribution mechanism to be distributed to the next most eligible party. This is obviously very rare, but it did happen most recently (to my knowledge) in the 2022 municipal election in Enkhuizen where an independent candidate (technically a nameless list containing a single candidaete) was initially awarded 2 seats, but having only one candidate the second seat was awarded using the largest remainder method to the Labour Party, which had 67 fewer votes and would otherwise have won just ome seat.
Empty seats do occur in the Netherlands, but only after a member resigns or becomes ineligible to hold their seat when the list then contains no eligible and willing candidates. In principle a seat cam become empty immediately after election if every eligible candidate refuses that seat each time it is offered to a new candidate on the list. The exception is in small municipalities where the seat is redistributed to another party if it becomes empty between elections.
Putting the seats to another party would change the proportions of the parties even more and punish the party with the short list even more.
@brightsideofmaths Well yeah, that's the point. You can choose not to but nothing in principle stops you making this choice.
@@Quintinohthree There is the principle: the will of the voter should not be turned to absurdity. If I vote for the Party A, I want that Party A gets stronger and not the other parties. However, in the case that the list of Party A is too short and you want to redistribute empty seats, then my vote effectively created seats for all other parties.
(Of course, this is just a simplification and you could argue against it with the 5% rule and so on. I just want to say that there are valid principles that make such a law necessary).
@brightsideofmaths Sure, there are valid principles to argue that this is how it should be, but it seems to me that those principles don't make for that strong an argument. The Dutch constitution provides that both chambers of the Estates General must be elected by proportional representation, which is interpreted with such strictness that any electoral threshold greater than the divisor (votes/seats) has always been rejected, yet the Netherlands seems to interpret this issue quite differently.
Also, it's not changing the effect of your vote, it's simply throwing your vote onto the already rather large pile of votes made irrelevant by the electoral threshold, which seems to be perfectly acceptable to those same principles. No new seats are created, they are simply distributed to the parties that are still eligible, exactly as with the electoral threshold. The electoral threshold says you're not eligible for seats if you don't get at least 5% or three direct mandates, and this extra requirement says you're no longer eligible for seats if you don't have an eligible candidate left to take a seat.
I'm not here telling you what the law should be, I'm saying there's no reason the law couldn't be like this, and it's only the decision of those making the law that it is like this.
@@Quintinohthree Yes, you are right. Even if we have basic principles, different interpretations will be still possible and they could lead to different results as you mentioned.
Actually I don't think that the third case with empty seats will happen in Germany because every party is aware of it and just makes a huge list anyway.
Thanks for the video, but I have 2 questions on that:
1. What is this Webster method utilized for (in detail)? Why not just calculate the proportion?
2. And what about "Überhangmandate" since the Bundestag usually exceeds 630 seats by far? 🤔
1. I have a video about Sainte-Laguë on the German channel. It's just calculating proportion (with a method).
2. There are no Überhangmandate anymore.
Simply calculating proportions will result in non-integer seat counts which cannot work, so a formula is needed to decide which parties to round up. The Webster method gives a formula to decide which parties to round up (in some cases some parties may even get rounded up more than once).
And what happens ir an independent candidat wins in his correspondent district?? How is he getting a seat?
He just gets the seat immediately before the whole distribution system start. This means only 630-1 go to the party distribution by the Webster method.
So if you want to contact your representative during the parliament, is it the winner of the district you live in you should write to, or does that stop being important and you can write to any of the representatives of your state?
You can write to anyone because of the German constitution (Article 38): The members of parliament are representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions and subject only to their conscience.
However, the winner of the district or any other member living in your neighbourhood or state would be the natural candidate to go to.
Wie sieht es bei unabhängigen Kandidaten mit der Zweitstimmendeckung aus? Entfällt diese bei Unabhängigen? (How about the "Zweitstimmendeckung"? Doesn't it count for independent candidates?)
I have a German video for discussions in German (see description :)
To answer your question: an independent candidate who won the most first votes in a district, immediately gets a seat in the Bundestag. This means that only 630-1 seats go to the parties with the Webster method.
Would the 2nd case with the nine winners for party B result in a district without a national representative? It would be very unfair to them.
People from the state list also live in districts and can represent them.
