Is proportional representation undemocratic?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I was just talking with Debi about the elections for the European Parliament and I realized that proporational representation might very well be considered undemocratic. Surely you people under this system realize that you cannot select the individual who will represent your district unless you're a member of the victorious party--and so what's the point of the elections, then? Just put one party in power and make everyone join it. An exagerration, perhaps, but it is rather like a multi-party one-party state; not quite a contradiction in terms, for there are differences between a one party state and a democracy which are greater than merely having a single party in the former.

Seriously, when one thinks about it.. What's the idea behind representational democracy? It's to have a person representing a group of citizens. And so obviously those citizens should choose that person. The idea of voting for some nebulous "party" is rather disturbing--it gives the party the control over the allocation of the candidates, and makes the candidates subordinate to the interests of the party, rather than the interests of the People.

In a system where you directly vote for the candidate, you are selecting that person. You are selecting a fellow citizen who represents you in that body of government. This person is then bound to you--has the power of that vote in the government body, but also has a duty to you to insure that it is properly used, or will be dismissed by you in the next election. In America this actually leads to a relative degree of effectiveness by letter-writing campaigns, etc, and, on the negative side, a fair amount of pork for districts--some needed and some totally useless. But things get done for the people who elected that representative. You are really looking out for your own interests in the democratic system, still expressing some degree of your own views through the representative.

In the process of proportional representation, however, only the views of the Party exist--the Party which must only conform its interests to as much of the populace as it likes to can an advantageous number of votes, in turn, for coalition-building. What this means is that, in effect, the parties can ignore the wishes of those who vote for them as they desire, can appoint representatives with little relation to the people who's districts were won for that Party, and who will pursue party-centric courses rather than courses supporting the people who supported the party and the needs of those regions. This essentially reduces democracy down to a chess game of the party elite, which is really disturbing when one things about it, considering the relative popularity of proportional representation.

The American system has many flaws, but ultimately it does allow, indeed, force representatives to be responsive to the voters of their districts--while simultaneously allowing those voters to choose the candidate who should represent them as being closest to their views. By this very nature, then, the two party system that has evolved here becomes far less monolithic than it first appears.

[Dahak]

I can only speak for Germany, but when we have elections, we have 2 votes. One vote determines the percentages each party will get in the parliament, and the other vote determines which candidate will win the constituency.
Half the seats in the Bundestag is given to those direct candidates, the rest is filled by candidates form the lists, according to each parties percentual represantation.

And I don't see it as undemocratic. Parties are democratic, and usually, we elect parties, not people.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I can only speak for Germany, but when we have elections, we have 2 votes. One vote determines the percentages each party will get in the parliament, and the other vote determines which candidate will win the constituency.
Half the seats in the Bundestag is given to those direct candidates, the rest is filled by candidates form the lists, according to each parties percentual represantation.

And I don't see it as undemocratic. Parties are democratic, and usually, we elect parties, not people.

Hrmm. So you have a mixed direct/proportional system? Interesting. But the candidates from the lists--why is it, for instance, that after voting for a party you do not have a second election where the party has to submit a list of possible representatives to each district it won, and all the people of the district can choose between them to choose their representative from those available in the victorious party?

Just an example of one way I'd thought of that would remove my particular distaste with the system.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And I don't see it as undemocratic. Parties are democratic, and usually, we elect parties, not people.

I have, honestly, never thought of parties as being democratic--I think the general view in America you'd find is that, as well. That parties in general are corrupt institutions that would like to eliminate their competition if possible, and only occasionally do you find decent candidates in them; if you don't, you vote for the lesser evil. But you're always voting for the person, as the person might have redeeming qualities while the party has none--and the person, besides, needs you to be reelected, while the party just sees you as a source of money for national campaigns.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Now, I should note that there are "straight-ticket voters" in the USA, but these people are hardly laudable--they oftentimes vote for a party because their parents did (or because their parents didn't!), or are basically pretty radicalized on the main issues--DemoUnderground and the Freepers at their worst, with a range of improvement towards the centre. Still, both the parties generally assume to count on about up to 30% of the electorate; but the swing vote is largely personality-based.

