What if....no 5%-hurdle in the FRG?

[Hörnla]

Opposite to popular belief, the 5%-hurdle which prohibits party which do not reach 5% of the nationwide vote (or respectively win three electoral districts) from entering the Bundestag, is not part of the Basic Law and had not yet been in effect for the first Bundestagswahl in 1949.

That way, 11 parties (counting the siblings CDU and CSU independantly) and three independant mandates entered the First Bundestag. The hurdle would have allowed only 7 of those.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_German_federal_election,_1949)

Afterwards, the present-day rule had come into effect.

How big would you deem the changes in political culture and concerning the resulting majorities in the FRG, if, e.g., the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Supreme Court) had decided that the hurdle was unconstitutional?

Just as an example; Sunday's elections (butterflies, I know) would have resulted in that:

CDU/CSU (moderate conservative) 248
SPD (social-democratic) 153
LINKE (socialist) 51
GRÜN (moderately leftist ecological) 50

Here we dive below the 5%-hurdle...

FDP (market-liberal) 28
AFD (conservative, anti-European) 28
Pirates (social-libertarian) 13
NPD (neo-nazi) 7
Free Voters (conservative) 5
Tierschutz (animal rights) 1
ÖDP (conservative-ecological) 1
Republikaner (national-conservative) 1
proD(anti-Islam/national-conservative) 1
DIE PARTEI (satirical) 1

 

[historyfool]

Actually the 5% were already in effect in 49, they were just counted on a state by state base. Thus a party had to reach 5% only in one Land. The Bayernpartei for example entered by gaining a reasonable result in Bavaria but naturally were non-existent elsewhere. Under that rule FDP and AfD would enter and I am not sure about Free Voters and NPD, which are regionally sometimes quite strong, elsewhere not even on the Radar. But parties with a result equally divided between various regions like the Pirates would be out.

Under the rules of 49 I suspect there would be more regional parties as they have a better chance to enter. It is possible though that it will be challenged in the constitutional court at some time, as the different size of the Länder make the threshold rather unequal.

A complete abandoning of the threshold otoh would probably make the political landscape fully unrecognizable, but otoh I can´t really see the founding fathers of the FRG introducing it. After all their goal was to create a stable democracy avoiding the mistakes of Weimar. And afterwards abandoning a threshold is even less likely. After all all (until this election) the established parties stand to loose power with granting splinter parties access.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

Then you basically would have no chance to escape a great coalition

You need 300 of 598 for a majority - Thats CDU/CSU+SPD = 402 or +FDP+Green (good chance for the latter) = 317

I assume AfP will NOT be willing to "rule"

Neglect NPD and Pirates

Even if you cut off at 4% (as Austria) CDU/CSU + FDP would not have the majority 265+30 = 295


I think atm you have the worst possible scenario - a party that ALMOST can rule alone and 3 other parties that will sell their hide for a high price - as high as possible - but the alternatice SPD+Grün+linke is almost ASB - or do you think they manage to come to an agreement?

 

[Hörnla]

Actually the 5% were already in effect in 49, they were just counted on a state by state base.

I stand corrected.

 

[Hörnla]

Then you basically would have no chance to escape a great coalition

In effect, that is the probable outcome present-day, though interestingly with or without the hurdle - at least as long as Seehofer and the Green Party are in no mood to stand each other.

but the alternatice SPD+Grün+linke is almost ASB - or do you think they manage to come to an agreement?

Never with such a narrow majority resulting in a constant tightrope. It might even lead to a "Ypsilanti".

 

[pternagy]

I wonder, though, if things could have played out much differently if the 5% threshold either didn't exist or was still only applied on a statewide basis.

I believe at one point in the 1960s, some thought was given to moving to a pure first past the post system. The direct mandates would stay, but there would no longer be any list seats. I would think it possible that if there were no threshold and parties began to proliferate, the push for FPTP may have been greater.

 

[Hörnla]

I wonder, though, if things could have played out much differently if the 5% threshold either didn't exist or was still only applied on a statewide basis.

