American Reacts How do European elections work? | CNBC Explains
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- 👉Original Video: • How do European electi...
👉Discord: / discord
👉 Patreon: / mcjibbin
☕Buy me a coffee!: www.buymeacoffee.com/Mcjibbin
📦P.O. Box info (NOT accepting ANY perishable items)
For any clothing: l'm a Men's size large
McJibbin
P.O. Box 447
Bristol, Rhode Island 02809
USA
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through UA-cam videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
#american
#mcjibbin
#americanreacts
#reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Compulsory voting makes sense to me. The parliament should represent the people. They should not represent "the people who wants to vote". Voting is a duty, not a privilege.
Considering politics impacts everyone, I do think compulsory voting is a good idea and usually, higher vote turnouts, keeps the extream elements at bay in politics from the far left or far right, which usually do better when less people vote.
But I can understand people when they say it's a right to won't, that's fine, but politics impacts us all, not voting will still have an impact on people that don't vote and will also impact people that do vote, so I think this is one area that everyone should be involved.
And compulsory voting does not mean you cannot intentionally spoil your vote as a means of protest. You can still send a message. In fact, it may be a clearer message as there is no way to distinguish someone who refuses to vote for political reasons and someone who doesn't vote out of laziness or apathy.
Why is this complicated to us Americans?
Every EU state organises the EU parliamentary elections as they see fit, within some legal limits. That's very similar to how Congress is elected.
Instead of semate, we have heads of the states representing their state in the council.
There is no almighty EU president. Instead of this, the Parliament and the Council assign the head of the commission and validate his or her candidates for the commissionares. That's a bit similar to tge way a prime minister and the rest of the government get assigned to their work posts in parliamentary democracies.
The threshold is not just about limiting fringe or extremist parties that are too small to be functional, it's about not winding up with 50 tiny parties in the parliament without or any block even close to a majority. Pretty much every system has a threshold of something like 4% to get into parliament. If you don't get in as a party, just keep at it until you do hit critical mass. As the pirate party in several countries did. Very fringe party in most cases, with basically only one topic: make copyright and patents work more for common people instead of just the rich. (or outright legalise copying stuff etc.).
Functional to whom? To be functional in representing the voter in a democracy, there can't be a treshold.
@@DenUitvreter The threshold is so low that it doesn't matter that much, if you as a party can't get past that threshold, then your power will be very limited to almost having no power at all in the parliament.
@@DenUitvreterPlenty of first past the post democracies around the world would beg to differ. And in the order of 50 countries besides the first-past-the-post countries do have an electoral threshold.
And coming to a decision usually gets more difficult, the more people you have inside a room. In the end, even if you have a good number of tiny parties with only a handful of members of parliament, in most cases they will simply be ignored. Only by being part of some larger grouping will their opinions be incorporated into the decision making when an actual decision is negotiated, as you cannot have a substantive discussion when you have dozens of people trying to voice their opinion.
@@paul1979uk2000 It does matter because a treshold means the people in charge decided what they wanted with the vote instead of the vote deciding what it wants from parliament. It's principally antidemocratic. It's also often just the established parties trying to protect themselves from new parties, with only one seat a representative is in the spotlight enough to make it to a significant number of seats the next election.
@@aphextwin5712 Yes, that is what parliamentary democracy is, it's usually build on the idea of individual candidates only organizing into coalitions once elected. All your arguments are up to the voters to weigh anyway. First past the post usually has to do with district voting, so a local candidate speaking for his constituancy. The EP elections have system that is not proportional representation, nor a district system with that advantage, but clearly a divide and rule system.
European Commission = Executive Branch
European Parliament = Congress
European Council = Senate
European Court of Justice = Supreme Court
Translation for incompetent americans.......
The core of the EU is quite simple. The European Commission proposes laws, it checks the implementation of the laws, represents the EU in international diplomacy, and interprets the laws and the treaty of the EU (kind of the Consitution) together with the European Court. The Court's interpretation is final. Every proposal for laws is sent simultaneously to the Council (member states) and the European Parliament. The negotiate between them and among themselves compromises. The final say is for the European parliament, although the Council and the European Commission can block proposals. That's it (the short version at least).
