Bye Bye Boris!

[DeskJockey]

Just read up on Danish election law.

There are 179 seats in parliament, four are earmarked for Greenland and the Faroe Islands (two each), 40 are additional seats and 135 are regional, split according to a formula taking into account the size of the population in that area. There are 10 regions with further subdivisions within.

The 40 additional seats are to make sure that the number of seats a party holds in parliament is equal to their share of the overall votes.

A vote for the party goes to the party and that's it. A personal vote goes to the party for the purposes of calculating the overall percentage won against other parties. For the purposes of allocating seats within the won allocation, the votes belong to the candidate they were cast for. So if a party win 10 regional seats but have fielded 11 candidates then the one with the least personal votes miss out. Unless the total number of votes cast for the party mean they get an extra seat(s) from the additional pool of 40.

Also, a correction. The minimum voting bar for a party to get elected is 2%, not 4 as I said earlier. Misremembered that.

[Rich B]

Just read up on Danish election law.

There are 179 seats in parliament, four are earmarked for Greenland and the Faroe Islands (two each), 40 are additional seats and 135 are regional, split according to a formula taking into account the size of the population in that area. There are 10 regions with further subdivisions within.

The 40 additional seats are to make sure that the number of seats a party holds in parliament is equal to their share of the overall votes.

A vote for the party goes to the party and that's it. A personal vote goes to the party for the purposes of calculating the overall percentage won against other parties. For the purposes of allocating seats within the won allocation, the votes belong to the candidate they were cast for. So if a party win 10 regional seats but have fielded 11 candidates then the one with the least personal votes miss out. Unless the total number of votes cast for the party mean they get an extra seat(s) from the additional pool of 40.

Also, a correction. The minimum voting bar for a party to get elected is 2%, not 4 as I said earlier. Misremembered that.

Candidates can also be voted out by the public who have the power to play Cupid by voting for a current candidate to go on a first date with a new candidate.

[DeskJockey]

You know full well that clause can only be invoked if the election falls within one month of Valentine's Day and both candidates are under 30 years old, or separated by a distance of more than 100 miles as the crow flies on the day the election is announced, unless either candidate is a farmer.

Don't try to confuse things @Rich B.

[Rich B]

Well, I've thought long and hard in this, and though it sounds like an interesting proposal, I'm afraid I just don't have the authority to change the way our nations voting system works right now. I know that's disappointing to hear, but by all means try again in a few years and we'll see if I've (or any other forum members) been granted the power by then.

[Jobbo]

Considering STV was adjudged too complicated for the U.K. to use, I think Denmark’s system would lead to a collapse in voting numbers here.

What was it you said about the relative education, Duncs? I think it favours the Danes!

[Nefarious]

Just read up on Danish election law.

There are 179 seats in parliament, four are earmarked for Greenland and the Faroe Islands (two each), 40 are additional seats and 135 are regional, split according to a formula taking into account the size of the population in that area. There are 10 regions with further subdivisions within.

The 40 additional seats are to make sure that the number of seats a party holds in parliament is equal to their share of the overall votes.

A vote for the party goes to the party and that's it. A personal vote goes to the party for the purposes of calculating the overall percentage won against other parties. For the purposes of allocating seats within the won allocation, the votes belong to the candidate they were cast for. So if a party win 10 regional seats but have fielded 11 candidates then the one with the least personal votes miss out. Unless the total number of votes cast for the party mean they get an extra seat(s) from the additional pool of 40.

Is that functionally different from a pure FPTP system with an extra 40 seats for the national-level runners up?

What happens, for example, if there are 2 parties and there's a 51%/49% split across the country. Party A wins all the regional seats and party B is given all the non-geographic seats? Or Party B is given some of the regional seats even though it didn't win a majority in those seats?

[Broccers]

I guess you think the Snp is ok Neil

[ZedLeg]

Yeah Nef, don’t criticise the way things are or the nationalist horrors will get you

I’ll let you decide whether I’m talking about broccers or the SNP.