@@brightsideofmaths Is there an official designated one? So that a constituent can contact them for help.
@@MrHunick By the German constitution (38 GG), a member of the parliament has to represent the entire German people and not just one district. So you could contact any member of the parliament. But I am not an expert in that because I am just a mathematician :D
Usually even if a district has no direct representative of a specific party at least the larger parties with significant parliamentary groups designate "Wahlkreisabgeordnete" who take responsibility for districts even without the direct mandate. So for example in Bavaria at the moment you have all but one direct mandates with the CSU but the SPD (social democrats) will give members of their bavarian parliamentary group (who got there by the second/party vote) specific areas where they are responsible for citizen requests, party events and such. We have one that is responsible for 4 districts since there are fewer SPD then CSU-MPs.
With the new system this will just be expanded to more MPs who cover more than 1 district.
Yes, this subject is as complicated as functional analysis and measure theory, and should definitely be covered by this channel. Toward the end, we will examine Arrow's impossibility theorem about voting!
Arrow's theorem is not the end, but the beginning. What? Did you think you are an expert on voting theory because you heard of Arrow's theorem?
What did you mean at the end when you said that seats under edge case situations may need to be added? I don't get why?
The Webster method distributes the seats proportionally and takes care of rounding errors. However, some situations could lead to the result that a party with 50.1% of valid votes (of all the partys that go into the Webster method) only gets 315 out of 630 seats. That is the correct dealing with rounding errors, but the party got a majority in the votes and it should have the majority in the seats. Therefore, in this case, it gets two additional seats such that it has 317 out of 632 seats.
In the first vote, the most populous minority win, and the second vote is based on parties that surpass the 5% threshold and is to be proportionate and corrects for the dis-proportionality of the first vote. What if too many parties fail to surpass the 5% threshold, and 3 district seats and the plurality party gets fairly large seat bonus causing an inflated plurality and/or false majority? Should the electoral threshold of 5% applied to the German States instead of nationally or a lower national or state threshold of 3%?
There are always discussions about lowering the 5% threshold. I guess something like that will happen in the future.
In principle if only one party surpasses the threshold and if no other party wins at least three direct mandates, then only one party will win seats in the Bundestag, up to 630 if no independent or national minority party won a seat. In principle that one party may even win less than 5% and still get all 630 seats if only they win every direct mandate or at least don't concede three to any specific party.
It'd be absurd of course, but it's also extremely unlikely. Lowering the electoral threshold seems reasonable though. At 5% we're talking about a minimum of 31 seats, which is far to many to argue that a parliamentary group smaller than that could not effectively represent a portion of the German people in the making of legislation. In Belgium not even one party has that many seats in the chamber of representatives, yet clearly that doesn't stop them from effectively representing the Belgian people in making legislation. In countries like Denmark and The Netherlands only one party has at least 31 seats but that doesn't stop them being effective representatives and legislators. A 3% threshold would make for a minimum of 18 seats, which is still quite a lot, but more reasonable. Of course, if prior results were repeated, it wouldn't guarantee any more parties to get elected. In 2021 the largest party below the threshold only got 2.4% after all.
Do Überhangmandate not exist anymore?
Indeed, they are completely gone now.
Thank you very much for this clarification. I knew that there were changes in the Überhang- and Ausgleichsmandate, but this video told me what I never got around to figure out myself
@ That's why I made this video :)
So some district can end up unrepresented?
Yes, but note that people from the state list also live in districts and can represent their district in this way.
@@brightsideofmathsIn principle though there is a possibility that no member of the Bundestag might live in a district.
I am unsure though, is there a requirement to live in a district in order to candidate yourself there? Or in a state? And do members of the Bundestag elected by a district or state need to live in that district or state?
Every thing is complicated in Germany
I'm wondering if the proportion made for the seats in parliament is really that simple. I mean you take the proportion with rounding error but then you'd have empty seats because of the party eliminated by the treshold?
The Webster method is quite simple. I only have a German video where it is demonstrated. You can search for "Sainte-Laguë" at my website for it.
The apportionment does not take the eliminated parties into account: Let's say party A wins 30% of all valid votes, if around 10% of all votes went to eliminated parties then party A now has 33% of the votes that count and receives around 33% of all seats.
