[Miron]

Hi,

we just had elections in Czech Republic and I realized that I don't know a lot about elections methods in other states. So if I can ask:
- what is the election type in your country?
- how many people usually vote?
- is the election winner "clear"? (he can reign without coalition or the coalition is simple)

Preclaimer: All texts in this thread are just for increasing my knoledge (or readers which are intrested). The info here can be wrong. Please do not search here anything else and take in account the posters do not promise anything (esp. they have not made a mistake). This thread does not serve for any propagade.

[Miron]

Czech Republic:

1. The limit for getting "in" is 5% overall. The mandates are divided by percentages in 14 districts (each has different amount of mandates) between all who got in the parliament.
2. This year 65%, last time 60%. But in long time it is decreasing.
3. No, in last three (maybe four) elections no clear winner. This time the left:right is 100:100, new election or big coalition or something unstable ahead

[helene_t]

Netherlands:
First chamber elected by the members of 12 provicial parlements
Second chamber elected directly without lower limit, d'Hont's method (similar to proportinal but gives the bigger parties some advantage).Parties are allowed to let different candidates run in different districts but most parties have one candidate list for the whole country.

Denmark:
One chamer, proportional representation (lower limit= 2%) but each candidate can only run in one district. (This works by means of 44 supplentary seats which are allocated mainly to small parties that do not succeed in taking any district seats).

In both countries, there will rarely be a clear winner.

[G_R__E_G]

In Canada, we work on a parliamentary system. We have 308 "ridings" in the country. Each of these ridings elects an MP (Member of Parliament). The winner of these goes to whichever candidate garners the most votes, even if the margin of victory is one vote. Whichever of the political parties (we have several official parties but only two of them have ever formed a government) wins the most seats forms the government and the leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. If the winning party wins 155 seats or more they have won a majority government, if they win less seats than that then they have won a minority government. If there is a minority government (as we have right now) the other parties are able to put in motion a non-confidence vote to force another election. The system seems to work well, we always have a clear winner, although when it's a minority their power is always tenuous at best.

[joshs]

In the US, about 50% of the voting age population vote in presidential elections (every 4 years in November). For other elections the turnout is a lot lower.

Senators (2 from each state) have 6 year terms, and there terms are staggered So there are elections for senator in each state 2 out of 6 years (but always in even numbered years)
Approximently every 500,000 people get a representative in the house of representatives (each representative represents 1 district, which is wholy contained within a state. The exact shape of the districts are drawn by the states legislature, subject to a couple of restrictions, and causes much contraversy every time.) These representatives go up for election every 2 years (again also even years).

Local elections follow there own pattern. States have governors, a senmtate, a lower legislature. Again these are all directly elected.

The US follows the following scheme for most elections:
a. Party's nominate a candidate. If that party had gotten enough votes in the previous election (5%?) their candidate automatically appears on the ballot. Otherwise, you must get enough signatures from voters to get on the ballot. (same procedure to appear on the ballot as an indpendant)

The parties usually have an election to determine their candidate, but other schemes are sometimes used. (A party meeting called a caucus is sometimes used. These have much smaller tournouts than elections).

b. then a vote occurs to determine which candidate wins. Its basically direct elections, not parmimentary (where your representatives in parliment determine which of them is the "leader")


For presidential elections each state (with 2 exceptions) is winner take all. Getting the most votes gives you credit for x number of votes for the president, where x is approximently equal to population/500000 (rounded up) +2 (e.g. Senators plus representatives). Call these votes electoral college votes. In case no candidate got more than half of the total number of electoral college votes, the electoral college votes are turned into people who represent their candidate, and they can negiotiate and re-vote until a winner is elected.
I call this a negiotiated run-off (a majority is really required, not just the person with the most votes, but rather than having the top two candidates have a re-vote, representatives of all candidates negitiate a winner, so essentially the 3'rd place finished decides who to throw their support to...)

If I remember correctly, a presidential election hasn't been decided by a "run-off" for 200 years.

For other elections, state rules apply so are different from election to election. Some elections are by pluraility (most votes wins), some have run-offs from the top 2 candidates.

Occasionally you might even see a "select 6 of these 20 candidates" for city councel, so you vote for 6 and the top 6 get elected.

Its all very complicated...

[pclayton]

In addition, the U.S. government has the Judicial branch (system of federal judges), in addition to the Legislative (House of Representatives and Senate) and Executive (President and cabinet) that Josh mentioned.

Many state seats have term limits. In California, it is 6 years (senate: 2 x 3 year terms; assembly; 3 x 2 year terms). The debate about term limits is ongoing; some like it because it continually brings in fresh blood; others don't like it, because unelected heads of state agencies have increased power.

