5% of the votes). The most representative among the eligible ones is the left party DIE LINKE that received only 8.6% of the votes. It is concluded that voters are not very consistent with their own political profiles, disregard party manifestos, and are likely driven by political traditions, even if outdated, or by personal images of politicians. Moreover, the actual practice of coalition formation further aggravates the low representativeness of the parliament. Thereby it is shown that representative democracy, as it is, guarantees no adequate representation of public opinion even in Germany with its multiparty system and strong socialdemocratic traditions. To bridge approaches of representative and direct democracy, an alternative election procedure is proposed. For illustration, it is hypothetically applied to redistribute the Bundestag seats with a considerable gain in its representativeness."> 5% of the votes). The most representative among the eligible ones is the left party DIE LINKE that received only 8.6% of the votes. It is concluded that voters are not very consistent with their own political profiles, disregard party manifestos, and are likely driven by political traditions, even if outdated, or by personal images of politicians. Moreover, the actual practice of coalition formation further aggravates the low representativeness of the parliament. Thereby it is shown that representative democracy, as it is, guarantees no adequate representation of public opinion even in Germany with its multiparty system and strong socialdemocratic traditions. To bridge approaches of representative and direct democracy, an alternative election procedure is proposed. For illustration, it is hypothetically applied to redistribute the Bundestag seats with a considerable gain in its representativeness.">
[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wsidps/186.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

2013 election to German Bundestag from the viewpoint of direct democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Tangian, Andranik S.
Abstract
The outcomes of the 2013 German Bundestag (federal parliament) are analyzed from the viewpoint of direct democracy. For this purpose, the party positions on 36 topical issues are compared with the results of public opinion polls, and the party and coalition indices of popularity (the average percentage of the population represented) and universality (frequency in representing a majority) are constructed. It is shown that the 2013 election winner, the union of two conservative parties CDU/CSU with their 41.6% of the votes, is the least representative among the four parties eligible for parliament seats (with > 5% of the votes). The most representative among the eligible ones is the left party DIE LINKE that received only 8.6% of the votes. It is concluded that voters are not very consistent with their own political profiles, disregard party manifestos, and are likely driven by political traditions, even if outdated, or by personal images of politicians. Moreover, the actual practice of coalition formation further aggravates the low representativeness of the parliament. Thereby it is shown that representative democracy, as it is, guarantees no adequate representation of public opinion even in Germany with its multiparty system and strong socialdemocratic traditions. To bridge approaches of representative and direct democracy, an alternative election procedure is proposed. For illustration, it is hypothetically applied to redistribute the Bundestag seats with a considerable gain in its representativeness.

Suggested Citation

  • Tangian, Andranik S., 2013. "2013 election to German Bundestag from the viewpoint of direct democracy," WSI Working Papers 186, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wsidps:186
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/87740/1/770944590.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andranik Tangian, 2013. "German parliamentary elections 2009 from the viewpoint of direct democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 833-869, March.
    2. Steven J. Brams & William S. Zwicker & D. Marc Kilgour, 1998. "The paradox of multiple elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(2), pages 211-236.
    3. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2007. "Applying relational algebra and RelView to coalition formation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 530-542, April.
    4. Agnieszka Rusinowska & Harrie de Swart & Jan-Willem van der Rijt, 2005. "A new model of coalition formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(1), pages 129-154, September.
    5. Krause-Pilatus, Annabelle & Rinne, Ulf & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2010. "Anonymisierte Bewerbungsverfahren," IZA Research Reports 27, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Miller, Nicholas R., 1983. "Pluralism and Social Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(3), pages 734-747, September.
    7. Tangian, Andranik, 2012. "Statistical test for the mathematical theory of democracy," WSI Working Papers 179, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    8. Roemer, John E., 1998. "Why the poor do not expropriate the rich: an old argument in new garb," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 399-424, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lott, Yvonne, 2014. "Working time autonomy and time adequacy: What if performance is all that counts?," WSI Working Papers 188, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    2. Lott, Yvonne, 2015. "Costs and benefits of flexibility and autonomy in working time: The same for women and men?," WSI Working Papers 196, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    3. Keller, Berndt & Seifert, Hartmut, 2015. "Atypical forms of employment in the public sector: Are there any?," WSI Working Papers 199, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    4. Tangian, Andranik S., 2015. "Is the left-right alignment of parties outdated?," WSI Working Papers 198, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tangian, Andranik S., 2013. "Decision making in politics and economics: 5. 2013 election to German Bundestag and direct democracy," Working Paper Series in Economics 49, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    2. Andranik Tangian, 2013. "German parliamentary elections 2009 from the viewpoint of direct democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 833-869, March.
    3. Tangian, Andranik S., 2010. "Representativeness of German parties and trade unions with regard to public opinion," WSI Working Papers 173, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    4. Tangian, Andranik, 2010. "Evaluation of German parties and coalitions by methods of the mathematical theory of democracy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 294-307, April.
    5. Tangian, Andranik S., 2006. "German parliamentary elections 2005 in the mirror of party manifestos," WSI Working Papers 139E, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    6. Tangian, Andranik, 2006. "Evaluation of Parties and Coalitions After Parliamentary Elections," Coalition Theory Network Working Papers 12165, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    7. Andranik Tangian, 2017. "Policy Representation of a Parliament: The Case of the German Bundestag 2013 Elections," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 151-179, January.
    8. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2013. "Computing tournament solutions using relation algebra and RelView," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(3), pages 636-645.
    9. repec:hal:pseose:hal-00756696 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Andranik Tangian, 2008. "A mathematical model of Athenian democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(4), pages 537-572, December.
    11. Agnieszka Rusinowska & Harrie Swart, 2008. "Negotiating a Stable Government: An Application of Bargaining Theory to a Coalition Formation Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 445-464, September.
    12. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2010. "Applying relation algebra and RelView to measures in a social network," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 182-195, April.
    13. Jan-Willem Rijt, 2008. "An Alternative Model of the Formation of Political Coalitions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 81-101, February.
    14. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2009. "An interdisciplinary approach to coalition formation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(2), pages 487-496, June.
    15. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00756696 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Andranik Tangian, 2006. "Evaluation of Parties and Coalitions After Parliamentary Elections," Working Papers 2006.76, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    17. Robert MacCulloch & Silvia Pezzini, 2010. "The Roles of Freedom, Growth, and Religion in the Taste for Revolution," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 329-358, May.
    18. Jonathan Hodge & Peter Schwallier, 2006. "How Does Separability Affect The Desirability Of Referendum Election Outcomes?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 251-276, November.
    19. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 699-746.
    20. William Gehrlein, 2002. "Condorcet's paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: different perspectives on balanced preferences ," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 171-199, March.
    21. David Juarez-Luna, 2016. "Ideology, swing voters, and taxation," EconoQuantum, Revista de Economia y Finanzas, Universidad de Guadalajara, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Economico Administrativas, Departamento de Metodos Cuantitativos y Maestria en Economia., vol. 13(1), pages 7-28, Enero-Jun.
    22. Amory Gethin & Clara Martínez-Toledano & Thomas Piketty, 2022. "Brahmin Left Versus Merchant Right: Changing Political Cleavages in 21 Western Democracies, 1948–2020," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 137(1), pages 1-48.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    representative democracy; direct democracy; elections; coalitions; theory of voting; mathematical theory of democracy; indices of popularity and universality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wsidps:186. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wsihbde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.