There'd have been much turmoil with the NPD in the late 1960s. OTL, they only narrowly were kept out of the Bundestag.
I would also suggest that "Die Grünen" would remain being a lot more splintered, possibly leading to two or three parties emerging from the "68er-Bewegung"; perhaps we have a far stronger ÖDP.

I would think it possible that if there were no threshold and parties began to proliferate, the push for FPTP may have been greater.

You are correct, especially if the Bundestag is perceived in a negative way due to the number of parties. But the shock of this introduction would also be greater. OTL, the only victim would be the FDP. ITTL, it would look like a putch.

 

[Anderman]

Well Germany would have a voting system with the principle of one men one vote , wouldn´t it ?

 

[historyfool]

Well Germany would have a voting system with the principle of one men one vote , wouldn´t it ?

Except that FPTP is for many Germans the most undemocratic system short of outright dictatorship imaginable. I believe both Heuss and Adenauer, the closest the FRG had to founding fathers, said as much. It allows to form a government against the will of a majority of the voters. There will be people alive remembering how it was used in Imperial Germany successfully to keep the SPD from gaining the share of seats it deserved. It is also the perfect example that it not always reduces the number of parties. All parties had regional strong points and in a more splintered party landscape of the early FRG that might well remain the case.

 

[Kitiem3000]

FPTP is an undemocratic and horrible system and should never be considered for anything but abolishment.

A lower threshold isn't that bad. Israel does pretty well with a 2% threshold.
Next door The Netherlands have a 0,667% threshold without falling into anarchy, while Belgium maintains a 5% limit and went 589 days without a government.
Consider that Italy and Sweden both have a 4% limit.
I have to conclude that the size of the voter-hurdle has no real bearing on the stability of a government.

 

[MUC]

You can't use Sunday's results as valid. Had the 5% burden not been in place, you would ha had lots of mores maller parties entering the race in the first place. They would have basically seen a chance to get representatives into the parliament elected and would have thus given it a shot.
You may have also seen more splittings in bigger parties, for example more radical greens forming a more radical green party.

I think a threshokd would have always made sense. 5% is probably too high though, maybe 3% would be an option?

 

[Hörnla]

Well Germany would have a voting system with the principle of one men one vote , wouldn´t it ?

In principle, it already has, especially since the most recent amendments to the voting law (prior to the most recent election, slight distortions doe to technicalities were usual). The hurdle is just the exception to the rule.

Except that FPTP is for many Germans the most undemocratic system short of outright dictatorship imaginable. I believe both Heuss and Adenauer, the closest the FRG had to founding fathers, said as much. It allows to form a government against the will of a majority of the voters. There will be people alive remembering how it was used in Imperial Germany successfully to keep the SPD from gaining the share of seats it deserved. It is also the perfect example that it not always reduces the number of parties.

You are correct. It is amazing to see that Imperial Germany happens to be one of the very few examples where FPTP did, over the course of four decades, NOT lead to a significant reduction in the number of parties. Concerning the disucssion about introducing FPTP in Germany (in the late 1960s); the idea died as soon as some Sozi-Nerds had calculated that such a system would ensure a Federal Republic which is forever ruled by the CDU/CSU.

FPTP is an undemocratic and horrible system and should never be considered for anything but abolishment.

I agree. The UK seems to get along as it has never turned into a complete two-party-system and the disadvantages aren't too obvious (as long as you aren't a LibDem); but I think it contributes a lot to the bemoaned decline of political culture in the United States. A change there is totally unrealistic, though.

A lower threshold isn't that bad. Israel does pretty well with a 2% threshold.
Next door The Netherlands have a 0,667% threshold without falling into anarchy

[...]

I have to conclude that the size of the voter-hurdle has no real bearing on the stability of a government.

I agree. I think the difference is in a changing political culture and less frustration for voters complaining "that there is no real choice in this so-called democracy".

You can't use Sunday's results as valid. Had the 5% burden not been in place, you would ha had lots of mores maller parties entering the race in the first place. They would have basically seen a chance to get representatives into the parliament elected and would have thus given it a shot.

You may have also seen more splittings in bigger parties, for example more radical greens forming a more radical green party.

