The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Would the current number of EP seats all be apportitioned proportionally, one constituency would be for 680,000 people. All three, Luxembourg, Malta and Iceland fall below. But, a constituency 50% smaller than the average would be nothing unusual in any country-level democracy with sub-national constituencies (not to mention special seats for some minorities, f.e. Romania). So you may protest 5 seats for these three, but the right for any seat?...
As for the Council, the rotating Presidency is largely symbolic and is destined to go, while voting rights are weighted there too; while Commissioners -- so what, the problem is selection by national apportitioning in place of merit. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Give states seats in the parliament proportionally to the square root of population (Penrose rule). Then complete the EP with seats to be assigned to EU-wide party lists for overall proportionality. The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
ceiling(sqrt(EU.population)/200) Germany France UK Italy Spain Poland 46 41 40 39 34 31 Romania Netherlands Greece Belgium Portugal Czechia 24 21 17 17 17 17 Hungary Sweden Austria Bulgaria Denmark Slovakia 16 16 15 14 12 12 Finland Ireland Lithuania Latvia Slovenia Estonia 12 11 10 8 8 6 Cyprus Luxembourg Malta 5 4 4
This is a parliament - you want to increase the number of possible different voices able to speak in it. Proportional representation along EU-wide ideological lines is preferable to proportional representation along national lines. What is gained by having 64 as opposed to 49 Germans? Not much in terms of representation of views. Whereas having 4 instead of 2 Maltese may be the difference between getting a single -party or a 3-party Maltese delegation. 2/3 of the seats on EU-wide lists will ensure ideological balance. The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
Silly example I calculated for myself: right-populist parties that join Europe of the Nations sweep all former communist countries minus Poland at 60% of elected MEPs, while sister parties fail to get on the ballot everywhere else. That's 69 MEPs, or 9.2% tof a total 747. Now, assuming similar ratios in the all-EU list vote, and using the 2009 population projections, Europe of the Nations would deserve 8.3% of the vote, or 62 MEPs.
So, the possibility is there, though I submit it is a minor effect. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
By that argument, why have national lists at all? Also, what do we do with sub-national constituencies: apportition seats according to the Penrose law, or proportionally? And won't this make elections in the smallest countries overly focused on the direct seats, as opposed to the largest countries? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Because there is actually an advantage to the combination of smaller local constituencies with a global list for overall proportionality. Electing 46 seats in Germany by proportional representation leads to someon on the #20 slot of one of the big parties being elected. Who actually votes with the #20 candidate in mind? An EU-wide list of 250 candidates has the same problem - someone in position #100 of the EPP or PES list is likely to get elected. Also, I would say that you want to have representation from all combinations of nation+party, even if it is only one from each. That's for giving views a voice. The vote is the overall proportionality.
Also, what do we do with sub-national constituencies: apportition seats according to the Penrose law, or proportionally? I would abolish them. Or institute a similar EU-wide rule where if a country wants to have subnational constituencies they have to use the same Penrose + country-wide scheme as is used in the EU as a whole.
And won't this make elections in the smallest countries overly focused on the direct seats, as opposed to the largest countries?
As opposed to making the votes from the smallest countries all but irrelevant? Iceland will have 1/1500 of the EU's population. Why vote in the EU elections if there are only 750 seats to be filled? The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
That still won't apply for Malta. But, you could prescribe something like that for the parties.
As opposed to making the votes from the smallest countries all but irrelevant?
By that argument, why vote in any single voter district in a national election? For disproportional national representation, we could reform the European Council. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
No, not in the "every combination" sense. But 4 seats is better than 2 in that respect. For Germany, it is not clear how 99 seats is better than 49. The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
Let's start from the opposite end. I would vehemently oppose 736-member E_ wide party lists. People would usually vote paying attention to at most the top 2 people in each party's list, or the top one and the top compatriot. It really makes a lot of sense to have constituencies with a small number of seats (using transferable votes to ensure proportionality). But to insist on even-sized constituencies leads to redistricting nonsense including gerrimandering. So you want
Why do you think that doesn't make a difference? I haven't made this angle explicit before; but there is also the issue of ideological weights within EP-parties.
It really makes a lot of sense to have constituencies with a small number of seats
What about using the 97 second-level NUTS regions rather than nation states? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
It really makes a lot of sense to have constituencies with a small number of seats What about using the 97 second-level NUTS regions rather than nation states?
What about using the 97 second-level NUTS regions rather than nation states?
For Belgium, France, Spain, Poland or Italy, the first-level NUTS regions would more or less correspond to the current sub-national EP election regions
With what argument? (Not that I wouldn't want to abolish them myself, but what is the rationale in your system?)
Or institute a similar EU-wide rule where if a country wants to have subnational constituencies they have to use the same Penrose + country-wide scheme as is used in the EU as a whole.
But a national level Penrose (apportitioning a number of seats as given by Penrose for the whole country), instead of EU level? With that, you are strenghtening the national character of the elections further. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
That way there won't be an argument against an EU-wide Islamic party. Or Bulgaria's Turkist minority party... The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
Btu As I have noted further down, as the number of countries in the EU increases it will become effectively impossible to change the institutional setup. That is why all those things have to be done before we extend the EU even further.
ceiling(exp(log(c(EU.population, iceland=300000))/1.5)/3000) Germany France UK Italy Spain Poland 64 54 52 51 43 38 Romania Netherlands Greece Belgium Portugal Czechia 26 22 17 17 17 16 Hungary Sweden Austria Bulgaria Denmark Slovakia 16 15 14 13 11 11 Finland Ireland Lithuania Latvia Slovenia Estonia 11 10 8 6 6 5 Cyprus Luxembourg Malta iceland 3 3 2 2
A given combined formula (logarithmic or whatever) can by correct selection of parameters give the same--or close to it--result for a given set of data, but if the parameters can be fiddled politically, they will. Like rorting or gerrymandering or whatever, you always get it from a political system.
I have wondered whether this issue was at the root of the UK's handing over of some independence to Wales and Scotland, the idea being that with the current arrangement, Britain could potentially claim to have four distinct geographical units.
ell, at least in some countries. Just checked Germany, where borders have been redrawn a few years ago; ad found that the rule is max. 25% deviation from the average. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
My major problem is with expansion in general. We do not know how the EU should look like in the future and even supporters of the Lisbon Treaty (like me) have to acknowledge that it is not a particularly inspired document and will clearly not be the last. Adding more countries guarantees that it will become impossible to change anything in the future.
by gmoke - Jun 10
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 50 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 10
by Oui - Jun 91 comment
by Oui - Jun 58 comments
by Oui - Jun 257 comments
by Oui - Jun 112 comments
by Oui - May 31120 comments
by Oui - May 3050 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2742 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 928 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Oui - Apr 2666 comments
by Oui - Apr 8108 comments
by Oui - Mar 19145 comments