One area where most agree needs change is the 'gerrymandered' districts which virtually guarantee a controlling party's re-election.

Federal positions do not have term limits. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina had been a U.S. Senator for approximately 50 years and died in office at the ripe age of 101.

[joshs]

President has a 2 term limit, but other federal positions don't have limits...

[luke warm]

that's about the gist of it, in the u.s. ... we have 3 branches of gov't, equal in theory... the u.s. constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's the judiciary's (the supreme court's) function to insure that congress, the law-making branch, proposes or passes only laws that comport with the constitution (or that laws passed by any of the 50 states are constitutional)...

the president has veto power over laws passed by the congress... a law is proposed in one chamber (there are two, as noted above, the house of representatives and the senate), voted on and passed or not.. if passed, it goes to the other chamber where it's again debated and voted on.. if passed, the law goes to the president for his signature... the legislation becomes law if he signs it or if he fails to sign it within a set number of days... he can also veto the bill, and it will be returned to congress... his veto can be overridden by 2/3 vote of both houses

the 3 equal branches of gov't were put in place by the founders of the country so there would be checks and balances on each, theoretically protecting the populace from any one branch or person taking over the country... a lot of it hinges on the makeup of the supreme court, since some justices seem to be more willing than others to write opinions based on what they (and, in their opinion, legal precedent) believe the founders meant... another judicial philosophy is the 'strict constructionist' view... these justices feel that the constitution, and the writings left by the founders as to their reasons for certain ammendments, has already been interpretted and only needs enforcing

[whereagles]

Portugal: semi-presidentialist democracy.

Parliment holds legislative power and is formed by representatives of 18 districts (deputies). Number of representatives per district proportional to population. Each party gets a share of the representatives per district, attributed by Hondt's method.

Government holds executive power. It is selected by the parliment (traditionally the most voted party forms government) and endorsed by the president. No absolute majority in parliment is needed.

President is an overseer authority who validates new parliment laws. He can dissolve the parliment and call for elections at any time (we call this power of him "the atomic bomb".. lol). He can also nominate a government in his own, though this power is very unpopular and hasn't thus been used in a long time. It's a thing to use in times of crisis.

[slothy]

UK: pseudo democracy with a waffling image-conscious, fake-smiled middle-aged man as priminister, a doddering old lady as tokenistic head of State and an unelected alzheimer-ridden geriocratic second house who contest Bills simply to give them a fatuous credibility that they are indispensible to the well-being of the country.

[Miron]

slothy, on Jun 6 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

UK: pseudo democracy with a waffling image-conscious, fake-smiled middle-aged man as priminister, a doddering old lady as tokenistic head of State and an unelected alzheimer-ridden geriocratic second house who contest Bills simply to give them a fatuous credibility that they are indispensible to the well-being of the country.

A bit pessimistic view, isn't it?

[slothy]

you noticed Miron ?

[Sigi_BC84]

slothy, on Jun 6 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

UK: pseudo democracy with a waffling image-conscious, fake-smiled middle-aged man as priminister, a doddering old lady as tokenistic head of State and an unelected alzheimer-ridden geriocratic second house who contest Bills simply to give them a fatuous credibility that they are indispensible to the well-being of the country.

Priceless.

[luke warm]

notwithstanding alex's views (which contain some truth ), the u.k. has also given rise to some of the greatest statesmen of the modern era

[mike777]

luke warm, on Jun 6 2006, 06:37 PM, said:

notwithstanding alex's views (which contain some truth ), the u.k. has also given rise to some of the greatest statesmen of the modern era

Yes I just listened to a great DVD's that one of those guys came out with called
Disraeli Gears.... Great Politician and musician.

[Impact]

Oz at Commonwealth (National) level has 2 houses:-

the lower house where Bills (legislation) is written and the Prime Minister as leader of the governing party sits and
the Senate (House of Review).

Both chambers are elected by preferential voting:-

in the lower House you vote for the candidate standing in your electorate, and must number in order of preference for all candidates. First preferences are taken, and candidates eliminated in each electorate with all "his" first preferences being distributed to the second preference of those who voted for him, until one candidate eventually has 50% of the vote...

In the Senate you vote on the same preferential basis for the allocated number of senators for your state (and the process works in the same fashion in the sense that if your state has 7 senators your first 7 votes are your first preference, and once any person reaches 50% they are elected but the preferences are then redistributed of those eliminated....)

NB IN OZ VOTING IS COMPULSORY ie you must roll up to vote or face a small fine, but note that other than confirming that you are given a ballot paper and your name taken, you could leave it blank, scrawl all over it or otherwise render it invalid or actually vote!!!

We also have complete seaparation of the judiciary which is appointed - not elected at any level....