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.
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.
by Oui - Dec 5
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 69 comments
by Oui - Dec 6
by Oui - Dec 41 comment
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 140 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments