Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I would abolish them.

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 DoDo on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm saying, if a country wants to have constituencies they have to have an additional-member system in order not to distort overall proportinality of the national delegation. The penrose-apportinment of the national constituencies is a footnote, but it is necessary when apportionment proportionally to population would lead to extremely large disparities in numbers of seats per constituency (as would be the case in Spain). It is actually an advantage of the Penrose system that it limits the size of the largest constituencies.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 19th, 2009 at 02:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But, again, if that is your choice, you fix the system to countries, perpetuating "national delegations".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 21st, 2009 at 05:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series