@@f_f_f_8142 Yes, in the Webster method we only consider the parties that made the threshold and their valid votes.
So the Webster method is not simple rounding but instead a formula which gives an average number of votes per seat. The party that gets the highest average gets the next seat. The formula is V/(2s+1) where V is the number of votes the party got and s is the number of seats already awarded.
This formula really only cares about the votes and seats of a single party so isn't concerned at all with how many votes went to parties that failed to meet the threshold.
Exactly.
The Party list is not ordered by percentage but decided by the party?
Yes, this one is fixed before the election and the first people on the list are also mentioned on the ballot paper such that the voter knows the order.
More German-related videos? Vielen Dank!
This was a special video because elections are coming and the law for the seat distribution changed :)
Actually mathematicians have a lot of things to do with election systems (especially game theorists and number theorists) however these days they are too depreciated, rather political scientists work more.
This video sets out the procedure of translating votes into parliamentary seats. Under the previous system all candidates with a simple majority at constituency level got their seats. To achieve proportionality of seats and votes, a large number of candidates from the party lists had to be given seats, which made Bundestag the parliament second in number of members only to the Chinese People's Congress.
A long standing particularity of Germany's general election system is that there are no party lists at national level. In other words, the leader of the national party organisation has little say over the nomination of candidates for the national parliament. If therefore an MP wants to stand for a seat in the next term he must please the Land's party leader (called State in the video).
Therefore the Bundestag accepted over the years to finance ever more competences of the Lands, whereby the Land´s parliament will decide what and whom for that finance is actually given. With the federal debt growing fast, the combined deficit of the Lands remains at almost zero. This could also explain in part why it has been so difficult for federal governments to find money for defence. With large funds committed to the Lands on the long term, little is left for truly federal competences. Accordingly, voters hold the national government responsible for taxes and deficits, whilst attributing all benefits to their Land.
The name "state" or ("federal state") is commonly used in this way and is not specific to this video.
Wait, if my first vote candidate wins my second vote won't be counted? Doesn't that make some problems?
ONLY if your first vote candidate was an independent one.
But wouldn't it harm the party in the proportional distribution? What if my candidate wins but the party loses seats?
Wouldn't it be better to not give a first vote, so I don't harm the party if my first vote wins?
@@retu3510 I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain it again?
(Practically, no independent candidate will win any seat, so the whole discussion is just theoretical anyway)
The idea of this additional rule is that a voter of an independent candidate should not have more influence than others. If the independent candidate wins, he directly gets a sets in the Bundestag and the voter is represented by that. With the second vote, the voter could also influence the party distribution for the other seats as well.
Sure! Maybe I find where I made a mistake ^_^ Thank you so much for the video btw.
@@retu3510 Your second vote always counts if your first vote goes to a party candidate (no matter which one). There is no problem in your case :)
Don't you think that the electoral threshold of 5% is too high and unfair to smaller parties?
Of course it's unfair to smaller parties because it only exists to keep small parties out of the parliament. The idea was that less fragmentation of the parliament makes a better working parliament. There are always discussions if 5% is still appropriate nowadays.
@brightsideofmaths In Netherlands for example the electoral threshold is below one percent. In the parliament there are almost 20 parties. Not only it increases the democratic legitimacy of the elected representatives, but also increases the quality of the legislative process, by forcing big parties to listen to smaller voices and grassroots campaigns, among encouraging coalition building between big and small parties, which overall makes the quality of life for the average dutch citizen one of the best in the world. Ask yourself: where would you rather live, in Germany or in the Netherlands? Where would you rather vote? In a country which does it's best to listen to your opinion, or in a country which silences your opinion citing ‘too much fragmentation’. My point is that a lower electoral threshold and a more fragmented parliament both lead to better governance and higher overall quality of life, not the other way around.🙂
@AlexandruMarcu-zo8tn I just explain the system here without judging it :)
@@brightsideofmaths My question may sound silly. But why not judge the system if it's not democratic enough?🙃
@AlexandruMarcu-zo8tn I am just a math channel :)
Mixed member systems are either too complicated for the average person or can be broken by tactical voting
Which case is the German one?
