The 5% hurdle is not to keep extremist parties out, it's so the parliament is not fractured into hundreds of smaller parties unable to form lasting coalitions.
I call it "The Asshole Rule" - because you can find about 5% in any group that the rest just considers irredeemable assholes. Y'know, like the asshole guy who sues his entire neighbourhood over minor stuff instead of just talking to the folks living next door. Or the asshole woman who always requires an extra seat for her handbag in public transportation. Or the asshole kid that brags about their skiing holiday in front of the kids from poorer families that can't afford going on vacation. Without the 5% hurdle, every self-centered, anti-social narcissist would form a party incapable of ever receiving a significant level of public support. To those types, it's not about winning elections, it's about being 'right' and public attention.
BrokenCurtain as a handbag seat hogger I’d like to try explaining why people do it: by keeping my handbag next to me I can discourage creeps from sitting down next to me. I’ll readily move my purse for anyone looking for a seat as long as they don’t make me feel uncomfortable or unsafe in any way. But this way I can chose to not have certain people sitting beside me and getting close to me without having to outright tell them that they are being creepy
German here. You made a little mistake there in saying that the Zweitstimme (party vote) determines how the remaining 299 seats are distributed. It actually determines the distribution of all of the 598 seats between parties. Once those seats are assigned to the parties, they all have to fill them with their candidates that won the Erststimme vote of their constituencies. Their remaining seats are then filled with candidates from a ranked list that the parties have to create and publicize before the vote. Should a party have more representives from constiuencies than they have been seats assigned, additional seats are added proportionally to all parties in the Bundestag, so that all elected representatives can get their seat without greatly altering the proportions between the parties. Also it's worth mentioning that every candidate that has won the Erststimme vote of their constituency gets a seat in the Bundestag, even if their party did not get the required 5% of votes or if they are an independent without a party. Should a party manage to win 3 seats in this way, it is excepted from the 5%-rule.
pfefferle74 an other exception from the five percent threshold is, if you are a party which represents an indigenous minority, like the SSW (southern schleswigish(?) voters union) in case of the Frisians and Danes. But this party never ever candidates to the German federal diet elections, it only candidates for the state diet elections of Schleswig-Holstein (the most northern state of Germany, where their voters actually do live)...
Those exceptions from the threshold apply only to state elections and are defined in the state constitution. If the SSW would stand for a federal election, it would have to pass the 5% threshold.
varana312 no it does not only in state law. Since 1953 are parties of national minorities exempt of the 5% threshold (§6 Abs. 3 Satz 2 Bundeswahlgesetz) to elections of the federal diet.
Yeah, I think this is what makes the video so complicated as they say and more complicated than it needs to be. Second vote determines the seats distribution, first vote the local representative. If you just explain it like that, you easily get to the question, what happens, when a party has more direct mandates than it should have via second vote and therefore it easily explains, why the Bundestag usually exceeds the 598 default seats.
It's in a way really simple: We just have to make two crosses (and even if we left out one, the ballot is still ok, only if we make more than two or write something on it, the ballot gets invalid), one for the party, one for the candidate of the state, which is most likely (but not always) one of the two biggest parties. This ensures, that we normally always have two big major parties and other parties, that are smaller, but are influencial, as their political strength lays in bringing specific topics like enviromental security, liberalism, social security and so on into the Bundestag. Although in this days due to the decline of the SPD (because they have forgotten many of the agendas, which made them strong), the major parties just get a bit over 60% together.
So easy for the politicians to fool you again and again. Merkel would be a lifetime Kanzlerin thanks to this rigged and fixed collution system. You should have term limits!
Well, it's complicated enough, so that even most young academics don't know what their votes do exactly. And no, many Germans did not learn enough about it in school, the topic is usually slightly touched and that's it. Tons of people vote complete bullshit or against their own interests, because they were not sufficiently educated about the party system, power and interest formation. German political education is a complete mess and one of the main reasons why almost half of young people does not vote at all. It's the same in most Western countries nowadays, though. That's because the conservative, big parties in power profit from voters being uninformed and from young and low-SES voters not voting at all. Good political education for the masses is the worst thing that could happen to conservative parties. Since they're the ones that steer educational politics today, this situation will not change anytime soon.
That's not true. We still chose our fate. When CDU gets 35% , 1/3 of all germans want Merkel to stay as her chancellor. SPD could also win and appoint a chancellor, but they need the Votes.
it's not really complicated, but many voters don't understand the strategic options of the two votes. e.g. it's actually pretty stupid to vote in both votes for the same party. the party you vote for with your second vote doesn't get stronger (more seats), when you also vote for a candidate from that very same party with your first vote. technically your first vote is wasted when you do that. nonetheless many german voters choose the same party in both votes.
+stronius99 apart from the fact that this year _almost no_ poster mentiones that, the candidates from the voting districts of course still want to be voted for. they of course still prefer to get into the parliament themselves over the party being able to choose someone else from the state's list. since the candidates typically are the ones organizing the regional campaigns in their districts, their point of view can sometimes be represented more noticable. nonetheless at the end of the day a party doesn't get a bigger share of seats in the parliament, when voters give both of their votes for one party. only the second vote is crucial for the percentage of seats a party gets. so, a first vote is wasted, when it goes to the same party as the second vote (or even when it goes to another party, who reaches the 5% anyway). voters, who use their first vote for independents or very small parties (which never ever would reach the 5%) on the other hand do _not_ waste their vote, because they can support a party that might represent their opinion even better than the bigger parties (they vote for with their second vote in a pragmatic manner). very small parties at least can get money for their campaigns (if they don't have a state's list) - even if they don't reach the 5% (something the bigger parties of course don't like).
Yeah, it's not that complicated honestly. But talking to some people, there still seem to be people who haven't had this explained to them in school. Makes me worry about the future and our education.
Because the Überhangmandate and Ausgleichsmandate are complicated. Why do you think Bundestag is growing bigger and bigger? everyone's complaining about it, no one has a good idea how to change it
In the UK we can actually see what happens if there is no second vote: the ruling party can get overproportionally more seats then the votes they got indicates thanks to the first vote.
AtzenMiro FPTP elections like in Canada and the UK, should have a second round of voting between the top two candidates. People should not serve in cabinet because they are on a party list. Also three party coalitions are too unstable.
Germany's first vote is also based on first-past-the-vote, wich is why we have the second vote. A second round of voting between the top two candidates doesn't work in a parliamantarian democracy, it only works in a presidential democracy like in France (where it's done).
In France there are two rounds for the national assembly, too! It works though. But it creates kind of fixed blocks of parties (left and right traditionally) and hinders compromise and cooperation between both wings.
I donhave to say of all the political systems I have some familiarity with, the British is definitely the most entertaining. If because if nothing else for the fact that whenever you think you've understood it they come out with some new thing that makes you go "Hey they can't do that! Or can they? Well apparently they can."
...complicated??? I'm from Germany and literally everyone knows how this System works. We learn this stuff in 7th grade, so even people who aren't really interested in politics have a pretty good understanding of how the elections work.
This "complicated" system is a well known and quite widely used Mixed Member Proportional. The two votes essentially come from trying to balance local presentation and national level politics, while maintaining the principle of proportionality, the amount of power party gets should be proportional to their size of their voter base (indicated by the second vote).
Is it the same as nz's MMP though? She said that the party votes are used to divide the REMAINING seats in the Bundestag- rather than the party vote being proportional to the amount of seats in Parliament that each party receives
germany has that 5 % thing, because in the weimarer repuplic where many partys with 1% or 2% so , it get out of control because all partys had differnet meannings and opinions .
If the threshold were lowered to 1%, only two more parties would have been elected to the Bundestag in 2017. That’s not a big difference. I don’t see that as getting “out of control.”
@@HorrorMetalDnD In Denmark the threshold is 2%, but I have not seen a country which uses proportional representation voting in their general elections sets the threshold under 2%.
