If only the media could cover elections in normal democracies without saying things like “[party name here] failed to win a majority” or “no party is likely to have a majority.”
Majorities of seats are actually not so common in democracies around the world, and majorities of votes are downright rare.
What was so distressing this morning is that I heard a line like this about Israel’s election. Yes, Israel, where even a quarter of the seats makes you a big player and the last time a party won over a third of the seats was in 1992. Yet the reporter’s line gave the impression that there might be just this very small chance that someone would get over 50% of seats. Moreover, while I have come to expect this sort of comment from American reporters (few of whom can get past “complex form of proportional representation”), this particular incident was on Deutsche Welle. Yes, from Germany, where no party has won a majority of seats in the country’s history of competitive elections (back to 1871). (To be fair, the reporter sounded British, and Britain is actually one of those oddball cases where a party almost always wins a majority.)
Actually, the CDU/CSU won an absolute majority of votes (50.2%) and seats (270 of 497) in the 1957 Bundestag election. However, if CDU and CSU are counted as separate parties – and the two parties not only ran separately in the election (as they always have) but also presented competing slates in Saarland (which had just joined the Federal Republic of Germany) – then it is correct to say that no party won a majority of seats in that election, or for that matter any nationwide election in Germany since 1871.
Seed planted by Manuel Alvarez-Rivera — 10 February 2009 @ 17:31
Well, indeed they are not a single party, and when I verified my claim above, I looked at a source that lists the parties separately.
However, they are a pre-electoral coalition and a ‘permanent’ one at that (though perhaps that would not be clear as of 1957), so technically I suppose we should amend my remark above. But it would not change the essential point, of course.
Thanks for the reminder, Manuel, as I am not sure I would have recalled that the CDU/CSU alliance had ever won a majority.
Seed planted by MSS — 10 February 2009 @ 18:06
If we take that criterion, though, then Australia doesn’t have “majority” govts (federally) except when Labor is in power or after those rare elections (most obviously 1975) when the Liberals win a majority of H Reps seats in their own right and could govern without the Nationals (although of course they keep them as insurance).
The CDU/ CSU seem to be at least as tight a pre-electoral (or maybe “cross-elections”) coalition. Even allowing for the competing Saarland lists. The Libs and Nats here frequently run competing candidates in “three-cornered contests” and occasionally seats do switch from one conservative party to the other (usually after one defeats Labor, or the other’s sitting MP retires).
Seed planted by Tom Round — 10 February 2009 @ 19:13
Well, Tom, that would make Australia seem a good deal more “normal” than you and Alan had been leading me to believe!
(By the way, I was not even aware of the competing lists in Saarland in 1957 till Manuel mentioned it.)
Seed planted by MSS — 10 February 2009 @ 19:19
If I recall correctly, one of the reasons why CDU and CSU run separately is because Germany’s election law will only allow electoral elections when the concerned parties share a common federal executive – which CDU and CSU don’t have (they just have a joint parliamentary group). At any rate, under Germany’s PR system the two parties stand little to gain by running as a single group (although this year’s European Parliament elections may be a different story).
As far as I’m aware of, CDU and CSU have been in permanent coalition since 1949, and other than in Saarland in 1957 CSU has never run outside Bavaria in a federal election. That said, CSU did sponsor a sister party (and CDU competitor) in East Germany prior to reunification – the German Social Union (DSU) – but that party quickly deflated, after a relatively promising start in the 1990 East German parliamentary election.
Seed planted by Manuel Alvarez-Rivera — 10 February 2009 @ 19:30
What Tom says is accurate at the federal level, although we currently have a post-election Liberal/National coalition in Western Australia, a Labor/National coalition in South Australia, a Labor/Green minority government in the ACT. To add to the fun the federal Liberals and Nationals are single parties in Queensland and the Northern Territory.
Seed planted by Alan — 10 February 2009 @ 20:05
Good points, Matthew. I’ve just started monitoring the UK media and blogs’s coverage of the Israeli election results. It is currently touch and go whether I will get more depressed with the results or the coverage. I may have to copy you and do some of my own naming and shaming if there are some real egregious examples of using Israel as a straw man to bash all forms of PR.
Seed planted by Malcolm Clark — 10 February 2009 @ 23:22
Well, there is nothing like an Israeli election to bring out the PR-bashers. They really can’t help themselves; it’s just too easy a target.
Seed planted by MSS — 10 February 2009 @ 23:29
I find it interesting how many media sources are reporting how many seats were won by the Israeli “left” or “right” blocs. As if Shas and UTJ had not served regularly in Labour governments, and as if the Arab parties were likely to be part of a Kadima government. Clearly multi-dimensionality confuses reporters even more than PR.
Seed planted by Vasi — 11 February 2009 @ 22:48
Indeed, Vasi. In fact, Shas is really a left party (and I guess UTJ is, too) if we look only at the economic dimension (which is how most readers presumably understand left/right, if they understand it at all).
And then there is the fact that Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas are about as far apart as can be on issues of rabbinic authority over marriages and such issues. Yet the media reports I hear keep treating them as though they and Likud were perfectly natural allies!
(And, yes, on the Arab parties as part of the “left.”)
Seed planted by MSS — 11 February 2009 @ 23:22
UTJ is neither left nor right – it’s an ATM machine for the Ashkenazi haredim.
And of the “Arab parties,” Hadash is genuinely socialist, Balad is bourgeois nationalist, and the United Arab List/Ra’am is a strange amalgam of nationalism and Islamism with a vaguely populist economic platform.
If Israeli politics were normal, Balad would be an ally (or integral part) of Kadima, and Ra’am would be partners with Shas. Actually, Shas and Ra’am have worked together on occasion, but purely on a single-issue basis.
Seed planted by Jonathan Edelstein — 11 February 2009 @ 23:28