LL-L "History" 2006.03.13 (14) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

   L O W L A N D S - L * 13 March 2006 * Volume 14
=======================================================================

From: Heiko Evermann <heiko.evermann at gmx.de>
Subject: LL-L "History" 2006.03.12 (09) [E]

Hi Ron,
> By the way, what was that during the last elections in Schleswig-Holstein?
> The election results were pretty much even between Christian Democrats and
> Social Democrats, and then the Danish minority vote swung it in favor of
> the Democrats, aided by the regulation that the Danish minority's votes
> count heavier than non-minority votes in order to give the minority an
> advantage (while otherwise it would make no real difference).  This caused
> a lot of consternation on the part of the Christian Democrats and
> right-wing parties, I believe.  Wasn't it something like that?
So to me that looks as if you have missed the most interesting part of it.

For the sake of all readers: here is the story:
1) in Germany we only count votes of parties that get at least 5% of the
votes.
2) This threshold does not apply to the SSW
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Schleswig_Voter_Federation), as it is 
the
representation of the Danish minority. They also get quite a number of votes
from Germans who do not like the big parties. Their political opinions are
appeling to some people and they know that their votes are not wasted 
because
the SSW is exempt from the 5%-rule. They get about half their votes in
Holstein (the southern part of Sleswig-Holstein), where there is no Danish
minority.
3) The tally was very close:
CDU (Christian Democrats) 30, SPD (social democrats) 29, FDP (liberal) 4,
Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (green) 4, SSW 2 seats.

The SSW then offered to officially tolerate an SPD/Green minority 
government.

When it came to the election of the Ministerpräsident, the leader of the CDU
(Peter Harry Carstensen) ran for office. In four voting rounds the leader of
the social democrats (Heide Simonis) did not get the majority. There was
always one vote missing. After four rounds she gave up, retreated from
politics and CDU and SPD started a "grand coalition".

In the meantime there was a lot of discussion whether the SSW should remain
exempt from the 5% rule at all or whether at least the votes in Holstein
should not be exempt. All this discussion has subsided as the SSW is no
longer the "Zünglein an der Waage".

Another interesting aspect that did not make it into the news:
http://www.statistik-sh.de/m4/M4_05_LW05_4.htm has the detailed outcome of 
the
election.
Valid votes: 1434805
CDU: 576095
SPD: 554879
FDP: 94935
Green: 89387
SSW: 11392
That makes 13226688 votes after applying the 5%-rule.
There were 69 seats to be distributed.
That makes
CDU: 29.96
SPD: 28.86
FDP: 4.94
Green: 4.65
SSW: 0.59

Now let us distribute the seats according to
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare-Niemeyer-Verfahren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_remainder_method

Giving the whole seats means:
CDU: 29
SPD: 28
FDP: 4
Green: 4
SSW: 0

Total so far: 65 seats. 4 seats to be distributed in the sequence of the
remainders: CDU (0.96), FDP (0.94), SPD (0.86), Green (0.65) leaving the SSW
without any seat and giving the CDU/FDP a lead of one vote.
The

Distribution in Schleswig-Holstein is according to d'Hondt (detailed math to
be found in http://www.statistik-sh.de/m4/M4_05_LW05_8.htm).

(More info in German in
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Höchstzahlverfahren_nach_d'Hondt).

So the whole situation would not have happened if Germany had used
Hare-Niemeyer. (Which to my mathematical taste is more appropriate than
d'Hondt),

The story in German from Wikipedia:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahl_des_Ministerpräsidenten_von_Schleswig-Holstein_2005
Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann 

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================