@@brightsideofmaths how many people understood the previous system(s)? :) I've spent days trying to understand it and follow calculations in a spreadsheet. Turns out it's easier than I've anticipated but still quite some effort to understand the procedure.
@@Sfaxx The new system presented in the video is much easier to understand than any of the old systems in Germany :)
@@brightsideofmaths yes, certainly!
A little question: what happens to the constituency seat if the candidate won with the smallest share and their party won less seats than direct mandates (case two)? Does district seat remain vacant or filled with the next-best candidate?
In that case no one got the constituency seat. Losers don't get the seat, it's just vacant. However, this does not result in an empty seat in the Bundestag since all 630 seats are distributed via the second votes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the previous system, a smaller party, even if it got say 2 seats and 4% could still keep the 2 seats, no? I feel like it is somewhat unfair to smaller, very geographically concentrated parties (say a regional party like the CSU, or a small party concentrated in urban areas like Die Linke). I get trying to reduce the number of MPs, but I feel like this system will just disincentivize making new parties, which I think every representative (especially proportional) democracy should be ok with. Or then these parties will always just run as independants to benefit from the exception for independant candidates, thus gaming the system anyway.
In the old system every winner in a district got the seat, no matter how bad the party was in the second vote. This has changed now.
For big parties, there is no benefit for candidates for running as independent candidates. The only case I could see is that a very very very popular candidate is in a party that clearly will not get 5% in the second votes AND has no other popular direct candidates. Then for this person only, it would make sense to run as an independent candidate.
@@brightsideofmaths I don't think that is true. Under the old system earning two direct seats but not 5% would also deny the direct seats to the party.
@ No, the old system guaranteed the two seats but the party still got no other seats.
Herr Panglisch?
Da viele Deutsche das nicht wissen, wie wäre es mit einer deutschen Version?
Gibt es doch schon auf dem deutschen Kanal :)
@@brightsideofmaths Danke für den Hinweis. Direkt abboniert. Mir hat youtube immer nur die englischen angezeigt.
@@brightsideofmathsHaha. Ich habe mich schon gewundert. Ich dachte, ich hätte das Video eigentlich schon gesehen :D
I know this is probably just because of my ADHD but damn that mouse movement distracted me so much😭
Sorry! I have the mouse movement to help following.
Thank you for mansion the party of the national minority’s
Wer hat sich dieses skurrile System ausgedacht?
So you don't like it?
Warum einfach, wenn es auch total kompliziert geht?
@@dinola3268 Wie wäre es denn einfach?
@@brightsideofmathsMan fragt sich immer, was haben die sich bloß reingeworfen? Gut erklärt, aber offenbar hatten die Erfinder des Systems sehr manipulative Ideen. Als Jurist bin ich immer wieder von dieser völlig intransparenten Sitzverteilung fasziniert, die kaum ein Wähler versteht.
Was ist denn nicht transparent und nicht verständlich?
I believe the German Bundestag has 733 seats and not 630
Old vs. new
Ich weit det ich dit mot kieke. (Weil es für gans Europa wichtig ist). Mêr ich kan toch neet mitdoon. Ich kiek waal noa de resultaat.
The system is interesting anyway :)
Its now worse then before.
Representation is failing now.
In Elections before you got equal representation of voted i parliament while having direct candidates get the seats too.
Now direct candidates lose out and you don't get fair results
It's better not worse because the number of seats is fixed. Before infinity was possible.
How is that less fair? I think a proportional voting system, where seats are given based on the total percentage of votes you get, are the most fair approach.
@roger5059 The electoral system before the reform was also proportional, but it also guaranteed that each constituency was represented by at least one person, which is no longer the case. Proportionality was compensated for by “Ausgleichmandate” (engl. equalizing mandates), which meant that the Bundestag always had more seats than intended.
@@Tommek And theoretically the size could increase a lot. So it was not a good system at all.
@@brightsideofmaths I don't like the division into “good” and “bad” systems. It always depends on which factor you look at. Personally, I think it's very valuable if all constituencies are represented. However, I find it even more important that the distribution of seats is proportional to the second vote. Whether the size of the Bundestag makes it less workable, as some politicians say, is not for me to judge. But I do understand the cost argument. A society has to ask itself whether it can afford a system with a surplus and equalization mandates.