[DeskJockey]

Just read up on Danish election law.

There are 179 seats in parliament, four are earmarked for Greenland and the Faroe Islands (two each), 40 are additional seats and 135 are regional, split according to a formula taking into account the size of the population in that area. There are 10 regions with further subdivisions within.

The 40 additional seats are to make sure that the number of seats a party holds in parliament is equal to their share of the overall votes.

A vote for the party goes to the party and that's it. A personal vote goes to the party for the purposes of calculating the overall percentage won against other parties. For the purposes of allocating seats within the won allocation, the votes belong to the candidate they were cast for. So if a party win 10 regional seats but have fielded 11 candidates then the one with the least personal votes miss out. Unless the total number of votes cast for the party mean they get an extra seat(s) from the additional pool of 40.

Is that functionally different from a pure FPTP system with an extra 40 seats for the national-level runners up?

What happens, for example, if there are 2 parties and there's a 51%/49% split across the country. Party A wins all the regional seats and party B is given all the non-geographic seats? Or Party B is given some of the regional seats even though it didn't win a majority in those seats?

It is functionally different because it isn't a winner takes all per seat. Your example would never come to pass as there are representatives from at least six parties (mostly more) in parliament. But in theory that's how it would play out. However, in FPTP the party winning all the regional/local seats would have won all of parliament and there would be no opposition, as I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore all the votes for anyone but the winner would be lost. In the PR system the majority party would still govern, but there would be an opposition there to hold them to account.

[Nefarious]

Just read up on Danish election law.

There are 179 seats in parliament, four are earmarked for Greenland and the Faroe Islands (two each), 40 are additional seats and 135 are regional, split according to a formula taking into account the size of the population in that area. There are 10 regions with further subdivisions within.

The 40 additional seats are to make sure that the number of seats a party holds in parliament is equal to their share of the overall votes.

A vote for the party goes to the party and that's it. A personal vote goes to the party for the purposes of calculating the overall percentage won against other parties. For the purposes of allocating seats within the won allocation, the votes belong to the candidate they were cast for. So if a party win 10 regional seats but have fielded 11 candidates then the one with the least personal votes miss out. Unless the total number of votes cast for the party mean they get an extra seat(s) from the additional pool of 40.

Is that functionally different from a pure FPTP system with an extra 40 seats for the national-level runners up?

What happens, for example, if there are 2 parties and there's a 51%/49% split across the country. Party A wins all the regional seats and party B is given all the non-geographic seats? Or Party B is given some of the regional seats even though it didn't win a majority in those seats?

It is functionally different because it isn't a winner takes all per seat. Your example would never come to pass as there are representatives from at least six parties (mostly more) in parliament. But in theory that's how it would play out. However, in FPTP the party winning all the regional/local seats would have won all of parliament and there would be no opposition, as I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore all the votes for anyone but the winner would be lost. In the PR system the majority party would still govern, but there would be an opposition there to hold them to account.

Alex - what I'm trying to get at is there's *either* regional representation (i.e. party A wins 51% of Greenland East and there is a representative in the parliament from Party A representing the interests of Greenland East), at the expense of the overall make-up of the parliament being an exact reflection of the national vote. Or there's pure PR (i.e. the composition of the parliament is exactly the same as the national level vote), but at the expense of regional representation (i.e. at least *some* of the regions end up with regional representative the *didn't* vote for).

I might be being thick, but I can't see a way you can have both...

[Nefarious]

I guess you think the Snp is ok Neil

I'm sure you're not asking out of genuine interest, but you can have my opinion anyway.

The SNP are like the parish council that accidentally found themselves in charge of the country. In most cases well-meaning, but way out of their depth.
On the plus side, it means that, in the most part, they lack the competence to be properly corrupt/malicious (their dishonestly tends to be smalltime and naive, rather than systematic, calculated and industrial-scale). Jingoism is never a good thing, but as a uniting force to get things done, it's a short-term evil that's on balance tolerable.