Die Erziehung eines Menschens kann eine große Rolle mit der Aussprache spielen. Meine Söhne wurden zweisprachig in Deutschland aufgezogen: Deutsch von der Mama (Deutsche) und Englisch von dem Papa (der bin ich... "Ami"). Auf Deutsch klingen die Jungs wie ganz normale Deutschen; auf Englisch sprechen die Beiden wie Amis aus Kalifornien. :)
I don't know if its the same with the american "t" but Chinese cannot pronounce "r" because chinese simply does not have that sound (they dont have a 'l' either but rather an in between sound). If you do not learn language specific intonations during childhood it almost impossible to do so later on. The brain simply has stopped developing in that regard. So its not a 'mechanical' issue in the sense that your tongue and so on are not trained to do what it has to for certain sounds but that you brain cannot tell its a sound for words (it hard to even imagine sounds that are alien to your own language(s))
I think our system is actually pretty simple. The US voting system however is very hard to understand. Furthermore it seems to be kind of undemocratic, if the popular vote does NOT make the president.
MrLikeAsatellite think of it like this, if Europe would form to be a country and Russia was in there with its 150million people, russia would have much more power than other countries. To be more fair there is the electoral college. This way germany and other countries with less people have a fair chance to decide if putin becomes the European president or not. Yes I know Europe has 500million people but thats my best explanation.
@@MACBLACK91 This principle values state identity over the individual voter's. It results in different values for the individual votes cast by actual people in elections, making it unfair and undemocratic. In your example, the vote of an Italian citizen would be worth MANY times more than that of a Russian citizen. That's extremely undemocratic, because the idea of a democracy is that the people are represented, not their respective home states.
Well America is a republic, not a democracy, the people do choose the president, they are simply given the illusion that they are (except for in a couple of States). The president is detirmned by the electoral college, a group of 548 (I think) people called electors, they're votes are the only votes that matter, and they do not have to vote in favor of the state, some states require the electors to vote for the popular candidate in their state, but some states allow for the electors to vote for whoever they want. And in all but two states, they are required to vote unanimously. There is also a law that states that the minimum number of electors per state is 3. So states that are smaller actually have more power in a presidential election, it's not Democratic because America isn't a democracy. So don't worry, our system is confusing because we're idiots, the easiest way to remember how a US election works is: only 547 people vote in an election for the president.
@@dontlookatender9282 The US is a Republic AND a Democracy (albeit a very flawed one). Democracy is a form of Gouvernement while a Republic means that the people have the power. Come to think of it, the US is quite close to beeing neither.
@@macgruber6739 democray is loosely Greek for demokratos meaning "people rule". A democracy is when the people vote on the president and there leaders, direct democray is when the people are the representatives. A republic is when a select few make the decisions. the US is a republic, with some democray scattered here and there
Other mistake: a party can form a coalition even if it is not the largest party in the Bundestag. A small party could form a coalition with several other smaller parties and thus have their candidate elected chancellor as long as they all form a majority.
It's not only theoretical by the way. During the "sozialliberale" period of SPD/FDP coalitions, sometimes the CDU/CSU was the strongest party but not getting to govern. Or, if you want to take another look at it (which would certainly confuse non Germans even more, while Germans may remember Gerhard Schröder arguing along those lines, not very convincingly, during the 2005 "Elefantenrunde"), the CDU was sometimes weaker than the SPD while governing, though thanks to the CSU the "Fraktion" had more seats.
Totally complicated! 2 votes... Too complex for americans xD In Germany you can vote your favourite candidate in your district and a "Partei" you like. In the USA you have Trump. Well done
Ma Pa is doing nothing really better than doing crazy BS? Is saying "yes" to everything and not standing for anything really better than saying "NO" and standing up for it? ...🤔
Drizzt Do'urden being respectful and making economy great and crime as well as joblessness low is great. She isn’t doing nothing she stands for stabilityv
Temujin. The issue isn't how smaller states gets more votes. You can easily make a "progressive system" (as in smaller states gets more representation than larger ones), without having a first-past the post system where winner takes all the votes of the electoral college. That way smaller states can keep getting their extra representation, and still make sure that you actually get more choices than your two current parties.
Ahem. German speaking here: Although this is a rather good explanation of the Federal Parliament voting system, there's one major error. The second vote does not determine the proportions between parties inside only a 299-seat-sized partition of the Bundestag but of the total of all seats of the entire Bundestag (whatever this total due to overhang and balance seats may be in the end). For a long time is was close to that (but still not exactly as described), when Bundestag consisted of 299 constituency seats and 299 party seats and the second vote determined the proportions between parties regarding exactly these 598 seats. Overhang seats came on top of that and didn't enter the proportions. 2008 this was declared invalid by ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court and 2013 electoral law was reformed. Since then if parties win more constituency seats than their second vote results would allow, additional seats are granted to the other parties to restore the proportions - the balance seats.
No, she doesn't. From 1:38 she says “The second vote on the right side of the ballot is for a political party. This vote determines how the remaining 299 seats will be divided up among Germany's various political parties.” And this is wrong. The second vote determines the relative proportions of the parties’ seats referring to the entirety of all Bundestag seats, be it 598, 620, 639 or what the outcome will be.
Yes, I have watched the video. The introduction of overhang and balance seats given later is basically ok but all what is said is that their purpose is to rebalance the proportions, without any example. And especially the quoted wrong introductory statement 2nd votes would refer to only 299 seats is not corrected. 2nd votes ALWAYS yield the proportions among ALL 598+ Bundestag seats at any point of the calculation. If addtional overhang seats basing on 1st votes outbalance the total(!) proportions set by the 2nd votes, then balance seats are introduced to rebalance this proportions, again referring to the total of all seats, not only 299, as stated.
It's a great system because the amount of seats a party gets is proportional to the amount of votes a party gets. In the US the Libertarian and Green party can get a few percent of votes but will never get a seat.
@@Skankhunt-mv4vd The main reason for that is that people who would vote for them don't because they don't want to "waste their vote". If voting for them was likely to get them at least a handful of seats in Congress, let alone enough to make the two big parties have to compromise with them in order to pass any legislation, then their vote share would rise quite a bit.
@@Rafinius Even if lets say "socialists" or "liberterians" were able to get seats for their respective parties, they would immediately form coalitions and would vote along the traditional two party lines on the vast majority of issues, so you would only be moving the "wasting my vote" thinking from the voter to the representative, which would make the end result the same.
The beautiful part about Germany's system compared to the US is, that it makes parties more resilient to extremisation and maintains some cooperation between the parties. 1. While the CDU/CSU are fairly comparable to the American Republicans, there was no Trump-style populist takeover. This is because the vocal right wing subgroups can go into their own parties. The CDU is more like the traditional Republican party, whereas the Libertarian Republicans would rather join the FDP and the Nazis and Trump voters join the AfD. 2. Even the biggest parties need coalitions to govern, so the parties can't burn bridges to other parties like the Republicans did since the "Gingrich Revolution" in the 90s. Sure there are clear party boundaries, but partisanship remains much more civil. 3. The parties are very much incentivisied to stay away from extremist groups like the Trump-like AfD, so even if they gain ~15% like they do now, there is little danger of them actually getting into a government position. That is also in major part due to the second point, because such right-wing populists only succeed by treating everyone else as an enemy.
1.While within parties the ideologies are relatively consistent, voters could still take their votes to other parties that are further along the political spectrum. This was seen when the CDU/CSU got b*tchslaped in several state elections in Germany as well as the AfD rising. 2. CDU like traditional Republicans? Tell me another joke. The CDU are centre right on only economic issues, but centrist to centre-left on economic. The CDU is essentially all the ideas of US Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat, as a party. 3, Sorry to burst your bubble but Nazis still don't have a party to represent them in the Bundestag: very good news though. 4. Burning bridges is common in 2 party systems. The Democrats have also incinerated bridges before as well. 5. Coalitions are needed but coalitions are generally formed with parties that share principles, so a sense of partisanship is still there. 6. You can try to ignore the AfD as a party but you can't ignore their victories. It takes something for a party that was mostly a minor party 4 years ago to be polling in 2nd/3rd place in federal opinion polls. Parties will eventually form coalitions with these groups once their wins continue to grow. 7. I find it a tad ironic you exault this system for indirectly promoting bipartisanship by discouraging partisanship but then engage in partisanship to bring down other parties that you do not agree with.
