Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Proportional Representation: How the Dutch Electoral System Works (and the Pros u0026 Cons) - TLDR News" video.

  1. 8:45 You generally have a pretty good idea about what parties will be there. But you're right that you don't know who'll be the various ministers unless you're in one of the parties in question. Members of the parties have a decent idea about what ministries they want the most and what candidates they themselves would prefer. But it's usually the prime ministers decision exactly who ends up there. Mind you, who elected the "ministers" in the US?
    5
  2. 8:30 Ok, that one I'll grant you, although it's still a truth with modifications. Basically parties just declare their intentions up front. Then negotiate afterwards based on the overall balance of power in the parliament. So you'll have a pretty good idea about what will happen depending on what parties gets how much power. For instance, votes for the two biggest parties usually leads to a increased chance that they'll try to form a government. Votes for parties closely aligned with them also increase the likelihood that they'll get into power but is slightly less certain as your party may get offered a better deal. That might be seen as a negative, but it could also be seen as one of the bigger advantages of that approach. If you vote for a unaligned party you don't know who'll be in power, but you increase the likelihood that your views are represented. So me I used to vote for a far left party, but switched to one in the center despite not changing values because I wanted to ensure that my values are represented regardless of what cabinet is in power. In fact, despite disagreeing with pretty much everything they stand for, I think our conservative prime minister here in Norway is probably a better option for a government taking care of the values I care for (the environment etc) then a labor party lead government right now, but only if they're forced into some serious compromises and consessions. A slightly left leaning nonaligned environmental party willing to cooperate with them is therefore preferable to me over a far left one that's only willing to support the labor party and who will otherwise stay out of it... They're also preferable for me over the slightly right leaning party also fighting for the environment and libertarian values. All of those parties where genuine options for me. But I intentionally picked the nonaligned option in order to further my values and partially to punish the labor party for not taking enough care of their coalition partners. I wasn't alone. Hence why they lost their election to the conservatives. Now something similar is happening due to the conservatives upsetting the urban/rural balance by making major reforms in how the country is dividend. Upsetting many who have switched over to a center left option with a clear rural centric and anti-immigration profile appealing to many on the right who might otherwise object to voting for left wing parties...
    3
  3. 5:53 Their parties might be more moderate, but the actual policies in those countries tends to be more extreme in practice...
    2
  4. 7:27 That depends. It doesn't have to. Norwegian ones are quite simple unless you intentionally try to change the party list by rearranging representatives in it. Your average voter will just pick a list and drop it into the box. Only those with extra interest will take the effort to make changes.
    1
  5. 7:18 That's not entirely true. And it's not like everyone in bigger parties in majoritarian systems voted for the major parties in question. People who wants lower taxes but not conservative values or who wants conservative values but not a smaller government and market liberalism or people who care about the rural/urban divide without wanting the big patty in question etc... Basically you end up with the same kind of tradeoffs for voters as when picking parties prone to certain coalitions. And when voting in a proportional system you know that you're voting for a party that supports your values instead of just doing lip service to them. Yes, there's coalitions and compromises, but at least you have someone representing the overall intent of your values trying to fight for them instead of someone who joined the party for entirely different reasons that doesn't even care about said values and who doesn't really have to make compromises but can just pick and choose what bones to throw your way in order to keep you as a voter based on how much worse the opposite side party is...
    1
  6. 8:11 Again not necessarily true. You can have multiple constituencies in a pr system too. And for more proportionality you can use leveling seats to correct for any difference between the local and national proportionality. That way most of the representatives do at least represent a specific region even if the electoral circles generally are bigger than in majoritarian systems. Also, if you allow people to modify the lists you can promote reprentatives from your local area in those lists when voting if there's major issues that needs to be addressed.
    1
  7. Yes, it's better.
    1
  8. 6:24 They also do so in a majoritarian system, just from within a party, just look at Trump... Or I guess Sanders for those leaning the other way... In two party systems the bigger parties always fear losing power so they adop policies from smaller parties they see as a threat in order to squash them. See the conservatives in the UK vs UKIP for instance. With proportional representation at least people feel like they have a choice. Yes extremists gets some influence if there's enough voters for them and their coalition partners can't find centrist alternaties instead. But if you use the right proportional electoral system your parties should generally have more than one viable coalition option so parties that gets too extreme doesn't get power, meaning that the extreme parties have a interest in at least seeming less extreme in order to remain plausible options for the larger parties if the centrist parties starts asking for too much or turns to the other side.
    1
  9. 2:01 Oh dear, D'Hondt method... I can already tell that this one is going to have bigger parties that don't get along, just like with first past the post... Although at least other parties have a real chance and can help make things more nuanced.
    1
  10. 8:53 Again a truth with modifications. Parties might negotiate a framework up front that may be slightly modified depending on the election results. So while you won't know the specifics you'll generally have a rough idea.
    1
  11. 10:06 Okay, that's a fair bit of criticism. Although there are changes. They're just generally gradual in nature. A evolution rather than a revolution. Something that's usually better economically as companies are able to predict what environment they'll be operating under more accurately when making plans. Yes, changes are made, but it's rarely Earth shattering ones. I'm a former far left voter, and I still think that's a good thing. You don't loose sight of the end goal, but you work your way there slowly and steadily instead of turning everything upside down overnight like certain countries has done recently...
    1
  12. 10:40 Norway also got our election coming up, have a look at our system too? It's complicated (although that's not something the voters need to think about much) but it's quite a interesting system. Also, Norway is at the top of the democracy index. Our system is a variation of the party list proportional representation system, but with a completely different way of calculating it to the Netherlands. There's elements of our system that addresses many of the things that Americans and Brits have critiqued about proportional representation. We have increased power to rural areas (one of the arguments for the US electoral college etc), we have multiple electoral circles instead of just one, so a bit more like the UK then the Netherlands. Parties can grow their power either in a region or the nation as a whole (parties can get representation even without being popular enough in any one electoral circle to get much power if they're overall popular enough) There's no lower limit to the number of voters you need to get a representative. And just like as swing states in the states get more voter participation there we have a swinging point for every party where having more or less then 4% if the votes easily can mean the difference between 2-3 representatives and 6-11 representatives. Meaning that every vote makes a difference even for smaller parties. It can feel a little bit arbitrary to nonlocals. But there's actually good reasons for it.
    1