But then, that's the nature of democracy - pick the least worst option at the time of asking.

[DeskJockey]

Is that functionally different from a pure FPTP system with an extra 40 seats for the national-level runners up?

What happens, for example, if there are 2 parties and there's a 51%/49% split across the country. Party A wins all the regional seats and party B is given all the non-geographic seats? Or Party B is given some of the regional seats even though it didn't win a majority in those seats?

It is functionally different because it isn't a winner takes all per seat. Your example would never come to pass as there are representatives from at least six parties (mostly more) in parliament. But in theory that's how it would play out. However, in FPTP the party winning all the regional/local seats would have won all of parliament and there would be no opposition, as I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore all the votes for anyone but the winner would be lost. In the PR system the majority party would still govern, but there would be an opposition there to hold them to account.

Alex - what I'm trying to get at is there's *either* regional representation (i.e. party A wins 51% of Greenland East and there is a representative in the parliament from Party A representing the interests of Greenland East), at the expense of the overall make-up of the parliament being an exact reflection of the national vote. Or there's pure PR (i.e. the composition of the parliament is exactly the same as the national level vote), but at the expense of regional representation (i.e. at least *some* of the regions end up with regional representative the *didn't* vote for).

I might be being thick, but I can't see a way you can have both...

So, each seat is only allocated once, but within a region the regional seats can be filled by multiple parties. So yes, if your party loses the regional or sub-regional seat that you live in then your local rep won't be your choice. But, your preferred party may get a share of the additional seats which may then be allocated to your preferred candidate if their personal vote share is big enough. They won't be representing your seat officially, but as far as I know there's nothing stopping them taking an interest and being involved. Does that explain it?

[DeskJockey]

To add to that: the ten regions are subdivided into 92 sub-regions. So some sub-regions will have more than one seat allocated, so you could have different parties represent a subregion. Therefore your local candidate might win a seat as well as one (or more) from another party.

It is complicated, but works. It also helps that there's less focus on the local MP aspect than here, possibly as a function of a smaller population and country.

[Nefarious]

Alex - you might have to Janet&John me on this one

As I understand it there are 135 parliamentary seats representing a geographic area (whether we're calling that regional or sub-regional).
When the people in one given geographic area vote, does the candidate with the largest number of votes *in that area* win the seat, or does sometimes a different party get to put their candidate in instead, in order to bring the national-level representation right?

I can't see any options than those 2.

If you'll indulge my oversimplified 2 party 51/49% example - would party A get all 135 geographic seats and party B get all 40 additional seats as a best effort at reflecting the national vote, or does party A have to give up some regional seats (even though it won in those areas) to make sure the national-level representation is 51/49%.

And re: the 40 additional seat - I assume the representatives taking those seats are chosen by the party at the national level. If that's the case, then surely it would only be by pure chance that the 49% of voters in, say, Greenland East, got their Party B Greenland East representative assigned to an additional seat.

[dinny_g]

To add to that: the ten regions are subdivided into 92 sub-regions. So some sub-regions will have more than one seat allocated, so you could have different parties represent a subregion. Therefore your local candidate might win a seat as well as one (or more) from another party.

It is complicated, but works. It also helps that there's less focus on the local MP aspect than here, possibly as a function of a smaller population and country.

Ireland’s is officially “Single Transferable Vote with Quotas”

Constituencies have 3,4 or 5 seats so you’ll always have a representation from more than one party in your constituency.

This leads to MORE local TD shenanigans with each trying to one up each other.

[DeskJockey]

Alex - you might have to Janet&John me on this one

As I understand it there are 135 parliamentary seats representing a geographic area (whether we're calling that regional or sub-regional).
When the people in one given geographic area vote, does the candidate with the largest number of votes *in that area* win the seat, or does sometimes a different party get to put their candidate in instead, in order to bring the national-level representation right?

I can't see any options than those 2.