Actually I have to disagree with your comparison of German and American Parties. Germany has shifted distinctively to the more liberal or „left“ overall regarding its politics in recent years. I would say instead that the Democratic Party in the U.S is closest to a combination of the CDU/SPD (Grand Coalition) and the US Republicans are closest to the very conservative wing of the CDU or the Moderate part of the AFD. The FDP is sort of in between the democratic and Republican Party in the political spectrum although they are called the free liberals, they should be called libertarian party which would be much more fitting in my opinion.
you can do that all in one trip and one day, fly to düsseldorf early in the morning, rent a car, drive to cologne, take the shot around 10, take the car to berlin, take those shots in the evening(you see the sunset). fly back from Berlin at night. you could even save money if you are lucky with the flightticket prices. you can rent a car for a day if you save 60ish $ per ticket with a team of 3. and if not, well you get some nice shots for the price of a rental car, not the worst deal.
German election results converted into US-units: George W. Bush: 33.0% Hillary Clinton: 20.5% Donald Trump: 12.6% Gary Johnson: 10.7% Bernie Sanders: 9.2% Jill Stein: 8.9%
Weimar didn't fail because of a lack of a threshold though. It failed because a majority voted on anti-system parties. It all went downhill with the Juli 1932 election when Hitler's NSDAP received 37,3% and the communist KPD received 14,3% of the votes. It was simply not possible to build a stable government like that and it wouldn't be in today's system either. So imho at least today it is nothing but a cheap excuse of the established parties to keep people away from voting for new or smaller parties that could threaten their position. Germany wouldn't collapse from having a handful of representatives from the Pirate party, Die PARTEI, the Free Voters and even the NPD, even though the last one can rot in hell for all I care. In the last election a shocking ~16% of the votes were not represented in the Bundestag and as far as I'm concerned that's quite undemocratic.
Bumayé that’s because a party needs a minimum of 5% to get in the Bundestag. Otherwise coalitions would be a night,are and there’d be way to many parties in the Bundestag.
Bumayé But why did people in 1932 voted extremist parties? The governments before were really unstable. Partly because of the unwillingness to make a deal, partly because of the fractured parlament and the monarchistic president Hindenburg. There a lot more reasons like eg the treaty of Versailles, so 1932 was not the reason of Weimars failure, but the consequence.
Free Thinker On the one hand they voted for extreme parties because they were desperate to get a working government and extreme parties often gave simple solutions and promised change. On the other hand they didn't really think that these extreme parties would be able to make it very long because there were re-elections every few months. They were not able to govern properly in this political chaos so nobody really believed that something could rise out of this wreck of a government.
Nope, the democracy was doomed the moment the contract of Versailles was signed. There was litterally no way germany could have escaped another dictatorship. Left or right-wing wouldn't have mattered. Weimar failed because of alot of reasons. For example: the economic crisis in 1929, the contract of Versailles, the inability of the Reichstag to form a stable goverment or Hindenburgs failure to deal with the situation..... just to call a bunch. But there is way more to it than "they just voted for the Nazis". It didnt go downhill when Hitler was basicly already elected lol. A threshold is important to keep politics consistent and small parties can get big fast. The AFD or the Green Party are good examples for that.
A party does not need 5% of the 2nd votes in a state to qualify. A party needs 5% in the whole country. Huge difference. If a party gets 3 or more candidates elected directly via the 1st vote the party qualifies for the Bundestag even if below the 5% threshold. And overall it is very simple. 2nd vote determines the proportion of seats among the partys. That is the real significant part. Everything else like the Overhang Madates are simply a mechanic to get to that proportion; including a balance of the parties and the 16 federal states. When you learn from the results abroad you will get to know the 2nd vote proportion and possible coalitions. Probably not much else. And the election is pretty fair. Every of the 2nd votes really counts. Not like in GB or the USA were the losing candidates votes are simply gone.
1:32 Wrong. The second vote determinates the percentage of seats over all seats - including the 299 from the first vote! The overall percentage of one party must not be changed by the 1st votes! That's why they have to adjust the total number of seats.
Armando B. There is a Differenz in being complecated and STUPID. Two party system, STUPID. Vote not on sunday, STUPID. Not directly voting someone but someone else that votes but can vote for something different then what he said he would do, STUPID.
Best explanation in English of the German political system I have seen so far. I particularly liked that you also tried to explain the reasoning behind the parts that may seem weird or unnecessary at first, like the 5% threshold or overhang mandates.
This is called a Mixed-Member-Proportional (MMP) electoral system. If you are looking for another example to help you understand how the process works, New Zealand also has MMP as its electoral system.
John Cleese (yes, that John Cleese) once responded to the accusation of STV being a voting system that was too complicated to understand - "Yes, admittedly, if you have trouble counting up to five, STV might be too hard on you."
The 2nd vote is there to recognize the lost votes of the direct mandate, who get elected with simple majority which in a multi party system quickly reduces the threshold and makes the parliament less representative of what people voted. The UK and US have very bad proportional representation due to having only direct mandates. You need some correction system so you don't get disenfranchised as a voter just because you live in a neighbourhood that does not share your political views. Proportional voting also stifles gerrymandering and helps new parties to develop.
Not quite correct. The federal government (Bundesregierung) is just the executive branch - not all the 3 branches together as in the US. And the Bundesrat is not quite one of two chambers of parliament. On the one hand, of course, both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat are involved in lawmaking, which would confirm the bicameral theory. On the other hand, they do not belong to a "superior parliament." Both bodies are independent constitutional organs. There is also a corresponding ruling on this by the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGe 37, 363). It states: "According to the regulation of the Basic Law, the Bundesrat is not a second chamber of a unified legislative body, which would be decisively involved in the legislative process on an equal footing with the 'first chamber'."
You forgot that you can't vote certain parties in certain states. For example you can't vote DIB in Rhineland-Palatin! Or you can only vote for the CSU in Bavaria but not for the CDU. if the CSU would get less than 5% it wouldn't enter the Bundestag even though it is in a union with the CDU and this Union would get more than 30%! The German system is a lot more complicated! But this is a great video to explain the (really) advanced basics of the election!
Malte DI1 And this is actually directly against German law. Since CDU/CSU used to have the same agenda, it wasn‘t an issue, but since they clashed, split and started following different agendas.. it‘s actually illegal, because in Germany every party HAS TO BE ellectable by any state or person. Which is currently not the case
I expected this to be complicated, then I realised she basically explained a form of proportional representation similar to what we use in New Zealand...so not really complicated at all😅
This is not a complicated system. It's more or less same in India too except the two votes system.. Maybe complicated for the americans but not the rest of the world.
What are you talking there? I am a german and our system is really simple. And better than the american system ,we can vote our own gouverment and doesent need voters that vote for us . So we will never a strange guy like Trump.
One thing that is criticized a lot in the German system is the voting of the political leader by the parties, and not by the people, but in fact this is a insurance for having a leader with power up front. The parties show, that they Are willing to follow and trust in the chancellor, so he can make political decisions and laws. With Obama as a president and a lacking majority in the legislative chambers you could see the big problem that comes up, if you have an agenda but no possibility to pass laws...
Kiwi here. We have MMP here as well. It's not that complicated. It actually makes your parliament or house of representatives more indicative of the population of your country. Here's the kicker. MMP was thought up by two americans.
Ministers in the german government arent similar to secretaries in the american system at all. They actually get to do something instead of just giving the head of state advice.
As a German, I think I´m more than qualified to explain how a German election works: 1.) You enter the voting booth. 2.) You vote for Angela Merkel. I hope I could shed some light on this very complicated issue.
I'm not a German, yet I know that unless you are one of the 250k lucky ducks, who live in the relatively small electoral constituency Vorpommern-Rügen - Vorpommern-Greifswald in north-east Germany, you actually cannot vote for Angela Merkel. Everywhere else you can vote for CDU/CSU. Are you from there or did you just fail at voting?
No, it's not the same. I read your other ignorant comments under this video and I can understand why you think that he "simplified the process" - ignorance.
If AOC is having trouble understanding the Electoral College system in the US, I wonder what kind of nonsense she is going to utter if asked about the Electoral system of Germany
I mean a person that things that the democrats are centre-right. Is totally resonable German conservative that have implemented universal healthcare in the 19th century and a strong social state after WW2.
Short version, Germans can vote for partys and people that should play the rulers on the poltical stage but they can not decide any concrete question. It's like in most of the western oligarchy systems, they can choose their spekaers but not their rulers. The only exception I know is switzerland.