5:42 I don't know if it's the same in every European country, but I'm gonna assume it is. In my country when the parties make their lists of candidates, there's a minimum number of people they have to include, and it's always larger than the number of MPs they'd have to send if they won 50% of the vote. Not only for European elections btw. I'm remembering now about the elections for the Catalan Parliament (we're having a snap election this weekend, the last election was in 2021), and in my province each party has to have at least 85 people on their list, and the max number of seats on that province (Barcelona) is also 85. xD But they all include an extra 20 people just in case someone backs out, so the lists have +100 people, and it's obvious that no party is ever gonna have +40% of the vote, and that no more than 85 people are going to make the cut.
As a brit i wish this was still relevant to us... Saddly at least 51% of a country swallows tory lies.
Don't worry, you'll be back. It won't be easy and it won't be quick but I'm pretty sure the English will gradually realise they made a mistake and we will be able to welcome you back..
@@AlexGys9 No please, it's better without the UK. The UK aimed to sabotage the EU from within, to have a weak continent, as it has done for the last 1000 years
if you want to join italy want gibiltar as paiment
Probably over the next 3 decades, it won't be under the current government, and it won't be under a likely Labour government if they win power, and being how the EU is structured at the moment, it's highly unlikely the UK would get EU and every member's support for the UK to rejoin for at least 2 decades, so 2 to 3 decades is when I think the UK can rejoin.
But in the meantime, the UK can create closer relations with the EU and it's members, that should help for rejoining, and who knows, maybe we could join the single market and custom union, which would solve most of the issues Brexit brought on the UK.
@@AlexGys9 I'm glad to hear it and hope it's true, we may be a bit americanized nowadays but i love our entwined history and connection with europe.
I'm proud to be associated with the EU (even France) and embarrassed that the ignorant of my country seem to think they're above it.
To understand the issue of EU, Eurozone, Schengen, etc... first you need to learn that the EU is not a federation but a confederation.
In a federation there are federal regulations that all federated states must follow.
In a confederation there are some regulations that are compulsory to all states and other regulations that are voluntary.
Normaly, in the regulations that are not compulsory, the states who opt to follow them will coordinate between themselves, creating suborganizations for that specific topic.
Examples:
- common currency for those who adopted it => eurozone
- shared borders for those who adopted it => schengen area
...
And so on
06:37 in the 3rd system you still choose the party and rank the candidate, no one run buy thersef and no single party will reach 50% +1 because we are not 2 party system
Why can't a single party reach over 50%. I think they can.
Theoretically, it is possible that one party reaches more than 50% but given the political landscape and the number of parties, it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen.
@@bognagruba7653 here in italy there are at least 7 major party, the min to recive a seat is 5%, the actual majorty coalition (composed by 3 party recived 220 on 400)
Not correct in all cases, the quota is the valid poll cast, divided by the number of seats in the constituency plus 1, ( not 50%) depending on first preference cast, will determine the distribution of second preference, and so on until all seats are filled. Voters can give their preferences in any order and are not restricted to any party. This method is know as the single transferable vote, if You consider your vote get used in the preference you cast. This is my understanding of the method used in the Republic of Ireland, it can be cumbersome to follow but it will return a fair outcome.
I think you understand, EU parliment is like US house of representatives.. and its electected by a proportional election system!
EUs equalent to US Senate is EU council, where every state send there minister/secretary of department, to negotiate!
I try to simplify some words for u:
lets start with the EU: The European Union is an economic and political Union
EFTA: Is the European Free Trade Agreement involving Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein and the EU. So its a foreign trade agreement with other European Countries who arent part of the EU.
Eurozone: Is the fiscal Union, in which the participating countries decided to use the Euro as their common currency. All countries of the European Union apart from Denmark agreed to adopt the Euro at some point.
Schengen Area: When Europeans speak of Schengen, they referring towards the Schengen-Agreement, which allows for Freedom of Movement of People and Goods and the Abolishment of inner Border Controls. So only Borders towards the non-participating countries exist. IMPORTANT to note: in the Schengen Area are non-EU countries like Switzerland and Norway, while other EU countries for example Romania and Bulgaria arent a Part of it, due do conflicting interest between Schengen-Members and those.
European Parlament: like in this video described is the electorial Body and legislation of the European Law Makers. The Parlament is in Strasbourg, France.
