Because Germany doesn’t use a proportional method for the regional seats, there are often large discrepencies between the regional proportions and the federal proportions, which means a much larger number of politicians are elected on the national list as opposed to regionally
There is no such things as “the national list” in Germany.
I have the impression that you are letting yourself be guided too much by thinking about concepts instead of how the system works in reality.
Party lists are used for both the regional and national levels, but since voters may identify a single member of the list that they feel should be given priority on the list, this means that individual candidates are incentivized to curry support among the electorate in order to be elected
This basically means “individual candiates are incentivized to get campaign donations from lobbyists”. I don’t think it’s a valuable feature of a democratic system.
This basically means “individual candiates are incentivized to get campaign donations from lobbyists”. I don’t think it’s a valuable feature of a democratic system.
I’ll note that in Denmark, parties can choose between closed lists (i.e. the party decides who fills the seats) or open lists (as I described above), but all parties use open lists. I always assumed that this was the case because denizens see value in having open lists; in particular I don’t see any incentives that would encourage parties to use open lists if they don’t provide a better result for the denizens.
Do you have an explanation for why open lists are used if you don’t think it’s a valuable feature of the system?
There is no such things as “the national list” in Germany.
I have the impression that you are letting yourself be guided too much by thinking about concepts instead of how the system works in reality.
This basically means “individual candiates are incentivized to get campaign donations from lobbyists”. I don’t think it’s a valuable feature of a democratic system.
I’ll note that in Denmark, parties can choose between closed lists (i.e. the party decides who fills the seats) or open lists (as I described above), but all parties use open lists. I always assumed that this was the case because denizens see value in having open lists; in particular I don’t see any incentives that would encourage parties to use open lists if they don’t provide a better result for the denizens.
Do you have an explanation for why open lists are used if you don’t think it’s a valuable feature of the system?
This was a typo, it was supposed to be “the national level”. Thanks for catching it.