Not being able to differenciate between a representative democracy and a oligarchy is a new one. People who talk like this about representative democracies are those who never could be arsed to get their ass up themselfes and get active in politics themselfes. But as always, it's so much easier to complain than to actually do something.
At least you got the point, it was critism on representative democracy. I am active in poltics for years my friend. I started at what you would call college and now I am still "getting my ass up" to fight for real democracy. If you ever read Platon or Aristoteles you know it yourself, we are not living in a demoratic system. They hated democracy at that time and the establishment hates it still today. Or to say it with James Madisons words, the representaive democracy was created "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority“. What wrote the Times on April 21th 2014: "America is no longer a democracy - nevermind the democratic republic en-visioned by Founding Fathers." And you are also blaming President Jimmy Carter? He called the USA an „oligarchy“ with an „unlimited political bribery“. (July 28th 2015) And I am not only talking about the USA, but about all representive democracies I know except switzerland. Of course you must be right my friend. But please , wake up!
Switzerland is also a representative democracy with SOMETIMES held public votes. If you don't want representative politics what do you want? A public vote on every single issue? Good luck with that, because no single person has enough time nor capacity in any other way to research every single topic he is about to vote for. Let alone WANTING to do that. It's just not possible, that's why representative politics exist. You elect a person with simmiliar values to do the FULL TIME JOB for you. If you ever been in politics you should have known that.
Right. But they have the possibility to decide about concrete questions. That is what real democracy meant. ANd somtimes is also right, last year they could decide about 13 questions made in 4 public votings. And yes I think the parliaments are a good idea to complement(!) the idea of democracy. But if the superior really shout be the one who have the power he must have the possibility to decide about important questions. The superior should have the last word and of course basic rights should still be indefeasible. The model of switzerland is not perfect but it is better then every parliament-only system. And it desrves the name democracy. And yes the disadvantage is that the decisions are often very conservative.
Lily71, you call me a lier or whats your point? Guess what, I have no TV since over ten years. If you don't know about the definitiosn of democracy, oligarchy, ochlocraty , monarchy and so on you should first read some educational books. Therfore stop blaming me and look yourself in the mirror. I gave you some quotes and talking points. You can try to proof and come back. But come back with real arguments, please.
Left hand side of the ballot voting for the constituency, right hand side for the party you want to win the general election. Overhang seats to represent politicians who obtain 5% or more of the vote to get a seat. *************************COMPLICATED***************************
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
The 5% hurdle is not to keep extremist parties out, it's so the parliament is not fractured into hundreds of smaller parties unable to form lasting coalitions.
A.k.a. the Netherlands
I call it "The Asshole Rule" - because you can find about 5% in any group that the rest just considers irredeemable assholes.
Y'know, like the asshole guy who sues his entire neighbourhood over minor stuff instead of just talking to the folks living next door. Or the asshole woman who always requires an extra seat for her handbag in public transportation. Or the asshole kid that brags about their skiing holiday in front of the kids from poorer families that can't afford going on vacation.
Without the 5% hurdle, every self-centered, anti-social narcissist would form a party incapable of ever receiving a significant level of public support. To those types, it's not about winning elections, it's about being 'right' and public attention.
Just look at the Weimar Republic and see what happened when you don’t have a 5% hurdle
Victor That way the system is set up, it seems that there can be a maximum of 20 parties represented in the Bundestag, if each gets 5 percent.
BrokenCurtain as a handbag seat hogger I’d like to try explaining why people do it: by keeping my handbag next to me I can discourage creeps from sitting down next to me. I’ll readily move my purse for anyone looking for a seat as long as they don’t make me feel uncomfortable or unsafe in any way. But this way I can chose to not have certain people sitting beside me and getting close to me without having to outright tell them that they are being creepy
German here. You made a little mistake there in saying that the Zweitstimme (party vote) determines how the remaining 299 seats are distributed. It actually determines the distribution of all of the 598 seats between parties. Once those seats are assigned to the parties, they all have to fill them with their candidates that won the Erststimme vote of their constituencies. Their remaining seats are then filled with candidates from a ranked list that the parties have to create and publicize before the vote.
Should a party have more representives from constiuencies than they have been seats assigned, additional seats are added proportionally to all parties in the Bundestag, so that all elected representatives can get their seat without greatly altering the proportions between the parties.
Also it's worth mentioning that every candidate that has won the Erststimme vote of their constituency gets a seat in the Bundestag, even if their party did not get the required 5% of votes or if they are an independent without a party. Should a party manage to win 3 seats in this way, it is excepted from the 5%-rule.
pfefferle74 an other exception from the five percent threshold is, if you are a party which represents an indigenous minority, like the SSW (southern schleswigish(?) voters union) in case of the Frisians and Danes. But this party never ever candidates to the German federal diet elections, it only candidates for the state diet elections of Schleswig-Holstein (the most northern state of Germany, where their voters actually do live)...
Those exceptions from the threshold apply only to state elections and are defined in the state constitution. If the SSW would stand for a federal election, it would have to pass the 5% threshold.
varana312 no it does not only in state law. Since 1953 are parties of national minorities exempt of the 5% threshold (§6 Abs. 3 Satz 2 Bundeswahlgesetz) to elections of the federal diet.
Ah, you're right. Sorry. :)
Yeah, I think this is what makes the video so complicated as they say and more complicated than it needs to be. Second vote determines the seats distribution, first vote the local representative.
If you just explain it like that, you easily get to the question, what happens, when a party has more direct mandates than it should have via second vote and therefore it easily explains, why the Bundestag usually exceeds the 598 default seats.
lol it's not that complicated
Well, compared to the US System it certainly is.
For me, as a german, the system is pretty simple, but i think the american system is complicated. ;D
When you know how it works, its simple^^
TheRenaissanceman65
I think the U.S system is unfair
tru
It's in a way really simple: We just have to make two crosses (and even if we left out one, the ballot is still ok, only if we make more than two or write something on it, the ballot gets invalid), one for the party, one for the candidate of the state, which is most likely (but not always) one of the two biggest parties.
This ensures, that we normally always have two big major parties and other parties, that are smaller, but are influencial, as their political strength lays in bringing specific topics like enviromental security, liberalism, social security and so on into the Bundestag. Although in this days due to the decline of the SPD (because they have forgotten many of the agendas, which made them strong), the major parties just get a bit over 60% together.
i am german and usually we learn about it in school and well, its very easy :D
kopf quax At school it is still easy, but if you study politics you will have to learn the full in depth version of how it exactly works.
The depths of the voting system? Well it is quite simple
So easy for the politicians to fool you again and again. Merkel would be a lifetime Kanzlerin thanks to this rigged and fixed collution system. You should have term limits!
Well, it's complicated enough, so that even most young academics don't know what their votes do exactly. And no, many Germans did not learn enough about it in school, the topic is usually slightly touched and that's it. Tons of people vote complete bullshit or against their own interests, because they were not sufficiently educated about the party system, power and interest formation. German political education is a complete mess and one of the main reasons why almost half of young people does not vote at all.
It's the same in most Western countries nowadays, though. That's because the conservative, big parties in power profit from voters being uninformed and from young and low-SES voters not voting at all. Good political education for the masses is the worst thing that could happen to conservative parties. Since they're the ones that steer educational politics today, this situation will not change anytime soon.
That's not true. We still chose our fate. When CDU gets 35% , 1/3 of all germans want Merkel to stay as her chancellor. SPD could also win
and appoint a chancellor, but they need the Votes.
If you think this is complicated maybe you are american
EPISTULAE heul doch lol
EPISTULAE politisch gesehen sind die USA wohl absolut katastrophal. Oder willst du behaupten, dieses zwei-Parteien-System taugt auch nur irgendetwas?
Ultimate roast
Dreidecker Naja Deutschland ist jetzt auch am Arsch.
Sans The Skeleton Warum?
stil dont know what is so complicated about it i think its very simple
oduco plays me neither
it's not really complicated, but many voters don't understand the strategic options of the two votes. e.g. it's actually pretty stupid to vote in both votes for the same party. the party you vote for with your second vote doesn't get stronger (more seats), when you also vote for a candidate from that very same party with your first vote. technically your first vote is wasted when you do that. nonetheless many german voters choose the same party in both votes.
montanus777 if it's a wasted vote, then why do parties appeal to give them both votes? It's on almost every poster.