European Commision: Can be seen as the Head of "Goverment". For now Ursula von der Leyen is Head of this Commision and every time the EU is meeting in foreign affairs she will attend aswell as the Head of Council. the Commision is in Brussels, Belgium
European Council: The Council involve all the Member countries with their head of State. The Head of Council is Charles Michel. Important some legislation needs unanimous voting. So here is were the Countries may veto policies and send them back to be reviewed. The Council is in Brussels, Belgium
Council of the European Union: brings together the national Secretaries. So its a seperate authority.
European Court of Justice: Is the highest judical entity. Important to know its not the Internationtional Count of Human Rights. the ICoHR is in Den Haag, Netherlands, the European Court of Justice is situated in Luxembourg.
European Central Bank: In Order to keep the fiscal Policies in check the ECB is founded and its the Authority of the the fiscal decission in terms of the Euro. The ECB is situated in Frankfurt, Germany.
European Council of the Auditors: As the European Union gets taxes delivered by the member states and debt policies, the ECoA is checking the tax income and the financial positivity of the Union. Also located in Luxembourg
That are the main institutions of the European Union. There are about hundreds of other Institutions and Offices. Afterall the EU is politically often comparable to a Nation. And the goal is that all the smaller states gets a strong voice on the world stage. Afterall speaking as the biggest Market drives the policies. Some good some worse. But in the end what the EU is implementing is affecting the World. Remember the Change of the Iphones to USB-C.
Now to the NATO: NATO is a defense alliance of various countries, most are a Part of the EU, but not all of them. Due to the complexity of the Alliances and Military structures people often think NATO has something to do with the EU. They work closely together but the EU isnt a part of this Alliance, as there are Neutral countries in the EU like Austria.
And now the the complexity of the EU-elections: In the EU we have various forms of Democracy. we have the parlamentarian French Democracy, the semi-parlamentarian Federal Democracy of Germany or the semi-presidential democracy of Poland. Some are constitutional monachies like the Netherlands or Denmark. Those differences are shown also in the Election pattern. Some have a threshold to provent a party overflow in the Parlament. Germany and Austria have it on the national level giving them 5-7 Parties in the parlament, which allows for stable coalitions. Italy for example has no threshold which leaves them with 17 parties as of right now. The compulsory voting derives from the understanding that democracies not just gives u privileges but it also demands ur duty. To accomidate all of that the EU leaves it upto the national level to decide how they wanna proceed the election. In the end the Election should be as easy accessable as possible. In Germany we usually combine a national election with the EU election, cuz the interest in EU polics is rather small. In Germany is a threshold on national and federal level but not for the EU. And as its tradition in Germany Election day is sunday to allow all voters equal opportunities as Sunday is everything closed. In Germany u are automatically registered and u get notice an election is due. Most parties are a part of a European Counterpart. like The SPD of Germany, the SPÖ of Austria and the PD of Italy are all part of the S&D, the social-democratic political Group. the CDU (Germany), ÖVP (Austria) and CDA (Netherlands) are a part of the EPP and so on. I think the jist is clear. So once the election is over the Parlament appoints the Commisioner, who needs to be kinda approved of the European Council. 2019 the S&D group won the election, but do to the stricter stand against Victor Orbans "Fidesz" party and his autocratic tendencies Ursula von der Leyen from EPP got appointed instead, which the Fidesz is part of. So the Election results may change in the end.
Sorry for the long text btw. But maybe it helped to get a good inside.
5:42 the parties will tend to name a list that has the same number of people as there are seats available - even though you'd know that if you're near the bottom of the list (in a closed list system) you're incredibly unlikely to actually win the seat.
7:37 On thresholds, some countries' courts have found Thresholds to be unconstitutional (according to their own national constitutions), but they are common in most applications of Proportional Representation. The EU recommends a threshold between 2% and 4% - so it only really effects the countries with large delegations (and the countries with the largest delegations, France and Germany don't have a threshold anyway).
In Finland, we have what Wikipedia calls "most open" open list system. You don't pick a party and then write down a candidate or organize their list according to your own preference. Instead, you pick the party implicitly, i.e. you write your candidate's number and then d'Hondt is applied. The candidates' affiliations are shown and the same party (or list) will have consecutive numbers. The most popular candidates for the party will represent the seats the party gets.
