UPDATE (SEPT. 21): The more I think about the paragraph I quoted below from Spiegel—and consult with others off-blog—the less I believe it can be right. I just do not see how there could be three overhang seats produced by this delayed district vote. One, maybe. And if the list vote (remember, Germans get two votes, one for a candidate and the other for a party list) were to cost CDU a seat and give it to SPD (which is possible, but not all that likely), then I could see it closing the current 3-seat gap between the parties (+2 SPD, -1 CDU). But only one of these potential additional seats would be an overhang.
Of course, in the end it does not matter how you win additional seats. If the parties wound up even closer in overall seat shares, it would at least marginally affect the bargaining between the parties and improve Schroeder’s dim prospects of remaining Chancellor.
**
On Sept. 16, I expressed skepticism that Germany’s general election could be so close and that the Dresden district that will vote late (due to the death of a neo-Nazi candidate) could produce “overhang” so as to be decisive.
Well, we know it was a close enough election for every seat to matter. It looks like the district could produce overhang and thus effect the outcome after all:
Although only one representative will actually be elected in the district, Germany’s “second vote” system — in which individuals vote for a party they want to see in parliament — could produce three extra parliamentary seats for Dresden. These are known as “overhang” seats and are created to reflect more accurately and more democratically a party’s true support. And it is these seats that are being eyed by the politicians. The current breakdown of seats in parliament is SPD 222, CDU 225. So those three seats could make a big difference and transform Dresden into the German kingmaker.
It is worth adding, however, that its decisiveness is only in the sense of potentially determining which leader gets first move in forming what will have to be a broad government of some sort. The seats could not give either the incumbent coalition or the opposition a majority in parliament.
There but for the grace of Duverger
The German elections have come and gone, and the results are Inconclusive; as expected, nobody got an outright majority, but less expected was the inability of the “natural†CDU–FDP coalition to gain a majority, thus leaving Germans with a series…
Scion grafted by Signifying Nothing — 20 September 2005 @ 21:01
[...] Now, granted, there is one pending district, but if the CDU/CSU ends up with more seats than the SPD, I don’t see on what grounds Schroeder can make this demand. Filed under: Global Politics, Elections | |Send TrackBack | [...]
Scion grafted by PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » Schroeder Demands he Remain Chancellor — 22 September 2005 @ 08:37
A recent decision by the German Constitutional Court has ramifications for how MMP operates there. The court ruled the present model for overhang seats as unconstitutional, since it can have the effect of giving a negative value to additional second/list votes (conversely, fewer list votes will in certain circumstances result in more proportionality-distorting Ãœberhangmandate; list votes would then be better utilised to bolster an allied party). Sometimes such situations can be predicted quite confidently. The court set 2011 as the deadline by which the electoral act must be changed - the next Bundestag election can thereby still be held under the current system.
For more information see the electoral systems website http://www.wahlrecht.de , which mainly is in German, but which also has some English and Latin (!) pages. As I understand it, the lawsuit was actually brought forth by the people behind that website. The process is outlined there.
There are two possible solutions to the problem (while still keeping the essential features of MMP):
1. To give Ausgleichsmandate (additional levelling seats) to those parties who are relatively disadvantaged when others are given Ãœberhangmandate.
2. To “internalise” the Ãœberhangmandate, taking some list seats away from the same party, just simply in other Länder. This would neutralise the distorting effect of Ãœberhangmandate between the parties, but increase it a little within a party (not sure what the court might say about that).
The latter seems to be the CDU’s preferred model. It would also keep the Bundestag at the initial 598 seat level except under extreme circumstances, while the first model would increase the number of seats beyond what the present model does, when applied. Either model would make it possible to discontinue the practice introduced in 1999 – also at the behest of the Constitutional Court – of not replacing vacancies that occur among the Ãœberhangmandate.
The ruling does not appear to affect the various state and local electoral systems, as these generally either provide for Ausgleichsmandate or do not provide for Ãœberhangmandate at all (Niedersachsen’s one-to-one Agm. to Ãœhm. might be one exception).
Seed planted by Espen Bjerke — 14 July 2008 @ 19:25