+stronius99
apart from the fact that this year _almost no_ poster mentiones that, the candidates from the voting districts of course still want to be voted for. they of course still prefer to get into the parliament themselves over the party being able to choose someone else from the state's list. since the candidates typically are the ones organizing the regional campaigns in their districts, their point of view can sometimes be represented more noticable.
nonetheless at the end of the day a party doesn't get a bigger share of seats in the parliament, when voters give both of their votes for one party. only the second vote is crucial for the percentage of seats a party gets. so, a first vote is wasted, when it goes to the same party as the second vote (or even when it goes to another party, who reaches the 5% anyway).
voters, who use their first vote for independents or very small parties (which never ever would reach the 5%) on the other hand do _not_ waste their vote, because they can support a party that might represent their opinion even better than the bigger parties (they vote for with their second vote in a pragmatic manner). very small parties at least can get money for their campaigns (if they don't have a state's list) - even if they don't reach the 5% (something the bigger parties of course don't like).
Yeah, it's not that complicated honestly. But talking to some people, there still seem to be people who haven't had this explained to them in school. Makes me worry about the future and our education.
the "Buuuuundestag" :D
War das jetzt Ironie ?
Der Bundeskanzler ist viel mächtiger als der Bundespräsident.
MKreed96 Das wurde im Video ja auch gesagt
Nein! REICHSTAG!!!
@@schummel-peter266 der Bundespräsident ist trzdm unser Staatsoberhaupt
@@schummel-peter266 Du meinst Sarkasmus.
This is a great system. Why do you keep saying it's complicated
Sam Ighalo qazswedxcft
Get wszxderdxcft
Muricans! so what do you expected?
Because the Überhangmandate and Ausgleichsmandate are complicated. Why do you think Bundestag is growing bigger and bigger? everyone's complaining about it, no one has a good idea how to change it
In the UK we can actually see what happens if there is no second vote: the ruling party can get overproportionally more seats then the votes they got indicates thanks to the first vote.
AtzenMiro FPTP elections like in Canada and the UK, should have a second round of voting between the top two candidates. People should not serve in cabinet because they are on a party list. Also three party coalitions are too unstable.
Germany's first vote is also based on first-past-the-vote, wich is why we have the second vote. A second round of voting between the top two candidates doesn't work in a parliamantarian democracy, it only works in a presidential democracy like in France (where it's done).
In France there are two rounds for the national assembly, too! It works though. But it creates kind of fixed blocks of parties (left and right traditionally) and hinders compromise and cooperation between both wings.
A second vote to reverse Brexit!
I donhave to say of all the political systems I have some familiarity with, the British is definitely the most entertaining.
If because if nothing else for the fact that whenever you think you've understood it they come out with some new thing that makes you go "Hey they can't do that!
Or can they?
Well apparently they can."
At least our System makes sense, in contrast to the American XD
Melvin Santak - The american system makes sense, or made sense.
Their system is over 200 years old, at a time where the USA was mostly wilderness.
Most Americans be like:
Sense? That a new show on Netflix or something?
yep, she didnt mention we vote on sundays or that we all have Voter ID by law. and are automatically registered to vote.
+Tom W but if you are automatically registered how do you purge blacks from the voter list?
Lol just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense
...complicated???
I'm from Germany and literally everyone knows how this System works.
We learn this stuff in 7th grade, so even people who aren't really interested in politics have a pretty good understanding of how the elections work.
Because your used to it
Außer AfD-Wähler, die verstehen's nicht :3
It's funny how americans say, that casting two votes instead of one, and having more parties to choose instead of two. Is oVeRCompliCated
This "complicated" system is a well known and quite widely used Mixed Member Proportional. The two votes essentially come from trying to balance local presentation and national level politics, while maintaining the principle of proportionality, the amount of power party gets should be proportional to their size of their voter base (indicated by the second vote).
Indeed. Notably, New Zealand is also voting this weekend and uses essentially exactly the same system.
Only Germany and New Zealand use overhang seats though.
TheRenaissanceman65 yo boi dont steal my comment
*correction my yt just completely fucked up sry meen
Is it the same as nz's MMP though? She said that the party votes are used to divide the REMAINING seats in the Bundestag- rather than the party vote being proportional to the amount of seats in Parliament that each party receives
What she said about "remaing seats" was not true
"The german election system is complicated"
Sorry, but at that point I just had to laugh
German here. Good explanation! Question : Did you travel all through Germany from Berlin to Cologne to make a 5min youtube video :D ?
Haha dachte ich mir auch xD
I think she is a correspondent. So she normally travels threw the country.
hey i guess the word you wanted to use is through threw means "werfen" (assuming u are german)
Digger2011 It means "warf" or "geworfen".
NonameFTW das schaut mir sehr nach Greenscreen aus ;)
germany has that 5 % thing, because in the weimarer repuplic where many partys with 1% or 2% so , it get out of control because all partys had differnet meannings and opinions .
Lorenz Albrecht well the partys just couldnt work together, the goverment usely fell apart after one or two years, sometimes just months.
RZU 147 yeas, you are good in history :) so what the Moderator said, wasn't wrong but completely
If the threshold were lowered to 1%, only two more parties would have been elected to the Bundestag in 2017. That’s not a big difference. I don’t see that as getting “out of control.”
@@HorrorMetalDnD In Denmark the threshold is 2%, but I have not seen a country which uses proportional representation voting in their general elections sets the threshold under 2%.
@@rzu1474 *usually
der buundestaag halt. i love it how americans pronounce german words.
haha, nice one. Aber buundesDaag trifft es glaube noch genauer
haaha hab ich mir auch so gedacht. Der buundestag halt.
Die Erziehung eines Menschens kann eine große Rolle mit der Aussprache spielen. Meine Söhne wurden zweisprachig in Deutschland aufgezogen: Deutsch von der Mama (Deutsche) und Englisch von dem Papa (der bin ich... "Ami"). Auf Deutsch klingen die Jungs wie ganz normale Deutschen; auf Englisch sprechen die Beiden wie Amis aus Kalifornien. :)
I don't know if its the same with the american "t" but Chinese cannot pronounce "r" because chinese simply does not have that sound (they dont have a 'l' either but rather an in between sound). If you do not learn language specific intonations during childhood it almost impossible to do so later on. The brain simply has stopped developing in that regard. So its not a 'mechanical' issue in the sense that your tongue and so on are not trained to do what it has to for certain sounds but that you brain cannot tell its a sound for words (it hard to even imagine sounds that are alien to your own language(s))
fritz walter total lustig oder?😄 the Bundestag
Wie viele Deutsche tummeln sich hier noch in den Kommentaren? 🙈
hallo
WupperVideo hi
WupperVideo Hier 🙋
Warum schauen wir das an? 😂
WupperVideo interessiert mich einfach wie es anderen erklärt wird und es ist irgendwie knuffig wie sie Bundestag sagt :D
@@MaxMustermann-pi6vf xD
I think our system is actually pretty simple. The US voting system however is very hard to understand. Furthermore it seems to be kind of undemocratic, if the popular vote does NOT make the president.
MrLikeAsatellite think of it like this, if Europe would form to be a country and Russia was in there with its 150million people, russia would have much more power than other countries. To be more fair there is the electoral college. This way germany and other countries with less people have a fair chance to decide if putin becomes the European president or not. Yes I know Europe has 500million people but thats my best explanation.
@@MACBLACK91 This principle values state identity over the individual voter's. It results in different values for the individual votes cast by actual people in elections, making it unfair and undemocratic.
In your example, the vote of an Italian citizen would be worth MANY times more than that of a Russian citizen. That's extremely undemocratic, because the idea of a democracy is that the people are represented, not their respective home states.
Well America is a republic, not a democracy, the people do choose the president, they are simply given the illusion that they are (except for in a couple of States). The president is detirmned by the electoral college, a group of 548 (I think) people called electors, they're votes are the only votes that matter, and they do not have to vote in favor of the state, some states require the electors to vote for the popular candidate in their state, but some states allow for the electors to vote for whoever they want. And in all but two states, they are required to vote unanimously. There is also a law that states that the minimum number of electors per state is 3. So states that are smaller actually have more power in a presidential election, it's not Democratic because America isn't a democracy. So don't worry, our system is confusing because we're idiots, the easiest way to remember how a US election works is: only 547 people vote in an election for the president.
