Ngtjyty

This question about Bundestag elections (How does the German Bundestag election system work?) does a good job at summarising Bundestag elections. Long story short: 299 directly-elected candidate from local electoral districts, 299 party seats filled from lists on a proportional vote in each Land, and some overhang seats to balance it all off.

The point of the directly-elected candidates is clear: so that people may be represented by someone locally, someone who may be their point of contact and who they can take their grievances to. Fair.

My question is about the other 299 seats: with a system of overhang seats, why do we need them at all? Can we not have more electoral districts (say 400 or 500) and then use the second vote to provide enough overhang seats to ensure proportionality?

In the previous question, a comment said "The list mechanism allows parties to get e.g. their budget expert in even if he or she is no charismatic speaker." Is that all or am I missing something? Putting party politics aside, wouldn't it ideally be better to just have directly-elected seats and the overhang ones (which would indeed become more numerous)? So there would still be seats filled from lists but way less then now, and that would prevent list candidates from having a sure seat in Parliament just because they have the favors of their party.

There are two common electoral systems which are proportional representation and plurality voting.

• Proportional representation gives a voice to regionally diverse groups. If ten or twenty percent of the voters support a party nationwide, with no regional concentration, that party gets ten or twenty percent of the seats (after rounding) even if they do not reach a plurality in any one district.


• Proportional representation makes it easier for new parties to form. A new party can organize themselves, try to get a couple of percent, and send representatives to parliament who have a voice. The Grüne and the AfD did that, the Piraten failed after some state election successes. This would have been much harder if their votes had been discounted until they reach a plurality in any one district.


• Plurality voting helps to create clear majorities. While it is not universal, it tends to encourage two-party systems, with the "coalition talks" being done before the election when the candidate and party platform is determined. After that, one or the other side wins.


• Proportional representation helps to encourage coalition governments which represent a broad consensus. For decades before Reunification, it was the FDP with either the SPD or the Union. This kept the socialist tendencies in the SPD and the authoritarian tendencies in the Union in check.


• Plurality voting gives each district a clear representative. People can call "their" MdB with any complaints they have.

Germany wants all the advantages of proportional representation and still keep some of the advantages of plurality voting. This leads to the current system, which used to work nicely as long as there were two large parties and a couple of smaller ones.

To make this happen, they could do away with the seats "reserved" for party lists, but that would result in a wildy fluctuating size of the parliament. That can be a problem if they want to staff not just a budget subcommittee and one on taxes but also fisheries and culture. Right now the size is also fluctuating, but only upwards and not downwards.

The system wasn't created and isn't described in that way in the law. There is only one sort of seat and they are distributed according to the second vote. Period. That's the driving force behind the composition of the German Bundestag and the most important feature of the system, even if it often gets lost in discussion of a “mixed voting system” and the like. Among those 598 seats, some are first filled with the candidates who won a plurality of the vote in their district but, as long as they fit within their party's regular quota, their seats are not thought of as a distinct type of seats.

Having a limited total number of seats and directly elected candidates creates situations in which candidates with a plurality of the vote in their district don't have a seat. This is counter-intuitive and feels anti-democratic, hence the overhang mandates. In any given parliament, there aren't that many of them and they do not play a major role in the relative strength of the parties. It's a quirk on top of a mostly proportional voting system, overhang seats do not restore the proportionality of the representation, they distort it. So if there were more districts, there would be more overhang seats but less proportionality.

Then, the details of the way the system works (and especially the fact seats are first distributed by province before being allocated to a party) created some paradoxes and, after a court case, the system was altered to add another type of “balancing” seats. This a fix on top of an add-on, historically the system wasn't designed in that way.

You could perhaps contrive a system where you add many balancing seats to get some specific proportion to the various political parties without specifying the number of seats beforehand but it's difficult to see how that would work or be desirable. You still need party lists to fill up all those balancing seats and you still need people to cast two votes, lest the results be strongly biased by the first-past-the-post logic of the so-called first vote. Furthermore, the fact that the number of elected members of parliament is not set before the vote (and can change during the mandate as rules on their replacement differ depending on how they were elected) does not seem like a very desirable feature. Your idea would just strengthen this aspect as well.

There is something to be said for directly elected members of parliament of course but then you end with something like the British or French systems, with a strong bias in favor of the largest parties. From that perspective, they are more seats than districts in Germany to ensure the representation is (roughly) proportional and overhang and balancing seats to fix the paradoxes arising from the direct election of some candidates. On the other hand, the question of why you need “party” seats never arose, they are the most important feature of the system.