In an effort to get closer to a real-life, practical case in the field of comparative politics, two political scholars met to contrast the efficiencies of German versus American electoral systems. 

Two days after the federal election was held in Germany, German Consul General for New England Ralf Horlemann met for a discussion with Prof. Lucy Goodhart (POL) last Tuesday. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union Party won the greatest number of votes and remains both the largest majority in German parliament and the party with the largest electoral support after 12 years.

Based on ongoing concerns in past years regarding European and U.S. politics, Goodhart and Horlemann compared and contrasted the characteristics of the two very different electoral systems. 

“It is, of course, relative, because countries are different, but I will make a very strong point … to argue that Germany has one of the fairest and the most democratic elections in the world,” said Horlemann.

He examined different aspects of the entire electoral system, from Parliament to the design of electoral districts across the country. “Germans have a number of obsessions ... the number one, equality; the other one, stability; and the third one, perfection,” he said, though he added that, ironically, these values can make the German election system “a bit complicated.” 

Goodhart suggested that a more objective and less competitive view would be to focus on the difference between democratic systems: “proportional representation” versus “winner-takes-all.”

In the proportional electoral system, “the entire nation is one electoral district … parties get seats in proportion to the percentage of the votes that they get.” In this manner, small parties have the ability to earn a representation, and the nation’s minority interest, such as the environmental interests of Germany’s Green Party, can get into the national political sphere, she added.

More importantly, votes are not ever considered “wasted,” as in the alternative “winner-takes-all” electoral system, Goodhart said. 

“[This] is the system in which there is only one candidate elected for the whole district,” she said. “In that district, voters have to decide, ‘Who am I going to vote for? I kind of believe I care about the environment — but I’m not going to vote for the environmental party, because I don’t think they have a chance of winning this particular race.’” 

If one is not voting for the top two major political parties, then voters may believe they are ‘throwing away’ their vote, Goodhart noted. “In a majoritarian system, often two major political parties, such as in the U.S., dominate the election. And maybe, if you have a particular interest … [such as] being ‘green,’ you are not going to be represented,” she said.

However, Goodhart pointed out the advantage this system brings to the U.S., because although voters aren’t represented proportionally, whenever one of the two major parties is in power, one can clearly identify who is making the executive decisions.

“The U.S. really wants to have a decisive government,” she said. “But now in Germany, it may take a year to make a coalition … and until the end of the year, there is the question: who is the executive?”

However, it remains that the U.S. political system cannot completely represent its popular vote through the electoral college, excluding some of the nation’s voices. “Those rules are imperfect, but I think it suits the U.S., because I think we need a strong executive. … For the system in America, it makes parties unify American people, but it may do less good for representing those minorities,” Goodhart said.

Putting the debate into a larger context relative to the rise of populism in the past couple of years — and drawing upon Brexit and President Donald Trump — Goodhart concluded with a question: “How then does the electoral system affect that kind of change in popular sentiments worldwide?”