@@dontlookatender9282 The US is a Republic AND a Democracy (albeit a very flawed one). Democracy is a form of Gouvernement while a Republic means that the people have the power. Come to think of it, the US is quite close to beeing neither.
@@macgruber6739 democray is loosely Greek for demokratos meaning "people rule". A democracy is when the people vote on the president and there leaders, direct democray is when the people are the representatives. A republic is when a select few make the decisions. the US is a republic, with some democray scattered here and there
Mistake at around 1:42
The second vote does not determine how to devide up the remaining 299 seats but ALL 598 seats among the parties.
Other mistake: the 5% threshold applies to the overall federal vote, not to the lists at State level.
louismart +the 5% threshold can be overthrown if a party manages to win 3 constituencies/get 3 direct candidates in with the first vote ;)
Other mistake: a party can form a coalition even if it is not the largest party in the Bundestag. A small party could form a coalition with several other smaller parties and thus have their candidate elected chancellor as long as they all form a majority.
Other mistake: Just shut up.
It's not only theoretical by the way. During the "sozialliberale" period of SPD/FDP coalitions, sometimes the CDU/CSU was the strongest party but not getting to govern.
Or, if you want to take another look at it (which would certainly confuse non Germans even more, while Germans may remember Gerhard Schröder arguing along those lines, not very convincingly, during the 2005 "Elefantenrunde"), the CDU was sometimes weaker than the SPD while governing, though thanks to the CSU the "Fraktion" had more seats.
Totally complicated! 2 votes... Too complex for americans xD In Germany you can vote your favourite candidate in your district and a "Partei" you like. In the USA you have Trump. Well done
Ration Hans Partei ist Party in english
Ma Pa is doing nothing really better than doing crazy BS? Is saying "yes" to everything and not standing for anything really better than saying "NO" and standing up for it?
...🤔
Drizzt Do'urden being respectful and making economy great and crime as well as joblessness low is great.
She isn’t doing nothing she stands for stabilityv
@Ma Pa
Stupidity confirmed.
Merkel's government is imploding as she gears up for the inevitability of her departure as Chancellor.
In Canada we have Trudeau. He runs the other parties down. I am proud of Germany, living in Canada over 60 years.
It's not only about our history it's also cause it's far more fair compared to yours
MBKING max?
Max?
MBKING Then you don't understand how and why the electoral college was put in place.
Temujin. The issue isn't how smaller states gets more votes. You can easily make a "progressive system" (as in smaller states gets more representation than larger ones), without having a first-past the post system where winner takes all the votes of the electoral college.
That way smaller states can keep getting their extra representation, and still make sure that you actually get more choices than your two current parties.
Shots fired, and rightfully so! 👍
Ahem. German speaking here:
Although this is a rather good explanation of the Federal Parliament voting system, there's one major error. The second vote does not determine the proportions between parties inside only a 299-seat-sized partition of the Bundestag but of the total of all seats of the entire Bundestag (whatever this total due to overhang and balance seats may be in the end).
For a long time is was close to that (but still not exactly as described), when Bundestag consisted of 299 constituency seats and 299 party seats and the second vote determined the proportions between parties regarding exactly these 598 seats. Overhang seats came on top of that and didn't enter the proportions. 2008 this was declared invalid by ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court and 2013 electoral law was reformed. Since then if parties win more constituency seats than their second vote results would allow, additional seats are granted to the other parties to restore the proportions - the balance seats.
No, she doesn't.
From 1:38 she says “The second vote on the right side of the ballot is for a political party. This vote determines how the remaining 299 seats will be divided up among Germany's various political parties.”
And this is wrong. The second vote determines the relative proportions of the parties’ seats referring to the entirety of all Bundestag seats, be it 598, 620, 639 or what the outcome will be.
Nachtvogel HH She added the concept of balance seats at 2:28.
Yes, I have watched the video. The introduction of overhang and balance seats given later is basically ok but all what is said is that their purpose is to rebalance the proportions, without any example. And especially the quoted wrong introductory statement 2nd votes would refer to only 299 seats is not corrected. 2nd votes ALWAYS yield the proportions among ALL 598+ Bundestag seats at any point of the calculation. If addtional overhang seats basing on 1st votes outbalance the total(!) proportions set by the 2nd votes, then balance seats are introduced to rebalance this proportions, again referring to the total of all seats, not only 299, as stated.
Germany is a great country and German nation is a great nation
Love and respect from Pakistan 🇵🇰❤️🇩🇪
It's a great system because the amount of seats a party gets is proportional to the amount of votes a party gets. In the US the Libertarian and Green party can get a few percent of votes but will never get a seat.
They don't reach the 5% threshold, so they wouldn't get seats in Germany either
@@Skankhunt-mv4vd They don't get 5% because they will never get a seat anyway with the current system so it's a wasted vote anyway...
@@Skankhunt-mv4vd The main reason for that is that people who would vote for them don't because they don't want to "waste their vote". If voting for them was likely to get them at least a handful of seats in Congress, let alone enough to make the two big parties have to compromise with them in order to pass any legislation, then their vote share would rise quite a bit.
@@Rafinius Even if lets say "socialists" or "liberterians" were able to get seats for their respective parties, they would immediately form coalitions and would vote along the traditional two party lines on the vast majority of issues, so you would only be moving the "wasting my vote" thinking from the voter to the representative, which would make the end result the same.
Step 1: We won't riot and storm our parliament when our prefered candidate loses.
Well - we do so, when we are sternly asked to wear masks, though.
Or else our Fuhrer would get angry.
The beautiful part about Germany's system compared to the US is, that it makes parties more resilient to extremisation and maintains some cooperation between the parties.
1. While the CDU/CSU are fairly comparable to the American Republicans, there was no Trump-style populist takeover. This is because the vocal right wing subgroups can go into their own parties. The CDU is more like the traditional Republican party, whereas the Libertarian Republicans would rather join the FDP and the Nazis and Trump voters join the AfD.
2. Even the biggest parties need coalitions to govern, so the parties can't burn bridges to other parties like the Republicans did since the "Gingrich Revolution" in the 90s. Sure there are clear party boundaries, but partisanship remains much more civil.
3. The parties are very much incentivisied to stay away from extremist groups like the Trump-like AfD, so even if they gain ~15% like they do now, there is little danger of them actually getting into a government position. That is also in major part due to the second point, because such right-wing populists only succeed by treating everyone else as an enemy.
1.While within parties the ideologies are relatively consistent, voters could still take their votes to other parties that are further along the political spectrum. This was seen when the CDU/CSU got b*tchslaped in several state elections in Germany as well as the AfD rising.
2. CDU like traditional Republicans? Tell me another joke. The CDU are centre right on only economic issues, but centrist to centre-left on economic. The CDU is essentially all the ideas of US Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat, as a party.
3, Sorry to burst your bubble but Nazis still don't have a party to represent them in the Bundestag: very good news though.
4. Burning bridges is common in 2 party systems. The Democrats have also incinerated bridges before as well.
5. Coalitions are needed but coalitions are generally formed with parties that share principles, so a sense of partisanship is still there.
6. You can try to ignore the AfD as a party but you can't ignore their victories. It takes something for a party that was mostly a minor party 4 years ago to be polling in 2nd/3rd place in federal opinion polls. Parties will eventually form coalitions with these groups once their wins continue to grow.
7. I find it a tad ironic you exault this system for indirectly promoting bipartisanship by discouraging partisanship but then engage in partisanship to bring down other parties that you do not agree with.
Actually I have to disagree with your comparison of German and American Parties. Germany has shifted distinctively to the more liberal or „left“ overall regarding its politics in recent years. I would say instead that the Democratic Party in the U.S is closest to a combination of the CDU/SPD (Grand Coalition) and the US Republicans are closest to the very conservative wing of the CDU or the Moderate part of the AFD. The FDP is sort of in between the democratic and Republican Party in the political spectrum although they are called the free liberals, they should be called libertarian party which would be much more fitting in my opinion.
really? she goes to berlin and then goes to cologne just to get that one shot? i guess you do have too much money and time xD
you can do that all in one trip and one day, fly to düsseldorf early in the morning, rent a car, drive to cologne, take the shot around 10, take the car to berlin, take those shots in the evening(you see the sunset). fly back from Berlin at night. you could even save money if you are lucky with the flightticket prices.
you can rent a car for a day if you save 60ish $ per ticket with a team of 3. and if not, well you get some nice shots for the price of a rental car, not the worst deal.