STV is simple (though it gets a bit more complicated than what is represented there), but it sort of suffers from the same problem as FPTP in that it sidesteps the role of parties. It makes sense if you look at parties as sports teams and you're trying to elect the all-star line-up. The problem there is that parties aren't like that. Parties are, or at least it makes sense for them to be, a collection of like-minded people sharing values and political goals, selecting ways to use in their common pursuit of them. The same representative X would vote differently and pursue different goals depending on which party they represented, because in a parliamentary system party representatives caucus together and come up with their consensus positions together and then vote accordingly majority of the time. It's not just because they are whipped, but because they join parties that best represent their values. And if they keep going against their own party, they will be kicked out.
Unless the parties are very similar, voting for candidates from different parties simply doesn't make sense, because it's the core values of the parties that determines their stance on their core issues and the rest of the representatives' votes are basically consensus formed by the people who share those values, which is to say that there are very few cases where a representative doesn't vote according to the party line. Of course, they will have a say on the party line and can affect their stance, but the core issue remains that picking candidates from different parties is basically voting for different sides of issues simultaneously.
And then there's the celebrity factor. Since STV highlights the individual, the candidates most likely to get elected are the most well-known ones. People will pick them across the parties. So, because of that, they might not actually best represent the political wishes of the voters. Basically you choose the most charming, the most witty and those who get the most media time and that tends to push out the policy wonks and experts, etc., that would get the tail votes in a list system. You either don't account for that and get bad policy or you account for that by having separate, unelected policy people and make the representatives the political equivalents of TV news anchors who just read out the stuff from other people. But the party head essentially gets chosen by popularity, so they are then one of the puppets, so... the party will be headed by a person who isn't making the policy? That doesn't seem healthy.
I am left leaning and a staunch Monarchist (as I am a citizen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as well as a proud European Union citizen) who's without any fear or favor commited to preserving the Dutch constitutional monarchy with strong democratic constitutional traditions. The right wing conservative parties don't hold a monopoly on pro monarchy and anti europe sentiment. And the left leaning parties don't hold a monopoly on anti monarchist and pro EU sentiment. Things arent that black and white. It's more complicated then that!
I am in support of further federalisation of the EU, while at the meanwhile respecting the local governmental systems of memberstates.
The House of Orange Nassau is deeply intertwined with the story of the Dutch people. Eversince the days of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven verenigde Nederlanden) they have been the stewards (Stadhouders, which also was a hereditary office) of the Dutch State and Dutch society.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands was reborn, from the ashes of the Napoleonic wars, as the succesor state to the former Republic, with a Orange-Nassau King or Queen as it's head of State.
We underwent the change from an absolute monarchy to a consititutional monarchy, with a strong democratic tradition, during a process that took over 200 years, and our Royal family still stands strong at the center of Dutch culture and civilization.
I love my Dutch identity, I love my Royal House (of Orange Nassau) and I see no problem in further federalizing the Europen Union. As we can keep what makes us, us, and also embrace that which unites us as Europeans. For we are, most definetly, stronger together!
Leve de Koning 👑 Leve het Vaderland, Oranje boven 🧡 & laten we nooit vergeten: Europa zijn we samen 😎
3:33 - Bulgarian here - it's compulsory on paper only since the last few years as an attempt to raise turnout, which especially for EU elections is extremely low, they always bundle them with some other elections if possible, now it should be with the ones for our parliament. They haven't decided on any sort of fines or benefits if you do turnout yet. They were discussing some tax reductions for regular voters and possible revisions of the voters list as part of the compulsory thing. For example if you miss 3 elections you are erased from the list. As of now any citizen over 18 has the right to vote.
5:50
each list must have as many candidates as there are seats available in the country/electoral list
that means if the state gets 10 seats, there must be 10 candidates on the list
for every 10% of votes you get one more place
so let's say Croatia has 12 seats
for those 12 seats, each political group/party must propose a list of 12 candidates
the list can be a list of a political party or an independent group of citizens
In Croatia, it is chosen based on the model
1 vote for a representative and that vote is added to the party
so if you are 12th on the list, and you get the most votes on the list, you go to the first place and to the parliament (if your list has enough votes)
***
7:52
usually 3% of votes is the threshold for a list
in this way, the frivolous and circus people are tried to be disabled
In Croatia, it was the case that a couple of these "populists" were elected in parliament
they are totally useless, every performance is a circus and public shaming of the state and the voters who voted for them
Trump is a top diplomat and a genius, compared to these ridicules
Compulsory voting doesn't remove the possibility not to vote. it just mandates that you show up at the election booth, but there's nothing stopping you from putting a blank paper into the ballot box.
