Why the American Voting System Sucks

The inimitable CGP Grey explains why mixed-member proportional voting (MMP) is more fair and rational than American first-past-the-post elections:

Now, a bleg for my German readers: As far as I can tell, the MMP system described here is what Germany uses. That's my gut feeling, but since I can't vote in Germany, I may be unaware of some minor differences. Please feel free to enlighten me in comments, as you so often do.

Comments

[nondescript handle]

It should be noted that German political parties aren't some kind of shadowy cabals of extraterrestrial lizard men or something.

They are those segments of the citizenry which are so interested in politics that they
a) filled out a membership application,
b) pay rather modest membership dues, and
c) attend to a meeting once a month or so.

You want to have some say in who should be the local nominee for a Bundestag direct seat for party x, and who should be on which position on the Bundestag state party list for party x?
Join party x. It's that simple.

@Zaungast: Kiwi Island, also known as New Zealand.

[Zaungast]

Btw, is the MMP in place anywhere?

Moreover, to assess the importance of parties in the US, it would be interesting to know how many people actually vote by straight ticket. Is there any statistics or are there surveys on that?

[Zaungast]

@Pompeius:
Yes that's right. Parties suck.

I believe we can do better today than the 19th and 18th centuries could. Not because we are all smarter, but because more experience about election systems.

Why not include all candidates (as individuals) who won more than a certain threshold of votes (like 5% or 10%) into parliament, but scale down their vote there proportionally?

[miz]

@Zaungast

Adenauer used the law to his advantage in 1953 (and 1857 though it did not matter in that case) but apparently the exemption to the 5 percent clause was negotiated by the minister presidents after the bill drafted by the Parliamentary Council was vetoed by the Allied military governors.

[Pompeius]

Yes, that deadline is over.

Another advantage of FPTP system is that technically parties are not required. Unlike in Germany the parties in the US are not an official part of the constitution. A common criticism of the German system is the enormous power of the parties. The idea is that, since MPs only get in because of their party they would be more willing to go against their personal beliefs, while in the American system it was not a party but an individual who was elected. The problem with this argument is that even, if parties were not imagined as part of the system - as in the US -, they still appear. Probably because individuals just like to gang up.

@andrew: Learn from our most trusted informant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDLhFbcXLk8

Note: Envelopes are gone.

[Zaungast]

Well, isn't it a provable fact that every election system sucks?

I'd say every system is as good as it is suitable for the society in which it applies.

Having said that, I'm actually quite happy with the German system. Afaik Germany is the only country with elections after this model (other posters have pointed out the difference to the system presented here). It was introduced in Russia as well under Yeltsin, but it was one of the first things Putin undid when in power.

@miz:
> I think it is designed to give regional parties a louder voice in federal politics.

Wasn't the exception of 3 direct mandates designed to save one of Adenauer's coalition partners - maybe the DP?

Btw, I think there has been a decision of the Constitutional Court roughly to the point that it may be fine if different votes have different weight, but that a vote must never have a negative weight (as is possible under the current system). I think the Bundestag has a certain deadline to come up with a better idea.

[Andrew]

@handle: I echo the thanks for your links. Much appreciated.

@Norbert: I've heard that argument, too. But I don't buy it. The key problem is that FPTP squeezes third parties *out of the public debate* in the first place. I think the advantage of having a German-style system in which you have 5-6 parties whose representatives are routinely invited onto mass-media talk shows to give their opinion outweighs the disadvantage of a potentially less pure throughput of voter opinions.

@Martin: I've had my doubts about FPTP for years, since, as a young American, I became dimly aware that other democracies had many more viable political parties. I will admit that I still don't fully understand the German system...

@orangeshow: Bill Clinton won his first election in 1992 by winning a clear majority of electors in the electoral college. Of course Clinton didn't get a clear majority of the popular vote, because Ross Perot got 19% of the vote, but it was scattered all throughout the country, so he didn't win any electoral college votes. So that part of your argument stands. However, Clinton was *re-elected* in 1996 with a whopping majority in the electoral college, beating Bob Dole by 9% in the popular vote, and beating Dole and Perot combined. So that part doesn't work.