If you'll indulge my oversimplified 2 party 51/49% example - would party A get all 135 geographic seats and party B get all 40 additional seats as a best effort at reflecting the national vote, or does party A have to give up some regional seats (even though it won in those areas) to make sure the national-level representation is 51/49%.

And re: the 40 additional seat - I assume the representatives taking those seats are chosen by the party at the national level. If that's the case, then surely it would only be by pure chance that the 49% of voters in, say, Greenland East, got their Party B Greenland East representative assigned to an additional seat.

The 135 seats are won based on how each party or party's candidate fare in the election for that area. It isn't affected by how the party does at the national level. Win the local seat and you're in, assuming your party also passes the 2% minimum vote requirement.

The 40 seats are to reflect party success at the national level, but do not mean that you'll take a seat from 135 if the numbers don't quite add up. The 40 are split based on percentage ratios, and this is where it gets really complicated (and for absolute clarity this is not something I would consider common knowledge). For the purposes of calculating this the country is split into three segments.

In order for a party to be considered for additional seats it must meet one of three requirements:
- it must have won at least one local seat
- the party must have had at least as many votes cast for them in two of the three segments as the average number of valid votes cast divided by the number of local seats in the segments
- reached the 2% minimum vote requirement

If a party meets one of the requirements it can then be considered for additional seats. They are awarded as follows:

The total number of votes cast for all parties that meet one of the requirements are tallied and divided by the number of parliamentary seats (but subtracting the number of independent/unaffiliated candidates).

Each party's number of votes is then divided by the result of the above calculation, and the number rounded down. That number is the number of seats the party should have in parliament. If this results in too few candidates, the parties with the biggest fractional loss are awarded an extra MP.

Once that is done, the additional MPs are awarded to cover the gap between the calculated number and the won number of local seats, e.g. calculation says you should have seven seats and you've only won five at the local level: you gain an extra two to make the number of seats held by the party reflective of the overall share of the votes.

If one party has a landslide victory, and therefore have "too many" candidates, their numbers are excluded from the calculation of the additional seats, but they don't lose any local seats.This should cover off your 51/49 scenario I think.

The additional seats are then split out to the three segments and the parties can then decide which candidates get a seat. So the Greenland West scenario is unlikely, but not impossible. You could end up with your preferred candidate in parliament even though they didn't win a seat at the local level.

This is not the level of braining I was expecting on a random Tuesday.

[Rich B]

Seems pretty simple.

[Nefarious]

Alex - as Broccers mentioned them, I'll use the example of the SNP in the UK.

I'm going to try some fag-packet maths using the system you describe and the voting proportions in the UK 2017 general election.
The SNP won 1.45 million votes or 4.7% of the popular share. It won 56 seats out of a total of 650, so 8.6% of parliamentary representation.

Working with those proportions and the Danish system - it would have won 8.6% of the regional votes (i.e. 11.6 regional seats). Even if they are awarded none of the 40 additional seats at all, they still end up with 6.6% (11.6/175) of parliamentary representation. How is that situation resolved?

And re: the situation of PR systems disenfranchising regional voters - if in the above scenario the SNP's final parliamentary representation does end up at 4.7% (especially if some "won" seats need taking away), then it's surely obvious that some Scottish voters may feel that their votes are being drowned out the noise of the UK-wide national parties (by population, Scots represent 8.3% of the population) and may be tempted to disengage with the voting process (at least to a greater extent than they're incentivised to do under the TPTP system).

[DeskJockey]

Alex - as Broccers mentioned them, I'll use the example of the SNP in the UK.

I'm going to try some fag-packet maths using the system you describe and the voting proportions in the UK 2017 general election.
The SNP won 1.45 million votes or 4.7% of the popular share. It won 56 seats out of a total of 650, so 8.6% of parliamentary representation.

Working with those proportions and the Danish system - it would have won 8.6% of the regional votes (i.e. 11.6 regional seats). Even if they are awarded none of the 40 additional seats at all, they still end up with 6.6% (11.6/175) of parliamentary representation. How is that situation resolved?