I am of course completely aware that the votes of OTL 2013 election are no indicator of what would actually happen, as I wrote, I just used them as an example. It is not base for discussion, just food for thought.

I agree with you that the Green Party would long ago have split along the "Fundi-Realo"-line. And it would probably have been far more appealing to try establishing a "strictly conservative"-party.

I think a threshold would have always made sense. 5% is probably too high though, maybe 3% would be an option?

In the end, the number of seats means the final hurdle. In the case of Germany's Bundestag ca. 0.16%.

I am a somewhat radical opponent to the 5%-hurdle. Thus, I'd argue that 2 or 3% are only gradually better than 5%.

My personal taste would be that "aller guten Dinge sind drei" - that any party which manages to gain three seats (that's ca. 200,000 votes) should be granted representation.
Smaller groupings would be really awkward-looking loners and should only be gained by winning a whole district (as is theoretically possible OTL, too).

 

[Opunium]

Next door The Netherlands have a 0,667% threshold without falling into anarchy

Well if you look to the current polls....

 

[The Red]

Pirates (social-libertarian) 13
NPD (neo-nazi) 7
Free Voters (conservative) 5
Tierschutz (animal rights) 1
ÖDP (conservative-ecological) 1
Republikaner (national-conservative) 1
proD(anti-Islam/national-conservative) 1
DIE PARTEI (satirical) 1

This list is a good argument for the threshold in itself.

 

[Monty Burns]

As stated previously, I think the party system would look very differently ITTL. The 5%-hurdle forces people to join interests on a broader basis to get at least a chance to enter the Bundestag. Without that hurdle, every splinter opinion has a decent chance to be represented.

One consequence IMHO would be that there would have ben more frequent minority governments. That doesn't really work right now because your choices on who to deal with are too limited. With independents and smaller parties in the Bundestag you can work with changing majorities.

Overall, I don't think such a change would improve our political system. And the 5%-hurdle does a good job in keeping the extremists out.

 

[Hörnla]

In the history of the FRG, only two parties have ever been prohibitied due to their extremist views, and both occured back in the 1950s.

What I started to wonder while writing was if there would have been more pressure to keep the political scene "clean" that way, if the hurdle wouldn't do the job.

 

[Anderman]

Except that FPTP is for many Germans the most undemocratic system short of outright dictatorship imaginable. I believe both Heuss and Adenauer, the closest the FRG had to founding fathers, said as much. It allows to form a government against the will of a majority of the voters. There will be people alive remembering how it was used in Imperial Germany successfully to keep the SPD from gaining the share of seats it deserved. It is also the perfect example that it not always reduces the number of parties. All parties had regional strong points and in a more splintered party landscape of the early FRG that might well remain the case.

That may be the case but how democratic is the system now with a party having 42% of the vote having nearly the mayority of the seat in the Bundestag?
And about 10% of the vote doesn´t count at all ?

 

[pternagy]

That may be the case but how democratic is the system now with a party having 42% of the vote having nearly the mayority of the seat in the Bundestag?
And about 10% of the vote doesn´t count at all ?

Still more democratic than FPTP, where 42% can have a majority of seats even when 58% of people vote for the same party in the wrong places.

Still more democratic than FPTP where a party can win a majority of seats with 30% of the votes, or even less in theory.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Still more democratic than FPTP, where 42% can have a majority of seats even when 58% of people vote for the same party in the wrong places.

Still more democratic than FPTP where a party can win a majority of seats with 30% of the votes, or even less in theory.

And the US, where a president can theoretically be elected with less than 25% of the popular vote, even an opponent getting 75%+. Fortunately, the distortion has never been that bad. Or, maybe UNFORTUNATELY, as such a result would likely lead to the abolition of the electoral college.

 

[Anderman]

Still more democratic than FPTP, where 42% can have a majority of seats even when 58% of people vote for the same party in the wrong places.

Still more democratic than FPTP where a party can win a majority of seats with 30% of the votes, or even less in theory.

In a FPTP you vote for people , human beeing not a politcal Party. This political parties get all the same number of votes O !