And besides, you seem to be a supporter of George W. Bush, so you might want to be careful about your FPTP arguments, since if the President of the U.S. were elected by direct popular vote, Al Gore would have won in 2000...

[Martin]

@Andrew:

I agree: The American voting systems sucks!

I know why I got this sentiment (being used to a MMP system).

But: Where did you get your opinion from?

Martin

[Norbert]

There is a line argument I have often heard from Brits in defence of their FPTP system (and against proportional representation). It goes as follows:

- In proportional representation systems, you tend to end up with a coalition government. Coalitions have to find compromises, which mean that neither of the governing parties ever fully achieves what they were initially elected for. Hence, as a result, no voter actually gets what they wanted.

- In an FPTP system, you tend to end up with one party governing with absolute majority. This party can make the decisions they want and for which they were elected. Hence, as a result, at least a significant part of the voters gets want they wanted.

I.E. FPTP is preferable over proportional representation.

[orangeshow]

Yes with a different system ... America would not of elected and then had to impeach - Bill Clinton. Because a majority of American did not vote for him

[miz]

Thanks handle, I didn't know that!

[Kunar]

The deadline for a reform of the voting law was June 30th, 2011. Nearly needless to say that nothing happened...

[nondescript handle]

@miz: Actually there are two exemptions from the 5% threshold in Bundestag elections:
- 3 direct seats (Grundmandatsklausel)
- parties of native ethnic minorities, for example Danes or Sorbs (the Danish SSW had Bundestag seats in the 50s)

@Andrew: The BPB has three nice YouTube videos explaining the quirks of the German system (no animals and in German though):
Erst- und Zweitstimme
Überhangmandate
Fünf-Prozent-Hürde

[miz]

There also two points not raised by the previous posters:

1. The well-known "5 percent hurdle", which means that only those parties get proportional representation that receive 5 percent of the federal vote, regardless of the state party lists.

2. The not so well-known exemption from the 5 percent hurdle: If a party happens to win three or more seats directly in local ridings they also get represented according to their share of the federal vote. The PDS managed that in the 1994 federal election and I think it is designed to give regional parties a louder voice in federal politics.

[Pompeius]

It's similar to our "personalisiertes Verhältniswahlrecht" (personalized proportion system), yes. There is a difference though.

While in the kingdom of Kiwi the direct seats from the regions are alotted first, in Germany it's the other way round.

In Germany we look at the proportionary vote first and allot seats to the party. So if CDU gets 40%, they get 40% of the seats.

Which CDU members go into parliament? First, those who have won their region with the personal vote. So unlike in Kiwi won regions consume the party's seats on the parliament.

Only when the party gets a higher percentage of seats, further members are get in via party list.

Now, it might happen that a party wins more region than it would get seats on the parliament. In that case their elected region representatives still get in. That's called an Überhangmandat (overflow mandate). That way the parliament can have more total members than planned. That cannot happen on the Island of Kiwi.

German elections are still a bit more complicated because there is no single party list for the whole of Germany but one in every federal state. So first all proportional votes are added up, than the number of seats is broken down to federal states again and than the party lists are consulted. That can cause the problem that you hurt your party by electing it. The current CDU/FDP bill in Bundestag would minimize that problem, but not stop it completely.

[Pechmarie]

Yes, this is basically how the German voting system works (in the federal elections). However there also is a problem with the German system: the so called "Überhangmandate" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Überhangmandat
If a party has more first votes than second votes an extra seat is created for this party (that is why you never know how many seats will be on the federal parliament before all the votes are counted). The problem with this is that getting a lot of second votes can actually lead to an underrepresentation in the parliament ("negatives Stimmgewicht") http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negatives_Stimmgewicht_bei_Wahlen
The left parties are currently trying to change the voting system to get rid of the Ü-Mandate (or something like that, I don't really know what the actual plan is), since the conservative parties are notoriously profiting from this flaw of the system.
Another big problem with the system is, that the voters normally don't understand it at all (just ask 20 random people on the street what an Überhangmandat is, I'm sure not even five will know it), so people have no clue what happens if you split your votes.