Germany: Our Elections Are complicated
Bosnia and Herzagonia: Hold my Beer
German election results converted into US-units:
George W. Bush: 33.0%
Hillary Clinton: 20.5%
Donald Trump: 12.6%
Gary Johnson: 10.7%
Bernie Sanders: 9.2%
Jill Stein: 8.9%
Koala Koala Donald Trump ist die AFD 😂😂
I've watched a lot of videos about the same topic and yours was by far the best. Although not that detailed, this was very well explained :)
Thank you very much!
"The Bündesdag" :D
Funny how americans pronounce German words.
Boondisdog*
I agree.
We at Malaysia also got 2 votes, Pity USA have to vote through Elector College. Just ban it already
If you are an atheist or gay you'd still rather live in the USA. Actually probably almost everyone would rather live in the USA.
Private not if you could live in the EU instead
Lukas S I live in the EU, but I compared only those two countries. The USA are a way better country than Malaysia.
Electoral College good, winner-take-all bad. Besides, Malaysia doesn't even have a President?!
Hafiz Nazawi you are a dumbass
Weimar didn't fail because of a lack of a threshold though. It failed because a majority voted on anti-system parties. It all went downhill with the Juli 1932 election when Hitler's NSDAP received 37,3% and the communist KPD received 14,3% of the votes. It was simply not possible to build a stable government like that and it wouldn't be in today's system either. So imho at least today it is nothing but a cheap excuse of the established parties to keep people away from voting for new or smaller parties that could threaten their position. Germany wouldn't collapse from having a handful of representatives from the Pirate party, Die PARTEI, the Free Voters and even the NPD, even though the last one can rot in hell for all I care.
In the last election a shocking ~16% of the votes were not represented in the Bundestag and as far as I'm concerned that's quite undemocratic.
Bumayé that’s because a party needs a minimum of 5% to get in the Bundestag. Otherwise coalitions would be a night,are and there’d be way to many parties in the Bundestag.
Bumayé
But why did people in 1932 voted extremist parties?
The governments before were really unstable. Partly because of the unwillingness to make a deal, partly because of the fractured parlament and the monarchistic president Hindenburg.
There a lot more reasons like eg the treaty of Versailles, so 1932 was not the reason of Weimars failure, but the consequence.
Free Thinker
On the one hand they voted for extreme parties because they were desperate to get a working government and extreme parties often gave simple solutions and promised change. On the other hand they didn't really think that these extreme parties would be able to make it very long because there were re-elections every few months. They were not able to govern properly in this political chaos so nobody really believed that something could rise out of this wreck of a government.
Nope, the democracy was doomed the moment the contract of Versailles was signed.
There was litterally no way germany could have escaped another dictatorship. Left or right-wing wouldn't have mattered. Weimar failed because of alot of reasons. For example: the economic crisis in 1929, the contract of Versailles, the inability of the Reichstag to form a stable goverment or Hindenburgs failure to deal with the situation..... just to call a bunch. But there is way more to it than "they just voted for the Nazis". It didnt go downhill when Hitler was basicly already elected lol.
A threshold is important to keep politics consistent and small parties can get big fast. The AFD or the Green Party are good examples for that.
RetroSupporter93
But the Weimar Coalition of SPD, Zentrum and DDP was stable in the beginning of the Republic
Really good and to the point explanation
Thanks Nishant!
How is this complicated?
Oboy today is the day for the Buundestaäg.
Bündesdaag :D
"yeah, I'm American and I'm soooo like....stupid that I simply can't learn to pronounce words in other languages. 'Murica, Fuck yeah!"
😒
A party does not need 5% of the 2nd votes in a state to qualify. A party needs 5% in the
whole country. Huge difference. If a party gets 3 or more candidates elected directly
via the 1st vote the party qualifies for the Bundestag even if below the 5% threshold.
And overall it is very simple. 2nd vote determines the proportion of seats among the
partys. That is the real significant part. Everything else like the Overhang Madates
are simply a mechanic to get to that proportion; including a balance of the parties
and the 16 federal states.
When you learn from the results abroad you will get to know the 2nd vote proportion
and possible coalitions. Probably not much else.
And the election is pretty fair. Every of the 2nd votes really counts. Not like in GB or
the USA were the losing candidates votes are simply gone.
Quick and on the point - exceptional good explanation of the election system. Thank you for this.
most complicated part of our german election is how to fold the ballot.
Last tiem 40 or 38 parties .. I did my best to infrom myself on all 😅
Omgggg jaaaaa, ich kriegs nie hin
Standing in the bike lane makes me so nervous 0:35
1:32 Wrong. The second vote determinates the percentage of seats over all seats - including the 299 from the first vote! The overall percentage of one party must not be changed by the 1st votes! That's why they have to adjust the total number of seats.
To be honest the American voting system is also very complicated, maybe even more.
Armando B.
There is a Differenz in being complecated and STUPID.
Two party system, STUPID.
Vote not on sunday, STUPID.
Not directly voting someone but someone else that votes but can vote for something different then what he said he would do, STUPID.
It’s not complicated, just dead stupid.
@@rzu1474 why are Germanys Nazis.
@@mrbrainbob5320
Why are germanys nazis, what?
Cooking?
Eating?
Using gas?
🤔
Best explanation in English of the German political system I have seen so far.
I particularly liked that you also tried to explain the reasoning behind the parts that may seem weird or unnecessary at first, like the 5% threshold or overhang mandates.
Good job. Making it simple is the best way to explain something. Thank you.
Wish the American system was like this
Thanks for the excellent explanation! :D
This is called a Mixed-Member-Proportional (MMP) electoral system. If you are looking for another example to help you understand how the process works, New Zealand also has MMP as its electoral system.
Because they copied it from Germany
John Cleese (yes, that John Cleese) once responded to the accusation of STV being a voting system that was too complicated to understand - "Yes, admittedly, if you have trouble counting up to five, STV might be too hard on you."
American here. The German voting system doesn't seem complicated to me. It's actually more logical than the American electoral college.
Yes it is. The Electronics College is unfair.
Greetings from Cologne ❤️
WupperVideo hi
Kölle
I'm german and know how the election wörks... why am i watching this?
Alexander Ernst
'Wörks' .
It's not that complicated but in my opinion very fair!
Hello stina
Answer:
Better than in the US
The 2nd vote is there to recognize the lost votes of the direct mandate, who get elected with simple majority which in a multi party system quickly reduces the threshold and makes the parliament less representative of what people voted.
The UK and US have very bad proportional representation due to having only direct mandates.
You need some correction system so you don't get disenfranchised as a voter just because you live in a neighbourhood that does not share your political views.
Proportional voting also stifles gerrymandering and helps new parties to develop.
Not quite correct. The federal government (Bundesregierung) is just the executive branch - not all the 3 branches together as in the US. And the Bundesrat is not quite one of two chambers of parliament. On the one hand, of course, both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat are involved in lawmaking, which would confirm the bicameral theory. On the other hand, they do not belong to a "superior parliament." Both bodies are independent constitutional organs. There is also a corresponding ruling on this by the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGe 37, 363). It states: "According to the regulation of the Basic Law, the Bundesrat is not a second chamber of a unified legislative body, which would be decisively involved in the legislative process on an equal footing with the 'first chamber'."
You forgot that you can't vote certain parties in certain states. For example you can't vote DIB in Rhineland-Palatin! Or you can only vote for the CSU in Bavaria but not for the CDU. if the CSU would get less than 5% it wouldn't enter the Bundestag even though it is in a union with the CDU and this Union would get more than 30%! The German system is a lot more complicated! But this is a great video to explain the (really) advanced basics of the election!
Even if CSU would not get 5 % on national level, it would for sure get 3 directly elected MP and hence enter the Bundestag nonetheless
Malte DI1 And this is actually directly against German law. Since CDU/CSU used to have the same agenda, it wasn‘t an issue, but since they clashed, split and started following different agendas.. it‘s actually illegal, because in Germany every party HAS TO BE ellectable by any state or person.