[TheDarkling]

The difference is that in America the political parties are simply several special interest groups gathered together supporting each other in order to further their own agenda, whereas in Europe the various political parties have a central ideology to them (although there is still some differentiation between the various members) therefore it doesn't really matter which member of the party you vote for since its assumed they stick to the party ideology.

On the very local level (in the UK at least) people have begun to actually inquire where the candidates running for local council stand on issues but in the national elections the actual person running is immaterial compared with what the views of the party leader is.

So basically unlike in America the person sent off to parliament (even in the UK where we have MPS tied to particular districts) is expected to vote on national interest in keeping with the ideology of the majority of his/her constituents not to go to parliament and kick, scream and hair pull to get something for their individual area since this is really not an issue the performance of the party is the deciding factor in re-election not whether the representative brought enough money/projects to their constituency (that isn't to say that they won't try this especially if in a very marginal seat it just isn't that important and isn’t really reported on in the run up to election time).

[Crown]

The American system has many flaws, but ultimately it does allow, indeed, force representatives to be responsive to the voters of their districts--while simultaneously allowing those voters to choose the candidate who should represent them as being closest to their views. By this very nature, then, the two party system that has evolved here becomes far less monolithic than it first appears.

Splitting hairs very finely aren't we? AFAIK you still vote for a candidate for the EU Parliament, who runs with the backing of a particular party. You can choose to vote the party line (marking the boxes in accordance with listed prefrences), or just do what you like. I will point out though that every member in the Parliament, a decision making body was elected.

I hardly see how you can possibly de-rail this when compared to the US system.

Case in point. When voting in a proporational representation, the party which has a majority forms government. Members of the PM cabinet are chosen from people who have won their seats. Whereas in America you vote for the President, but did anyone vote for Colin Powel, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc who are part of the 'cabinet'?

Or I am being incredibly dense tonight?

[Sea Skimmer]

Case in point. When voting in a proporational representation, the party which has a majority forms government. Members of the PM cabinet are chosen from people who have won their seats. Whereas in America you vote for the President, but did anyone vote for Colin Powel, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc who are part of the 'cabinet'?

The president's cabinet must be approved by Congress, so yes someone votes.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Splitting hairs very finely aren't we? AFAIK you still vote for a candidate for the EU Parliament, who runs with the backing of a particular party. You can choose to vote the party line (marking the boxes in accordance with listed prefrences), or just do what you like. I will point out though that every member in the Parliament, a decision making body was elected.

As I understand it, it works on a "party, list" system, and then candidates are selected for that party off the list based on the percentage of seats in the parliament they win--which would preclude assigning them to particular districts, one would think, as you're receiving your percentage of seats based on overall electoral participation towards your party and not on the interests of particular regions.

Case in point. When voting in a proporational representation, the party which has a majority forms government. Members of the PM cabinet are chosen from people who have won their seats. Whereas in America you vote for the President, but did anyone vote for Colin Powel, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc who are part of the 'cabinet'?

Or I am being incredibly dense tonight?

Well, you vote for the President, and if that candidate carries your state, the electoral college of your state (usually, at least one state splits the college) goes to that candidate. Then the President presents nominees to the cabinet positions to the Senate, which must confirm them before they are appointed. The Senate can block such appointments. A very balanced process.

[Dahak]

I can only speak for Germany, but when we have elections, we have 2 votes. One vote determines the percentages each party will get in the parliament, and the other vote determines which candidate will win the constituency.
Half the seats in the Bundestag is given to those direct candidates, the rest is filled by candidates form the lists, according to each parties percentual represantation.

And I don't see it as undemocratic. Parties are democratic, and usually, we elect parties, not people.

Hrmm. So you have a mixed direct/proportional system? Interesting. But the candidates from the lists--why is it, for instance, that after voting for a party you do not have a second election where the party has to submit a list of possible representatives to each district it won, and all the people of the district can choose between them to choose their representative from those available in the victorious party?