It also ensures that everybody is registered to vote, which is quite an issue in the US.
Also, compulsory is generally just for citizens age 18-65, retirees and non-citizens are normally exempt for any voting compulsion, though they are generally still allowed to vote.
As for the closed and open party list:
Yes, on a closed party list, the party has already chsoen who will represent them, no matter if that specific candidate does very poorly in the election and gets outshined by other candidates, while an open list system only sends the top performers of the election. Think of an open list system as if the election and party primaries were all rolled into one single election.
I feel the problem you have with fringe and extremist party representation comes from US history.
(Of course it's a bit ironic given the US system is so intrinsically limited by it's massive catch-all two party system which in-itself I feel is terminally anti-democratic, it's very Roman Late ResPublica in a disturbing way...)
A ton of fringe and extremist parties in a representative system *will* break it eventually - the second one party manages to find a sufficiently populist lever to completely unhinge the system it will and common unhappiness with the uncoordinated ton of parties will almost guarantee that this will be an antidemocratic party which rises on the perception (and there might very well be a point in such a system) of the inefficiency of a democratic system in favour of any unitarist one that will "make the trains run on time".
Europe *has had* established democracies kill themself by these methods, heck, we are not impossibly beyond that, however much we'd hope.
The US has yet to see the system kill itself, though there also signs that are more than just a little disturbing.
Best regards
Raoul G. Kunz
The reason for the minimum threshold is to avoid one-topic candidates.
Some parties are created with the intention of getting one single piece of legislation about a specific topic and once that's dealt with (whether in their favour or not) they don't even show up in parliament during the 5 years of tenure
For single-topic politics there are alternative methods available, like referendums, etc.
The job of MEPs is to represent citizens for 5 years, not vote on one single issue and dissapear
Maybe it's because I'm used to the electoral threshold, but I think it makes sense. There's already 7-8 parties in my country's Parliament, and the electoral threshold here is 3% (I think it goes up to 5% in European elections? Or some kind of election, because I remember hearing the number 5 every few years lol), and if every party that gets 1-2% of the vote also got representation, the Parliament would be a bigger mess than it is now. Because those 5-6 (sometimes more) parties with less than 3% of the vote, but with enough votes to get ONE seat, wouldn't be able to make any type of coalition, and would make things more difficult for bigger parties to govern. I don't like higher thresholds, because 5% of the vote is already 150-200k votes in some elections (so that's a decent number that should be represented), but 3% seems fair enough. I have to point out that in my country, the seats are divided by provinces, and the parties have to reach that threshold in those provinces (not in the entire country). So if a party has 3-4% of the vote in one province but 1-2% in the other 3 (and the total is lower than 3%), they get the proportional representation for that 3-4% in ONE province (which would just be around 2-3 seats in Barcelona, and negligible in the other 3 because of the lower population).
There are parallels to the US system. States in the US run the electoral system for the US president and members of congress and the senate. Individual states have different processes in place. For example Alaska uses something similar to the signal transferable vote system. Not commonly used in the rest of the US.
It's funny how you as an American criticise the minimum vote threshold of like 3% when the American electoral system is literally just a huge threshold.
Ourselves Ireland and Malta as far as I know are the only countries to user STV system.
Never voted for a person, always votes for a party. It's ideas and solutions I vote for not people. As long as it's carried out I don't care who does it.
Belgian here, compulsory voting is in place to prevent a situation where only extremist show up to vote. It's very effective at preventing division and stopping a country from slipping into a 2 party shitshow. You can however cast a blank vote, if you feel that none of the parties represent you.
8:00 Two words: Weimar Republic.
That's why. Too many different parties can stifle the formation of any functioning government.
You correctly observe that Europe has decided upon an equivalent model to the US in some respects. It is not, of course, one entity as a culture. And that makes it complicated in a way that America, I suspect, would not accept. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this. It also has to be born in mind that significantly larger areas of influence have decided to administer from the centre (mostly Russia and China). This is a good source of national identity but also imposed. Which would not be acceptable in either of our territories.
General parties with similar ideologies that majority like might have competition between each other that might lower each parties votes even though that ideology overall has more votes extremist that don't have competition might win if not for minimum theresold. It is a very important thing to keep competition while keeping extremist from getting power when they are minority
Ciprus yes but Montenegro is not EU member
You forgot the European court
I know Europe is confusing, but don't worry: we don't have "European elections" for the Schengen area or anything else other than the European Parliament.
