tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post149161275348692130..comments2024-03-28T06:43:02.954+00:00Comments on Variable Variability: Did the lack of an election threshold save The Netherlands?Victor Venemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-82813834886307700032017-04-03T23:41:54.690+01:002017-04-03T23:41:54.690+01:00Yes, it is sad, but a lot better than Brexit or Tr...Yes, it is sad, but a lot better than Brexit or Trump or Le Pen as French president. In the happy time of my youth we only had one universally despised racist in parliament. Those were the good times. <br /><br />I do have some hope that the Trump presidency will continue to pull the racists down.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-46419643396098002592017-04-03T23:13:19.472+01:002017-04-03T23:13:19.472+01:00Victor, with all due respect, I can't but comm...Victor, with all due respect, I can't but comment a bit off-topic here:<br /><br /><i>But this time the three part question was whether after Brexit and Trump also The Netherlands, France and Germany would destroy their societies in response to radical fundamentalist grandpas campaigning against radical fundamentalist Muslims. The answer for the Dutch part is: no.</i><br /><br />This is like everybody feels comfy again after Trump manages to form two grammatically correct sentences in a row. A lot of people seem to suffer from <i>acquired tolerance</i>.<br /><br />1.4 million Dutch (13.1%, 2nd rank) voted for the proto-fascist hate-filled horror clown. Rutte, during the election campaign, felt the need and had the flexibility of spine to French kiss the racist Dutchmen's recta.<br /><br />Election threshold is not the problem here.hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-89360825895604306142017-03-20T00:24:04.838+00:002017-03-20T00:24:04.838+00:00Some economist made the effort of formally proving...Some economist made the effort of formally proving that no electoral system is optimal.<br /><br />It is more than just the moment the compromise is made. The main problem is a lack of competition between the parties and a lack of choice for the voter. A ranked voting system is certainly progress, but can only alleviate these problems of the district system a little.<br /><br />If you got real parties, like in Australia or UK, the compromise is made in advance. If every candidate runs for himself with funding from his own donors, like in America, the compromise is still made after the election in their district system. In the US, the party platform is just a piece of paper.<br /><br />France has a district system with two rounds of voting, but still has several (small) parties. Would be interested in studying how they got that working.<br /><br />It made sense to start with a district system. The local warlords would advice king dictator, later "advice" him, and this system gradually became more democratic. Once you start from scratch, after a war or revolution, it makes sense to switch to a better representative system.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-36622776910851398352017-03-19T22:54:30.215+00:002017-03-19T22:54:30.215+00:00"I totally agree that a "winner takes al...<i>"I totally agree that a "winner takes all" system and a district voting system are terrible choices from a democratic point of view."</i><br />I disagree. Parliaments are a device to achieve a compromise. You have an electorate with varied and enigmatic views, and need to produce yes/no decisions, which would be no individual's choice. Victor's fine-grained system puts all the burden of compromise at the parliament level, and that may be too much burden. Too much talking, and still may not well represent. <br /><br />The US/British system puts a lot of the compromise at the pre-election stage. Parties work out compromise packages in the hope of getting a majority. You have to vote for something not ideal, but with a more realistic knowledge of what will actually be done. And, importantly, you can hold the governing party responsible for the outcome. <br /><br />But as Victor says, it does require strategic voting, and is rigid in terms of party evolution. In Australia we have a mixture, with districts at the House level, and more like proportional representation in the Senate. Even with a fairly high barrier, it is the Senate that is our current problem. The important alleviation of the district system is ranked (called preferential) voting. It means you can express your ideal, and also (without penalty) your preferred compromise. No need for strategic. And although the main parties have retained dominance, the minor parties still have influence, through guidance given to supporters on ranking, which is influential.<br /><br />So I'm wondering if the answer to Victor's issue is a higher barrier with ranked voting, so the minor parties' supporters still get a say in the eventual compromise, but less has to be haggled in parliament?<br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-64132532665113412662017-03-19T20:27:49.697+00:002017-03-19T20:27:49.697+00:00A threshold of two seats is not hugely problematic...A threshold of two seats is not hugely problematic, but also not hugely helpful. Looking at the pros and cons, I would say that smaller is better. I would even remove the small one seat threshold we have now. But other informal thresholds are likely more important. Name recognition, having a national presence. <br /><br />I do not know what the rules are for getting on the ballot. They should indeed be stringent enough to make sure that there is some chance of getting into parliament. However, they should also not be so hard that a party would have to invest a large part of its resources into this, rather than on campaigning. It should also not make it easier for parties with rich donors behind them to get on the ballot, the rules should show real support.<br /><br />In these times were the traditional left-right axis no longer explains much variance, it makes sense that more parties have some hope of making it. We are in a transition period. I hope in the transition away from corporate stress, neo-liberalism and the economisation of life, which makes fascism look more attractive, to valuing a well-lived life in all its wonders and complexity.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-41740775256051465022017-03-19T20:02:09.790+00:002017-03-19T20:02:09.790+00:00Nice post, lots of interesting ideas.
I think tha...Nice post, lots of interesting ideas.<br /><br />I think that the large number of very small parties has an additional problem besides the difficulty of forming a majority government. Voting itself becomes tricky when there are 28 parties on the ballot, as was the case in the most recent Dutch election. Since there is a de facto threshold as you rightly point out (a party has to receive at least the number of votes that corresponds to one seat to actually get a seat in parliament), quite a few parties didn't make it into parliament. <br /><br />To avoid having dozens of parties participating in the elections, making the demands stricter for participating in the elections is arguably a better and fairer option than increasing the election threshold. A large threshold would mean that too many voters are not represented in parliament, which should be avoided. That said, increasing such a threshold from (the current) 1 to 2 seats doesn't strike me as hugely problematic.<br /><br />I totally agree that a "winner takes all" system and a district voting system are terrible choices from a democratic point of view.<br /><br />BartBart Verheggenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12409420404605117255noreply@blogger.com