Just an example of one way I'd thought of that would remove my particular distaste with the system.

Those lists are decided, and voted, inside the party, which is by definition, a democratic institution.
And people choose whose going to represent them in their district with their first vote.
The list is not on a per-district, put on a per-state level, and half the seats are filled from there. The other half are directly elected candidates.

[Dahak]

And I don't see it as undemocratic. Parties are democratic, and usually, we elect parties, not people.

I have, honestly, never thought of parties as being democratic--I think the general view in America you'd find is that, as well. That parties in general are corrupt institutions that would like to eliminate their competition if possible, and only occasionally do you find decent candidates in them; if you don't, you vote for the lesser evil. But you're always voting for the person, as the person might have redeeming qualities while the party has none--and the person, besides, needs you to be reelected, while the party just sees you as a source of money for national campaigns.

In Germany you vote for a party, not a person. And while the election campaigns have since Schröder's first election been personalized to a degree, most people still elect parties.

And about parties being democratic in structure, here's the relevant part of our constitution:

Article 21 [Political Parties]
(1) The political parties participate in the forming of the political
will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal
organization must conform to democratic principles. They have to
publicly account for the sources and use of their funds and for their
assets.
(2) Parties which, by reason of their aims or the behavior of their
adherents, seek to impair or abolish the free democratic basic order
or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany
are unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court decides on
the question of unconstitutionality.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Those lists are decided, and voted, inside the party, which is by definition, a democratic institution.

W00T! We have our quote of the day here, folks:

"the party, which is by definition, a democratic institution."

Advance, sacred party of Lenin, Advance, Glorious Worker's Proletariat....

Political parties do not allow universal suffrage; if they are the ones who determine the actual representative to the governing body (in question), then you are the one who needs to prove that the party is democratic--especially in an era when democracy is commonly equated with universal suffrage.

And people choose whose going to represent them in their district with their first vote. The list is not on a per-district, put on a per-state level, and half the seats are filled from there. The other half are directly elected candidates.

Well, this makes your system a balanced and at least marginally functional one if not better than that (balance of powers, even balanced undemocratic ones, is always useful to a stable government, I'm quite willing to grant)--as I understand some countries have national lists, and that's really what I was complaining about (note how I brought up the European Parliament--not European Parliaments). My apologies even for this post, which I'm still posting anyway, because I think it brings out an important point:

Why do you think that the party is by definition a democratic institution? That's a pretty powerful statement, and, well, a pretty blind one, to be blunt.

[Dahak]

Those lists are decided, and voted, inside the party, which is by definition, a democratic institution.

W00T! We have our quote of the day here, folks:

"the party, which is by definition, a democratic institution."

Advance, sacred party of Lenin, Advance, Glorious Worker's Proletariat....

Political parties do not allow universal suffrage; if they are the ones who determine the actual representative to the governing body (in question), then you are the one who needs to prove that the party is democratic--especially in an era when democracy is commonly equated with universal suffrage.

Those party lists have to be voted for, or against. They are not forced onto the party.

And people choose whose going to represent them in their district with their first vote. The list is not on a per-district, put on a per-state level, and half the seats are filled from there. The other half are directly elected candidates.

Well, this makes your system a balanced and at least marginally functional one if not better than that (balance of powers, even balanced undemocratic ones, is always useful to a stable government, I'm quite willing to grant)--as I understand some countries have national lists, and that's really what I was complaining about (note how I brought up the European Parliament--not European Parliaments). My apologies even for this post, which I'm still posting anyway, because I think it brings out an important point:

Why do you think that the party is by definition a democratic institution? That's a pretty powerful statement, and, well, a pretty blind one, to be blunt.

By definition of the German Basic law, which is binding to all parties in Germany. So, for the point being, it is relevant in Germany.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Those party lists have to be voted for, or against. They are not forced onto the party.

...But aren't the lists created by the party through an internal party process which is not open to the general voting public? And then, you do not have candidates for those seats, but simply these parties? Which then fill the seats according to these lists chosen through internal party process based on the percentage of the vote they gain? A process only mitigated by the fact that in Germany the other half of the seats are filled by direct election?

By definition of the German Basic law, which is binding to all parties in Germany. So, for the point being, it is relevant in Germany.

Legally relevant. Is it, however, correct, for the parties to hold such a legal position, when they ultimately exist only to advance their own interests?

[NecronLord]

It stops people voting for the candidate whose name looks best on a bumper sticker doesn't it?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It stops people voting for the candidate whose name looks best on a bumper sticker doesn't it?

And it takes how much longer for a Party to devise a slogan like "New Labour, New Threat!" which has the same effect on people of that intelligence level?

[Dahak]

Those party lists have to be voted for, or against. They are not forced onto the party.

...But aren't the lists created by the party through an internal party process which is not open to the general voting public? And then, you do not have candidates for those seats, but simply these parties? Which then fill the seats according to these lists chosen through internal party process based on the percentage of the vote they gain? A process only mitigated by the fact that in Germany the other half of the seats are filled by direct election?

But I honestly don't see your problem.
That's the German way ever since, and I prefer that to the terrible personalizing of election as in America.
You elect people, we elect parties. There's a really big difference there...

By definition of the German Basic law, which is binding to all parties in Germany. So, for the point being, it is relevant in Germany.

Legally relevant. Is it, however, correct, for the parties to hold such a legal position, when they ultimately exist only to advance their own interests?

Those paragraphs are there to prevent something like the NSDAP rearing its ugly head ever again. As is the whole constitution.

[NecronLord]

It stops people voting for the candidate whose name looks best on a bumper sticker doesn't it?

And it takes how much longer for a Party to devise a slogan like "New Labour, New Threat!" which has the same effect on people of that intelligence level?

Clearly a phrase which never worked, given that the Conservatives are being overtaken by the Liberals these days. Though FYI Britain doesn't have PR.

Explain to me, how electing a person and investing power in that person and whatever preferences and peccadillos they may indulge is better than electing a party with clear aims and objectives?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But I honestly don't see your problem.
That's the German way ever since, and I prefer that to the terrible personalizing of election as in America.
You elect people, we elect parties. There's a really big difference there...

Yes, but the parties then can set their own agendas with far less regard for the people who put them in power, and the people chosen by them owe their loyalty to the party, instead of the people. The basic idea behind representative democracy is that you give your power in the government, your vote in affairs, to a representative, to make the system less unwieldy. In the proportional system, however, that power, it seems, becomes a pawn for the parties to trade off in games of increasing their own power.

Those paragraphs are there to prevent something like the NSDAP rearing its ugly head ever again. As is the whole constitution.

How does giving political parties a legally mandated role in government prevent the rise of fascism again?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Clearly a phrase which never worked, given that the Conservatives are being overtaken by the Liberals these days. Though FYI Britain doesn't have PR.

I know, it was just the first European slogan which came to mind which I thought you might recognize.

Explain to me, how electing a person and investing power in that person and whatever preferences and peccadillos they may indulge is better than electing a party with clear aims and objectives?

Because the party can say whatever it wants, and as long as it manages to appeal to the same percentage of the electorate, can retain its hold on power. It can shift, in the European system, and yet retain its grip. A person in the American system is fixed: He must appeal to the regional issues of a single district and he must appeal to as broad a base of them as possible to retain his personal power and whimsies. Hardly perfect, but you're more likely to get a wider scattering of what you voted for.

Besides that, the candidate can be, exactly, responsive to that region; instead of a party which is looking to play to a base of national voters and then turn that into power for coalition building in the government.

[Dahak]

But I honestly don't see your problem.
That's the German way ever since, and I prefer that to the terrible personalizing of election as in America.
You elect people, we elect parties. There's a really big difference there...