The free Part of Cyprus is in E.U.The South.The North Part is Occupied by the Turks from 1974
Happy Orthodox Easter!
Although I much prefer the single transferable vote system, 'First past the post' has actually ensured in Britain over the last few days that outright right-wing extremists (and there are some, even within government, who are basically Nazis - you know the score) have been denied greater influence. This is far from perfect in a system that celebrates extremes - again, as you probably know.
The single vote system sounds nice at first sight, but soon thereafter you'll see the flaws. First, in many countries there are hundreds of candidates (e.g. here in the Netherlands we had over 600 candidates for our national parliament). I think it's impossible to select the best one to vote on, or even knowing all the candidates and there plans. So second point, you'll probably just vote on the one you like. This could well be the one with the smoothest campaign, or the dirtiest, or the most populist, or the most expensive, but not necessarily the best candidate. Third, it opens more possibilities for corruption. And last, parties are more stable than people. People can change, or may not be the person they said they were, or have skeletons in their closets.
I think the open list system is the best. You can just give your vote a party (meaning a political conviction) and when you do have a favorite candidate, you can still give your vote to this specific candidate.
That video is old ,its diferent now
Threshold is against the parties that split all the time.
that with the 2 senators per state in the us makes no sense for me so i understand that different voting systems can look confusing from the outside.
i have no problem with the anti extrem party function, its here to make it more stable and the that is because of the history of europe, we are not unified like the us is so we need more security to hold all together.
Why the UK seats were kept and redistributed after the brexit and not just lower the total amount of seats? One of the main argument that was was made, was that the EU had changed very much in the last years (demographics and others) and those seats could be used to balance things to be more fair. Other arguments were also that it was better to maintain a higher total number of seats than to lower them and that they could be help for future new countries etc. As for the real reason? It is obviously complicated and i believe that even those advocating the arguments were not sure of the entire story. The EU is a very complex machine with many different unique gears.
But in the end one has to be pragmatic when analyzing these type of things. So just see what is the process and its results:
The more influential countries will have more votes than they had before and will be more influential than before.
Another way to put it is that the more powerful countries allied themselves to divide the corpse of the UK in the EU...
This last one is a harsh and borderline cynic point of view, but one just have to see the reality of things and not be blinded by words and arguments.
Now if one admits the result, one can begin to argue if it is a fair operation or not given the, above mentioned, fact that the EU was reality very different from when it was formed and maybe some adjustments might be made.
The problem arise when one see that we might be heading in a "not very fair" direction from the point of view of the "weaker countries".
I think it's for future members, but I also think that having more seats makes it harder to corrupt, more people to bribe and easier to expose the corrupt compared to fewer seats where there's less people they need to bribe and lobby.
So, here in Ireland we operate the single transferable vote system for elections in multi seat constituencies. The quota is worked out like this. The total electorate divided by the number of seats plus 1 firstly. For simplicity if you have 100k voters and 9 seats, then the quota is 100k divided by 10. This elicits a result of 10k and we add 1 so the quota is 10001. Then in the election once someone reaches the quota their votes over the quota are distributed in the order of preference. The number 2s on the ballot paper go to the candidates marked as number 2s and so on. As seats are filled the votes are distributed and as people are deemed to be unelectable they are eliminated and their votes are also distributed. A very fair system in which very nearly all of the electorate will be represented by someone they voted for. Very few people are left unrepresented unlike in a first past the post system in which the “losers” end up being basically unrepresentative as they are represented by someone they did not vote for at best and at worst are unrepresented. In Ireland, being a small country we are lucky as most people would have personally met their representatives multiple times and they generally have clinics on Saturdays where voters can access them to discuss issues. I hope that helps.
ein Beitrag des Sonnabends, 4. Mai 2024
Sinn Fein made gains, and won in the 1st place, in 1st preferences, both in Northern Ireland, and in the Republic of Ireland!
These "globalistic socialists", are expected, to win the RoI part, of this year´s EU Election, too!
According to EU wide predictions,
the "more inequality aimed parties" (= "Blue Parties") are expected to win!
The "more equlity aimed parties" (= "Red Parties") are expected to lose!
In the UK, the Labour Party, with the Co-Operative Party, are expected to receives > 400 "Members of the House of Commons"!
