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.
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.
by Oui - Dec 9 6 comments
by Oui - Dec 5 9 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 94 comments
by Oui - Dec 96 comments
by Oui - Dec 815 comments
by Oui - Dec 620 comments
by Oui - Dec 612 comments
by Oui - Dec 59 comments
by Oui - Dec 44 comments
by Oui - Dec 21 comment
by Oui - Dec 174 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 243 comments
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments