German Presidential Election 2017

[Forty Two]

The President of the Federal Republic of the Federal Republic of Germany is up for grabs in 2017 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_pr ... tion,_2017

Who will the Federal Convention (an electoral body that consists of all members of the current Bundestag and an equal number of electors, who are elected by the sixteen state parliaments) choose to be the President?

And, the Chancellor position is up for grabs, too. Who will the Bundestag elect as Chancellor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_fe ... tion,_2017

If anyone knows who the people would vote for as Chancellor or President, if they allowed a popular vote on those offices, please cite some material.

[laklak]

It's not democratic!

[NineBerry]

Steinmeier (current Foreign Minister) will become President. Having an election with popular vote for the office wouldn't make much sense since the office doesn't hold any power at all. It's just "shaking hands" and "giving a nice speech at Christmas", not more.

Having a popular vote on the position of Chancellor wouldn't make much sense, either, since Germany doesn't have a presidential system, where parliament and executive branch are seen as standing independent from each other. The Chancellor is elected by the parliament and can also be un-elected by the parliament.

In a recent representative poll, 55% of the people asked, answered they would like Merkel to continue being Chancellor. https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland ... n-Mal.html

[Forty Two]

It's not democratic!

My word!

Perish the thought.

It must be! Germany is a modern, civilized country....

[Forty Two]

Having a popular vote on the position of Chancellor wouldn't make much sense, either, since Germany doesn't have a presidential system, where parliament and executive branch are seen as standing independent from each other. The Chancellor is elected by the parliament and can also be un-elected by the parliament.

Has their been any call to make it democratic?

In a recent representative poll, 55% of the people asked, answered they would like Merkel to continue being Chancellor. https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland ... n-Mal.html

That's interesting. The news I'm reading has her being criticized a lot. But, I haven't seen numbers, admittedly.

[NineBerry]

A parliamentary system is no less democratic than a presidential system. The two different system have emphasises on different aspects of democracy. One could argue that a presidential system is easier to transform into a tyranny because the elected president misses the control by parliament. Presidential systems in South America, Africa and eastern Europe are often very authoritarian. (Maybe we can add the US to the list very soon)

[Forty Two]

Definitely it is not less democratic, nor is it more democratic.

[pErvinalia]

It's more civilised, though..

[NineBerry]

Definitely it is not less democratic, nor is it more democratic.

I agree. However, I would say that the institution of the "Electoral College" in the US with its "Winner takes it all" rule adds an unnecessarily undemocratic element in this day and age.

[Forty Two]

It's more civilised, though..

Yes, if it's one thing the Germans have a reputation for, it's behaving in a civilized fashion.

[Forty Two]

Definitely it is not less democratic, nor is it more democratic.

I agree. However, I would say that the institution of the "Electoral College" in the US with its "Winner takes it all" rule adds an unnecessarily undemocratic element in this day and age.

Well, I would say that fact that in Germany you don't elect a chancellor by any semblance of a popular vote, but leave that up to the Reichstag, err.. I mean Bundestag, is an unnecessarily undemocratic element in this day and age.... if you added an electoral college system, you'd be making your system MORE democratic.

[NineBerry]

No, there are two very clear differences:

1. The votes in the Electoral College do not proportionally represent the population. (Because of "Winner takes it all" rule and not proportional votes per state considering their size) The Bundestag represents the population proportionally. Each member of the Bundestag represents the same number of voters.

2. Having an indirection in electing the chancellor is on purpose. The idea is that the legislative can at all times control the head of government. (The Bundestag can un-elect the Chancellor at any time). Having an indirection while voting the US president has no relevant purpose. The Electoral College votes the president and then has no more power. It cannot un-elect the president. It cannot control it. The original purpose of the Electoral College was a purely technical one (Mass Communication didn't exist in the 18th century).

[Forty Two]

No, there are two very clear differences:

1. The votes in the Electoral College do not proportionally represent the population. (Because of "Winner takes it all" rule and not proportional votes per state considering their size) The Bundestag represents the population proportionally. Each member of the Bundestag represents the same number of voters.

The winner take all reflects the federal system, and is analogous to the German federal system in that in German you elect your members to the Bundestag, and then the majority of Bundestag members choose the Chancellor. So, in essence, winner takes all in your system too - because the "winner" in a given district is the member of the Bundestag who wins.