All the elected Sinn Fein members, refuse to "sit" in the "Commons"!
What if all the elected SNP members, would do the same?
Is your name McKibbin? If so, we're related.
ein Beitrag des Sonnabendes, 4. Mai 2024
Every human seems to be, genetically related to every other human!
2 ^ 33 > 10 ^ 10 [> 10 Milliarden] [> 10 "billions]
My brother and me;
made an air travel journey;
from Hamburg (Germany) to Edinburgh (Scotland);
from Friday 26th January 2024 to Monday 29th January 2024.
We like Scotland´s capital.
Mister Humsah Youssef (SNP; born in Pakistan), stepped down as Scotland´s First Minister!
In the Partial Local Elections, of Thursday, 2nd May 2024,
in whole of Wales, and in parts of England;
Labour is winning;
while Tories are squeezed!
Single transferable voting is kinda used in Maine and in Alaska in the US, as you probably know. Very likely, senator Murkowski won the re-election in 2022 against a Trump backed candidate thanks to the ranking choice voting
but it is bad in comparison to proportional representation.
Too complicated for my brain , love your willing to learn i take my hat off to you connor 😊
Think of the EU as more of a confederacy.
Don’t worry most EU-citizens also don’t understand the EU. Kinda funny because everybody blames the EU. But when it is time to vote it seems to be the least important thing to ever happen.
Ask yourselve if you would have a hard time to come by, would you vote? Likely not, you would likely spend the time working to earn money. So in such case the parties would likely not take the poor people in cosideration. In countries wit compulsory voting, the elected have to take into consideration the people who woul else not vote. In belgium some parties would like to abolish the compulsory voting, but this is only for their own profit.
Only the EU Commission can propose and repeal legislation. The EU Commission are 'unelected'. The EU Parliament can only vote on or veto legislation, so it's not technically a 'parliament'. The only democratic function of the EU Parliament is the capability to veto legislation. The EU Commission can withdraw veto rights at any time and for any reason. Result - the EU is not a democracy.
Number 2 is the correct way btw 🙄
ein Beitrag des Sonnabendes, 4. Mai 2024
"May the Force be with you!"
The EU Parliament is more unproportional, than the US House of Representatives!
Imagine every US state, would have a least 4 "House" members each, while 435 would the maximum of "voting members"!
The Socialist People´s Republic of Romania, had a "5 Children Policy"!
"Ciao, Cesku!"
2024 Spain has ruled Europe for 4 year. Elected by all countries
5:25 but u r wrong. STV is the worst of those 3.
Different countries, different voting systems. The UK is unique, France is unique, none are like the US. You need to check out each country separately, McJ - and do some serious study!
Hey, the guy is asking the questions. Why be down on him? He’s trying to understand the systems and asking for more information. Why are you dissing him and telling him to do some study? The very best access he can ask for is to ask people from different places how it operates. It’s bad when someone like you is dissing someone who’s trying to learn something because they don’t know about it. I’m assuming you were born knowing EVERYTHING! 😂
02:16 outdated video the UK is no long part of the EU
7:45 The idea of a minimum threshold is not to filter "fringe" candidates, but to prevent *regional* representation (including separatist parties) in a country where by law the representatives should represent the *whole country* and not their own region.
If a party has a regionalist/separatist agenda, they will probably have supporters (maybe a lot) only in their home region. By imposing a nation-wide minimum threshold, those parties are mostly eliminated because their support is very localised.
this is old video, UK is still in EU lol
also, its 720 MEP now, not 751
also, you dont actually need to know this things. if you are slovenian living in slovenia you already know your sistem, and if you move to france you only need to learn french sistem. you dont need to know how denmark or poland or cyprus votes...
The EU needs to go
First thing: There are two "here" for European Parliament. One in Brussels, one in Strasbourg. She seems to be at the first place, wich is surprisingly the one less used.
Second: in the video the UK is still voting... that's not really the case anymore. Next elections will bei in June in 2024, btw.
Third: "As of 2014, Germany (80.9 million inhabitants) has 96 seats (previously 99 seats), i.e. one seat for 843,000 inhabitants. Malta (0.4 million inhabitants) has 6 seats, i.e. one seat for 70,000 inhabitants." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
I think they did not explain Council and Commission in the video. Very briefly:
The Commission is like the executive branch of the government of the EU. Presided by Mrs. von der Leyen (elected by the parliament for 5 years). With Commissioners for several subjects (like US Secretaries), also elected by the parliment.
