Thank you, Dave, for your insightful reply (they always are).

Europe has many different systems, and Eastern Europe does not have proportional voting the way Scandinavia or Holland have. I would even declare that they do not have proportional voting.

Let’s look at several things together:

• Italy has the worst proportional voting system (if we want to call it that way) because the government is based on both houses supporting the government, and either house can make it fall. This is really dumb and explains a lot about Italy. It is like children that need Mom and Dad’s permission to do something and Mom and Dad have a hard time making up their minds plus each has veto rights. [Imagine the mental health of that child.]
• Hungary has a mixed system based on district and proportional voting, and this is just for one house. President has substantial power, yet is elected by that single house so not a winner-taking-all. But… the president appoints the prime-minister. The voter is definitively not empowered like the voters in proportional voting, but it could be worse than in Hungary.
• Czech Republic has an empowered winner-take-all president, appointing the prime-minister. Representatives are voted in districts, in one house in single-seat districts, in the other house in multi-seat districts.
• Slovakia has an empowered winner-take-all president, too, appointing the prime-minister. Representatives are voted in single- and multi-seat districts, for one house in total.

— -

Let me keep it simple.

Proportional voting: the top level of a nation has a full pie of representatives cut up based on all votes. Anything else is not proportional voting in my dictionary. Proportional voting at a lower level only is not proportional voting.

Either power is given to the voters in the fullest context possible (no restrictions are applied), or one cannot call it proportional. My dictionary!

• Let’s start with Italy and declaring why it does not have a pure proportional system. Simple: one cannot double a system and then declare that one ended up with the same. That is like stating that one car added to one car amounts to one car. 1 + 1 is not 1. The more one votes, the less empowered the voters are.
• Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia do not have proportional voting because they vote in districts. Voting in multi-seat districts does not make the overall outcome proportional; it only makes the specific outcome proportional. That is like saying you are the richest man in the world when you are in reality the richest man in your street. Not the same thing.

Again, the overall outcome cannot be based on separate parts. There is only one level for voting in proportional voting; all seats must be involved at the same time. Anything less? Not proportional.

— -

The Scandinavian countries have the pure proportional system. One house only.

Holland has two houses, one is fully proportional. The other house cannot write or undo laws; it can only vote up or down what the proportional house decided. It’s a gatekeeper (and hardly ever says no).

Germany is my preferred nation for having a district voting system influenced by proportional voting. The reason is that the Germans fix their system up at the only level where it matters: at the overall level.

They take all votes, throw them together and count who voted for what party. Then they look at the winners of the districts, and they compare the winners of the districts with all votes cast by voters. Then they fix the house so all voters are represented accordingly — with the exception that a party must have five percent of the votes before they get any seats. I like it. District voting made proportional (and not: proportional voting delivered in districts).

— -

What I desire is the removal anywhere in the world of winner-take-all voting at the overall level. It should be abandoned because it promotes selfishness. It is fascinating how this works, Dave.

Because voters are either represented or not represented in winner-take-all, they have a lot to lose. They are made more selfish (and oppose the other more strongly) because of the dumb system. Look at what is happening in the US today. (Some) people are completely ready for civil war because they can only see their own self-interest and righteousness, and they vilify the other side. They have no idea that the system made them this way.

We are very far off having this world run by people that are not selfish. Very few nations have the actual proportional voting system. Really very few. Plus, large nations need to put restrictions in place, like Germany did, so they do not end up with twenty unimportant parties that end up undermining their well-functioning.

— -

The explanation gets meaner: winner-take-all nations have an economic edge over proportional nations. Because not everyone is represented at the tables of representation in winner-take-all, the decisions are made only for (large) sections of society and they are not made with all in mind. They are economically leaner and meaner.

In general, nations with proportional voting must keep a close eye on the district elected nations’ decisions simply to keep up with them. When all take part in WTO or EU agreements, the worst system with the meanest form of winner-take-all wins. (Yes, size matters, too.)

— -

“In PR, elected politicians are still somewhat bound to the mandate they suggested in their election campaigns. For example, if they campaign on increasing pensions for retired people, they have to bring that mandate into legislative deliberations.”

This tells me that you do not know how PR works.

I am using this example (election results of ’06 and ’10) because it is simple (but complex enough). Eleven seats in this city.

The majority only needs 6 seats. Anyone screaming out loud that things must go their way end up getting no seats or one seat. To end up with legislature passing, two colors have to line up; never a single color. There are compromises needed between parties. Over time, these four parties will likely have gotten the ropes in their hands, always together with an other party, never alone.

The issues they represent are the issues that make people vote for them. No party will offer heaven, and people do not vote for a more-more-more party; parties nor people are that dumb. Parties and people are smart and they see the world from their perspectives and the parties present solutions accordingly and voters vote accordingly.

Are there parties for the elderly? Yes, probably. But if they don’t negotiate well when a government coalition is put together, then they don’t end up on the inside. If they are not a large party? Probably won’t make it into a coalition at all. But here’s the sweet spot: The larger parties keep a keen eye on the smaller parties and they fish for their issues. Two larger parties in a coalition can decide to fix the reasons the elderly voted for that third party. Third party unhappy because their issues were fixed. Their voters? Thrilled! They were heard by the politicians.

I can say it probably best with this image:

We have purple in the US and something similar in the UK.
Yet there is a brighter color shining in the proportional nations.

That brings me to your claim that all media is biased. If one lives in an Anglo nation, one will probably conclude this as an overall truth. But if one lives in a nation where the love for the truth is greater than any self-interest, then the media is not per se biased. Foreigners, for instance, have to get used to the honesty and directness of the Dutch (honest to the point that sometimes it is rude), but they end up appreciating that honesty because folks quickly learn something they never learned in their own culture. The real truth is best delivered by a well-polished mirror.

Modified Dutch saying:
Even when a lie wears the mightiest crown, in the end the truth will pull it nicely down.

Always my pleasure, Dave.