As Wikipedia’s article on Folketinget (the Danish Parliament outlines, 77% (135 out of 175) of the seats elected by Denmark proper (i.e. excluding the 2 seats each elected by Greenland and the Faroe Islands) are elected regionally (there are 10 districts for an average of 13.5 seats per district), while the remaining 40 are appointed to make the results level out to be proportional to the national level of support for each party.
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, since candidates who are not supported by the voters are unlikely to be appointed, even if they are high-ranking members of a popular party (I’m not sure if this last bit is also the case in Germany, but it definitely isn’t in Israel, which uses closed lists that can’t be influenced directly by the people).
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 level as opposed to regionally, which makes them less directly accountable to the people, and (I think; I’m not sure yet if the math works out the way I think it does) the distortions introduced in the regional level are not perfectly corrected on the national level.
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?
These four are not a complete list. I should compile a list of countries that follow the constitutional principles I am pointing to here (which, as alexgieg points out, is not neccessarily the same as “The Truly Free World”; I hope to better define The Truly Free World in follow-ups to this post), but I can list Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland as also fitting this description off the top of my head. I would not be inclined to list Australia, which uses IRV, though why I have that intuition, and whether that intuition is correct, is a subject for a later conversation.
What is the Danish system?
Is that just “New Zealand...Denmark...Ireland...Germany”?
As Wikipedia’s article on Folketinget (the Danish Parliament outlines, 77% (135 out of 175) of the seats elected by Denmark proper (i.e. excluding the 2 seats each elected by Greenland and the Faroe Islands) are elected regionally (there are 10 districts for an average of 13.5 seats per district), while the remaining 40 are appointed to make the results level out to be proportional to the national level of support for each party.
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, since candidates who are not supported by the voters are unlikely to be appointed, even if they are high-ranking members of a popular party (I’m not sure if this last bit is also the case in Germany, but it definitely isn’t in Israel, which uses closed lists that can’t be influenced directly by the people).
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 level as opposed to regionally, which makes them less directly accountable to the people, and (I think; I’m not sure yet if the math works out the way I think it does) the distortions introduced in the regional level are not perfectly corrected on the national level.
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.
These four are not a complete list. I should compile a list of countries that follow the constitutional principles I am pointing to here (which, as alexgieg points out, is not neccessarily the same as “The Truly Free World”; I hope to better define The Truly Free World in follow-ups to this post), but I can list Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland as also fitting this description off the top of my head. I would not be inclined to list Australia, which uses IRV, though why I have that intuition, and whether that intuition is correct, is a subject for a later conversation.