The Council is topic a based representation of states governments. Its formed by assembling the states secretaries of certain subjects. Like the council for traffic, or agriculture, or justice. The chairmanship changes every 6 months from one EU country to the next. The Council is the least directly elected one.
The one least used is Strasbourg, where the European Parliament meet only once a month
@@edipires15 and Brussels is only 3 times a year. If you know better correct Wikipedia.
@@EinChris75 Most of the European Parliament’s work is done in Brussels. Many people criticize the need to move the MEPs and their whole staff once a month to Strasbourg.
@@edipires15 interesting. Our tour guide in the Brussels house told otherwise around... what ist your source of information?
@@EinChris75 News articles (like Euronews), statements by MEPs themselves, there’s a load of sources out there.
According to auditors in 2019, the EU spends €114 million a year moving back and forth between Brussels and Strasbourg. Plus, the secretariat of the European Parliament is not seated in neither of two cities but in Luxembourg.
The European Parliament does't have legislative initiative since all they can do is say yes or no to proposals from the Commission (made up of 27 unelected members, one from each country) so I'm not sure if it's worth trying to understand how it works lol
Since a long time the European Parliament must acknowledge every Commission member. And that is a personal interrogation for all of them. That is way more democratic than in most member states where all governments are unelected. Only parliaments get elected, thereafter the most you can expect is that parliament endorses a governing plan. But nobody interrogates and approves/disapproves individual ministers before they are appointed.
The government of the EU aka the EU Commission proposes the laws and the Parliament vote on them. But it is not only the laws they want that the EU Commission proposes. They also have to draft laws requested by the European Council (heads of state or government of each EU country), the Council of the European Union (government ministers from each EU country), the European Parliament and the Citizens themselves, following a successful European Citizens’ Initiative.
The Commission is the government of the EU. Each member of the Commission is approved by the EU Parliament. Which is not the case of the government of my country, where the prime minister appoints whoever he wants to the government and there is no obligation for them to hold any kind of elected position.
It seems you should have tried a bit more to understand. lol
Not having the "right to initiative" does not mean they have no say in legislation at all. On the contrary. All European laws have to go through the parliamentary process. And they are discussed and also modified. Your "all they can do is say yes or no" ist very, very wrong. Perhaps you should update your knowledge: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament#Powers_and_functions
And not having the "right" does not mean the are not allowed to ask the Commission for a law. That happens nowadays more often then not.
Your comment is like saying the US President has no right to define the spending (see US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), hence there is no need to understand who he is and what he does.
@@EinChris75 "Having a say" is not a democratic principle. It's a euphemism for a lack of democracy. The EU is a lobbycracy by design. The EP has little power but it's main issue is that people can't vote for or against the people who decide over them because they are foreign. So it's not a democracy in that way either, it's divide and rule.
@@DenUitvreter i call bullshit. Before you puke out such a stupid comment, educate yourself how the EU (or a representative democracy in general) works.
Comment like those come typically from people calling for a "strong leader", whilest at the same time complaining not being asked about the colour of their passport every other day.
The fact that even extremist can get representation if they have enough supporters are called "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"!
If you don't know what that means, look it up, it is rather important.
Europe is a small country
Hardly any voters bother to turnout, but they elect nobody’s to a parliament with no power and then the unelected EU officials just do what they want. That’s why the EU is dying.
You have spent too long in 'those' Facebook groups.
Why do you bother, you've left haven't you?
You've been voting 🤡🤡 for years that pull the plug out of the island! You have never understood the EU! At least many of you only now because of the consequences.
Since a long time the European Parliament must acknowledge every Commission member. And that is a personal interrogation for all of them. That is way more democratic than in most member states where all governments are unelected. Only parliaments get elected, thereafter the most you can expect is that parliament endorses a governing plan. But nobody interrogates and approves/disapproves individual ministers before they are appointed. ?Besides that, since also a long time, the EP has the final say in lawmaking. You are right that the EP does not have the right of initiative. I am of the opinion that that is a good thing. Parliaments often rule by the day.
Dying... you mean its stronger than ever, not one single countries talks about leaving the EU now thanks to Brexit, cheers mate 😀😃😄😁😆