Which is currently not the case
I expected this to be complicated, then I realised she basically explained a form of proportional representation similar to what we use in New Zealand...so not really complicated at all😅
Can we have a video where we learn how votes are counted in Florida and how voting machines are used?
The US Voting System is so easy you lose when you have the most vote, Clinton.
Oooh she's gorgeous.
adlerzwei da hat jemand den eigentlichen Grund für dieses Video gefunden :D
Eigentlich wollte ich mir nur die Kommentare durchlesen, aber jetzt muss ich doch mal in das Video reingucken.
Okay, habe es kurz durchgeblättert.
Ja, sie ist okay. Aber "gorgeous" ist für mich etwas anderes.
adlerzwei watch blacked. 😹
adlerzwei Right? The german democracy is very gorgeous 😏
And which part of that is complicated? Seems pretty straight forward to me.
It's not complicated at all!
It's complicated if you make it complicated😂 Normally it's really easy to understand
Lol look at the swiss election system...thats what I call complicated
Simply explain" the winner take not all. " This is why Germany elections are peacefull before and after elections amongst it citizens.
This is not a complicated system.
It's more or less same in India too except the two votes system.. Maybe complicated for the americans but not the rest of the world.
What are you talking there? I am a german and our system is really simple. And better than the american system ,we can vote our own gouverment and doesent need voters that vote for us . So we will never a strange guy like Trump.
the USA election you can choose a clown or a witch?
I'm from Germany and Bearnie Sanders was my choice...
But you (the Americans) averted the best possible president.
:)
In1998able well atleast we do now know that they prefer clowns.
The way she says "Bundestag" is just hilarious 😂😂
You are very beautiful, Elizabeth! ;) And you did a nice job.
This lady's pronunciation of Bundestag is very amusing 🤣
"German election system is complicated" sagt eine Amerikanerin 🤠. Selten so gelacht 😂
English video about Germany. Germans: That ist jetzt our comment section.OURS!
Hallo
10d war hier
Good presentation, well done !
One thing that is criticized a lot in the German system is the voting of the political leader by the parties, and not by the people, but in fact this is a insurance for having a leader with power up front. The parties show, that they Are willing to follow and trust in the chancellor, so he can make political decisions and laws. With Obama as a president and a lacking majority in the legislative chambers you could see the big problem that comes up, if you have an agenda but no possibility to pass laws...
Kiwi here. We have MMP here as well. It's not that complicated. It actually makes your parliament or house of representatives more indicative of the population of your country. Here's the kicker. MMP was thought up by two americans.
Well in some parts of Germany there are parties with no Erststimme at all
Maggi Karusell Name some!
In my region only 5 or 6 out of more than 20 parties have a direct canditate.
Mostly smaller parties have none
Molf9 M. Welche Region? Landkreis? Ich kann das irgendwie nicht glauben. Grüße aus Hessen.
Niedersachsen Heidekreis
Ist echt so
Direkt waren CDU, SPD, GRÜNE, AFD, LINKE und eine Bürgerliste ohne echten Namen
Molf9 M. Ok, krass. Hätte ich nicht gedacht. Vielleicht sollte ich da den Start in die Politik wagen ;-)
Everyone in the comments bullying Americans lol
3:22 How dare you putting Bavarian music over a video of Berlin‘s scenery... Bavaria feels like another country dude.
Also, Merkel is bought.
Lukas Klein why does bavaria feel like another country? 😂
Barbiegirl l Traditions play a huge roll. And they sent Marlene Mortler.
Lukas Klein hahaha xD 💯🤙
This is not a laughing matter. :D
Why not?
Ministers in the german government arent similar to secretaries in the american system at all. They actually get to do something instead of just giving the head of state advice.
As a German, I think I´m more than qualified to explain how a German election works:
1.) You enter the voting booth.
2.) You vote for Angela Merkel.
I hope I could shed some light on this very complicated issue.
I'm not a German, yet I know that unless you are one of the 250k lucky ducks, who live in the relatively small electoral constituency Vorpommern-Rügen - Vorpommern-Greifswald in north-east Germany, you actually cannot vote for Angela Merkel. Everywhere else you can vote for CDU/CSU. Are you from there or did you just fail at voting?
:D
He just simplified the process. At least the result will be the same.
No, it's not the same. I read your other ignorant comments under this video and I can understand why you think that he "simplified the process" - ignorance.
You can not vote directly for Angela Merkel. It's the task of the Bundestag to vote for a chancellor.
*+Scrotie McBoogerball*
Oh come on, it's fucking satire.
If AOC is having trouble understanding the Electoral College system in the US, I wonder what kind of nonsense she is going to utter if asked about the Electoral system of Germany
I mean a person that things that the democrats are centre-right.
Is totally resonable German conservative that have implemented universal healthcare in the 19th century and a strong social state after WW2.
Short version, Germans can vote for partys and people that should play the rulers on the poltical stage but they can not decide any concrete question. It's like in most of the western oligarchy systems, they can choose their spekaers but not their rulers.
The only exception I know is switzerland.
Not being able to differenciate between a representative democracy and a oligarchy is a new one. People who talk like this about representative democracies are those who never could be arsed to get their ass up themselfes and get active in politics themselfes.
But as always, it's so much easier to complain than to actually do something.
At least you got the point, it was critism on representative democracy. I am active in poltics for years my friend. I started at what you would call college and now I am still "getting my ass up" to fight for real democracy.
If you ever read Platon or Aristoteles you know it yourself, we are not living in a demoratic system. They hated democracy at that time and the establishment hates it still today.
Or to say it with James Madisons words, the representaive democracy was created "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority“.
What wrote the Times on April 21th 2014: "America is no longer a democracy - nevermind the democratic republic en-visioned by Founding Fathers."
And you are also blaming President Jimmy Carter? He called the USA an „oligarchy“ with an „unlimited political bribery“. (July 28th 2015)
And I am not only talking about the USA, but about all representive democracies I know except switzerland.
Of course you must be right my friend. But please , wake up!
Switzerland is also a representative democracy with SOMETIMES held public votes. If you don't want representative politics what do you want? A public vote on every single issue? Good luck with that, because no single person has enough time nor capacity in any other way to research every single topic he is about to vote for. Let alone WANTING to do that.
It's just not possible, that's why representative politics exist. You elect a person with simmiliar values to do the FULL TIME JOB for you. If you ever been in politics you should have known that.
Right. But they have the possibility to decide about concrete questions. That is what real democracy meant. ANd somtimes is also right, last year they could decide about 13 questions made in 4 public votings.
And yes I think the parliaments are a good idea to complement(!) the idea of democracy. But if the superior really shout be the one who have the power he must have the possibility to decide about important questions.
The superior should have the last word and of course basic rights should still be indefeasible.
The model of switzerland is not perfect but it is better then every parliament-only system. And it desrves the name democracy. And yes the disadvantage is that the decisions are often very conservative.
Lily71, you call me a lier or whats your point? Guess what, I have no TV since over ten years.
If you don't know about the definitiosn of democracy, oligarchy, ochlocraty , monarchy and so on you should first read some educational books.
Therfore stop blaming me and look yourself in the mirror. I gave you some quotes and talking points. You can try to proof and come back. But come back with real arguments, please.
Good Video, good explanation
Current system needs to be changed. Number of seats has grown too far.
Ya this is not as complicated as i thought because it was very well explained by elizabeth .
Makes more sense than the American system. Even as an American, I cannot fully understand the primaries and electoral college.
Stay strong with the channel, the videos are damn good!
Bruh this is called proportional voting and it's not complicated. I am American and I understand this.
New Zealand uses an almost identical system except we don't have balance seats. The party with the overhang just exceeds its entitlement.
The two votes system exists in New Zealand too.
In Lithuania almost the same election system and it's not so complicated
I love how every american says "boondestag"
Nice unintentional pun
This system would be perfect for the US House of Representatives.
Hello Nick
Left hand side of the ballot voting for the constituency, right hand side for the party you want to win the general election. Overhang seats to represent politicians who obtain 5% or more of the vote to get a seat.
*************************COMPLICATED***************************
I’m learning so much with this videos
The hardest part is not to get how it works but to decide who to elect.
Amerikaner mit ihren relativen Mehrheitswahlen xd low af