And re: the situation of PR systems disenfranchising regional voters - if in the above scenario the SNP's final parliamentary representation does end up at 4.7% (especially if some "won" seats need taking away), then it's surely obvious that some Scottish voters may feel that their votes are being drowned out the noise of the UK-wide national parties (by population, Scots represent 8.3% of the population) and may be tempted to disengage with the voting process (at least to a greater extent than they're incentivised to do under the TPTP system).

If the seats they won did not make up the numbers in the context of their share of the national vote, then that is where they would be awarded seats from the additional pool. In your example an uplift to represent the 2 percentage point difference (which, if memory serves, equals a single seat).

As mentioned before there are no regional/local seats being taken away. The party/candidate that won the seat will represent it, irrespective of how many other seats they have won.

Denmark doesn't have an equivalent of the four-nation problem with parties only standing in one country and some standing in all four. While I suppose it is technically possible for a party to decide to only stand in certain regions, all are allowed to field candidates everywhere (special circumstances apply to the Greenland and Faroe Islands seats, as they have local parties that don't stand anywhere else in the country, and only the locals can vote for them - they have been kingmakers in the past too).

I can see your point about Scottish (and Welsh and NI for that matter) votes drowning in the far bigger English population and that is perhaps something that would have to be addressed in the formulation of a PR solution - I am not suggesting the UK adopt the Danish version wholesale, merely advocating for PR as the democratic foundation. I guess one (probably very flawed) solution was to allow all parties to field candidates everywhere, although I suspect the SNP wouldn't get many votes south of the border. Or, would it be a problem that could be solved by having an English parliament (without wanting to open that can of worms any further) and then have a British one where all four countries were represented? I don't know.

No system is perfectly fair or perfect at all, but, IMO, PR is still the least worst option, once kinks have been worked out to suit the context, as it at least offers an option of a broader spread of political parties and therefore a bigger chance of finding something that more truly represents your views, rather than being stuck in what is effectively a two-party state with all the issues and partisan problems that brings with it.

[Nefarious]

I think where we're getting to is that each country requires a formula specific to its circumstances, and there's a sliding scale of compromise between pure FPTP and pure PR. It matters less where exactly on the scale any country sits, and a lot more on the specific adjustments/details that the particular formula uses.

I'd still argue that the Danish system you describe is functionally identical to FPTP plus extra seats to add a PR element (see the SNP example above - if regional seats are won outright cannot be taken away, that's FPTP, and in the example above they end up with 6.6% representation, not the 4.7% suggested by the national share of the vote). You can tweak the system by adding more additional seats, which shifts the compromise towards more a accurate reflection of national shares, but at the expense of regional representation (power of regional seats becomes diluted), or by reducing the number of additional seats, which boosts the importance of regional seats, but at the expense of how closely the final parliamentary make-up reflects the share of the national vote. You *can't* do both.

You can also adjust the minimum vote threshold to partially address the problem of small extremist/single-issue, but again, it's a trade-off and wherever you set the threshold, there will be some distortion (e.g. if you set it at 2%, based on the 2017 English results, UKIP would be represented with a 2.1% share, but the Greens would be totally excluded with a 1.9% share). At the extreme, consider Turkey - they use (or perhaps used to use) a 10% threshold - which effectively excludes a significant proportion of the opposition and focuses power with the incumbent (which some might say defeats the point of PR), but I'm sure is highly effective at keeping extremists (remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!) out of power! So - lower threshold, fairer, but open to populist abuse, higher threshold, protected from extremists, but open to incumbent abuse.

So, yeah, I'm not saying some sort of PR element couldn't be used to tweak the current UK system, but don't think the PR system is some sort of panacea to fix the issues with national voting systems (as evidence by the fact that all practical applications are either really hybrid systems, or employ lots of extra rules/adjustments to overcome it's inherent shortcomings).