Yes, but the parties then can set their own agendas with far less regard for the people who put them in power, and the people chosen by them owe their loyalty to the party, instead of the people. The basic idea behind representative democracy is that you give your power in the government, your vote in affairs, to a representative, to make the system less unwieldy. In the proportional system, however, that power, it seems, becomes a pawn for the parties to trade off in games of increasing their own power.

Well, in your or our system, each party and person is free to increase his own power. But then he or the party is very unlikely to get re-elected. Which is the ultimate sovereign these days...

Those paragraphs are there to prevent something like the NSDAP rearing its ugly head ever again. As is the whole constitution.

How does giving political parties a legally mandated role in government prevent the rise of fascism again?

It allows for the abolition of parties and institutions, if they fail to adhear to the " free democratic basic order".

[Dahak]

Clearly a phrase which never w Because the party can say whatever it wants, and as long as it manages to appeal to the same percentage of the electorate, can retain its hold on power. It can shift, in the European system, and yet retain its grip. A person in the American system is fixed: He must appeal to the regional issues of a single district and he must appeal to as broad a base of them as possible to retain his personal power and whimsies. Hardly perfect, but you're more likely to get a wider scattering of what you voted for.

A party, too, has to adress regional issues. That what the state parties are for.

Besides that, the candidate can be, exactly, responsive to that region; instead of a party which is looking to play to a base of national voters and then turn that into power for coalition building in the government.

Incidentally, the increased "personalization" of elections is seen by many analysts as the ultimate downfall of German politics...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, in your or our system, each party and person is free to increase his own power. But then he or the party is very unlikely to get re-elected. Which is the ultimate sovereign these days...

Yes, but in your system, if a party made a shift in platform, they could easily pick up enough votes to compensate for the loss in votes from people who disagreed with the shift. In this way they can ignore the promises they made in their election platform with some confidence. In the American system a person cannot do this due to the need to appeal to a broad base and respond to regional issues which cannot be ignored regardless of party.

It allows for the abolition of parties and institutions, if they fail to adhear to the " free democratic basic order".

Interesting.

[Crown]

Sorry Duchess you are wrong. While the EU Parliament does work on a proportional representation system, this doesn't directly translate to no voting for a person as apposed to a party. Britain voted for the first time for the EU parliament under a proportional representation system 10th June 1999, under the European Parliamentary Elections Act which states;

3. - (1) The system of election in an electoral region in Great Britain shall be a regional list system complying with the following conditions.

(2) A vote may be cast for a registered party, or an individual candidate, named on the ballot paper.

(3) The first seat shall be allocated to the party or individual candidate with the greatest number of votes.

(4) The second and subsequent seats shall be allocated in the same way, except that the number of votes given to a party to which one or more seats have already been allocated shall be divided by the number of seats allocated plus one.

Should the individual win, then he/she may sit in the EU parliament as a Non-Attached MEP.

How the proportional representation system works in relation to a party is that the party appoints the person they want to hold the seat. However if someone actually votes for a party (which in Europe carries a meaning as stated by Darkling above), then the appointed party member will vote and carry out the ideologies that the party stands for. So I see no reason to call this un-democratic, in any sense of the word.

Well, you vote for the President, and if that candidate carries your state, the electoral college of your state (usually, at least one state splits the college) goes to that candidate. Then the President presents nominees to the cabinet positions to the Senate, which must confirm them before they are appointed. The Senate can block such appointments. A very balanced process.

So in essense, it's much like the appointment of the EU Commision. The most un-democratic institution in the EU. Thankyou for proving my point.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Incidentally, the increased "personalization" of elections is seen by many analysts as the ultimate downfall of German politics...

Elections are always about people. What you need to be worried about is a collapse of the balance of powers--that happened here when the Seventeenth Amendment passed and the Senate became an elected rather than appointed body. I think the House is fine as it is (or should be even more democratic with the addition of a recall mechanism) ; but we hardly need a democratic Senate, rather one that definitely responds to the Federal Republic aspect of our system.

You may be in better shape than we are if your balance of powers is intact, depending on the organization of your constitution to begin with. Of course, you've had it for less time--and thus, less time to decay.