The green-black state government wants to involve the SPD and FDP in the amendment to the electoral law in Baden-Württemberg. And not only when lowering the voting age to 16 years.
In their coalition agreement, the Greens and the CDU had agreed to reform the state election law. At the end of October, the parliamentary group leaders of these two governing parties will meet again with the parliamentary group leaders of the opposition SPD and FDP for a final discussion before going to the state parliament with a joint bill. The AfD is not invited. How is it going?
What is the state election law like so far?
One vote applies. The state parliament consists of the winners of the 70 constituencies. 50 additional mandates are distributed through the second count of votes at the administrative district level. The latter number can increase sharply due to the mathematically necessary balance between constituency winners and the voting relationships of the parties. How many parties jump the five percent hurdle plays a central role. The state parliament currently has 154 members from five parliamentary groups. In four parliamentary groups, such as between 1980 and 1984, there were 124. When the Republicans moved in as the fifth parliamentary group in 1992, the number of seats rose to 146.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the previous right to vote?
The previous right to vote is decidedly grassroots democracy, as it severely limits the influence of the party leaderships. Candidates are only presented on site. For the party leadership, it was never possible to calculate exactly who would get a chance in the second count. The disadvantage is that overriding aspects such as a certain proportion of women can only be clarified in the constituency, but not at the parliamentary group level.
What are the key points of the planned reform?
The two-vote right to vote is to come. From now on, the second vote determines the strength of a party in the state parliament. The mandates to which it is entitled according to the share of votes will first be filled with the constituency winners, then further mandates will be distributed via the new state lists. As before, this creates the mechanism of overhang and equalization mandates. There is no longer a second count at the administrative district level, so that there is no regional compensation that increases the number of mandates in individual cases. The aim of the state lists is to increase the proportion of women, but also of young people, but this cannot be legally stipulated. The proportion of women in the current state parliament is 29 percent.
Does the government need the approval of the opposition?
Only for the planned lowering of the voting age to 16 years. The Greens and CDU just miss the necessary two-thirds majority in the state parliament, and at least one other opposition party is needed. The ruling parties have declared that the whole reform should stand on a broad foundation.
The parties are concerned with the idea of a state parliament that is too big. What do the calculation models look like?
Indeed there is concern, but it is also emphasized that a larger state parliament is a result of changed voter behavior. There are calculations, for example by the Ministry of the Interior, that do not see any changes on the basis of the March election results. An expert opinion by the CDU parliamentary group and one for the Greens come to similar results.
The FDP wants to reduce the constituencies. Why?
The FDP also calculated and “made extreme assumptions”. On the basis of a state parliament with seven parties (currently: five) and closely spaced results, it comes to 267 mandates. A reduction of the constituencies from 70 to 60 results in a saving of 41 mandates with the same calculation, according to the FDP. But there are also signals from the FDP not to make the constituency question a sticking point in the end in order to possibly approve the reform.
What do the other parties think of the idea of the FDP?
Greens, CDU and SPD see a snap shot. Green party leader Andreas Schwarz fears that the debate will complicate and delay the reform. The size of the state parliament essentially has nothing to do with the right to vote, but with the question of how many parties are in the state parliament and the results with which electoral districts are won.
Why is it not so easy to have fewer constituencies?
In fact, the most effective way of limiting mandates would be to reduce the number of constituencies. But then there would have to be even sharper cuts, around only 40 constituencies. Beyond a debate about preserving the vested rights of parties with many constituency winners, the question arises whether this is appropriate for a large country. The MPs see themselves as carers on the spot. Too large constituencies make this difficult. Veterans of state politics also refer to the heated debates of the territorial reform of the 1970s. They warn: After the constituencies, some districts or municipalities could be put to the test – which would lead to new dispute.
–