I.e., your system is like our system would be if we had our Congressmen choose the President. It'd be winner take all in the sense that the winner of each district takes the right to vote for the President. So, if a Republican wins a House seat by 51 to 49 percent, he would still cast his vote for the Republcan.

That's how electing a PM works in most Parliamentary systems. It's winner take all. Each person elects an MP who is like an elector when it comes to choosing the PM. The person who wins the MP for Sedgefield, for example, is the elector who votes for the PM and he is voting on behalf of Sedgefield in what amounts to winner take all.

2. Having an indirection in electing the chancellor is on purpose.

as is the indirection in the electoral college. The EC, however, has the added benefit of bringing in other stakeholders, rather than limiting the right to vote for the head of government to members of parliament or the bundestag.

The idea is that the legislative can at all times control the head of government. (The Bundestag can un-elect the Chancellor at any time). Having an indirection while voting the US president has no relevant purpose. The Electoral College votes the president and then has no more power. It cannot un-elect the president. It cannot control it. The original purpose of the Electoral College was a purely technical one (Mass Communication didn't exist in the 18th century).

Yes, but the legislature can unelect him through impeachment. And, there were several purposes of the electoral college. Certainly one was the pragmatic concern you point out - communication - travel to voting places - recording and caring for votes - transporting them, etc. It made a lot of sense back then to vest someone with voting authority and send him to DC, rather than to try to keep track of every last vote. I agree with you there.

[NineBerry]

The winner take all reflects the federal system, and is analogous to the German federal system in that in German you elect your members to the Bundestag, and then the majority of Bundestag members choose the Chancellor. So, in essence, winner takes all in your system too - because the "winner" in a given district is the member of the Bundestag who wins.

No, that is wrong. The number of seats in the Bundestag per party is based upon the total number of votes for all parties (that reach the minimum threshold). So if say 30% of votes go to one party, this party is guaranteed to get 30% of the seats in Bundestag.

For an example let's assume there are 100 voting districts and 3 parties. In each district, party A's candidate gets 40%, party B's candidate gets 30% and party C's candidate gets 30%.

In the UK system, the parliament would be made up of 100 members, all belonging to party A, although only 40% of the voters voted in favor of party A. In the German system, the Bundestag would be made up of 250 members, 100 for party A (the 100 persons elected directly), 75 for party B and 75 for party C. Party B and Party C can form a coalition and elect a Chancellor because they represent 60% of the voters.

[Forty Two]

The winner take all reflects the federal system, and is analogous to the German federal system in that in German you elect your members to the Bundestag, and then the majority of Bundestag members choose the Chancellor. So, in essence, winner takes all in your system too - because the "winner" in a given district is the member of the Bundestag who wins.

No, that is wrong. The number of seats in the Bundestag per party is based upon the total number of votes for all parties (that reach the minimum threshold). So if say 30% of votes go to one party, this party is guaranteed to get 30% of the seats in Bundestag.

For an example let's assume there are 100 voting districts and 3 parties. In each district, party A's candidate gets 40%, party B's candidate gets 30% and party C's candidate gets 30%.

In the UK system, the parliament would be made up of 100 members, all belonging to party A, although only 40% of the voters voted in favor of party A. In the German system, the Bundestag would be made up of 250 members, 100 for party A (the 100 persons elected directly), 75 for party B and 75 for party C. Party B and Party C can form a coalition and elect a Chancellor because they represent 60% of the voters.

Wait, clarify that for me.

My understanding is that in Germany you would vote for a direct candidate with respect to whom you are a constituent, who applies for a direct mandate in the Bundestag. So, you vote for a candidate of several candidates running for a seat in the Bundestag for the area they will represent, right? There are 299 constituencies in Germany, yes?

Then you cast a second vote for parties, right? And, the parties getting at least 5% of the vote split up the total seats in the Bundestag.

So, in the first vote, if you live in Berlin, your "first vote" will have a different set of candidates than that of another person voting in Munich or Frankfurt, right? You vote for candidates running in your district?

I'm not trying to argue with you - trying to clarify. I thought I understood it, but after you described it, I am not sure I get it.