Weimar Germany's presidential election rules

[rob in cal]

   The Weimar Republic had a directly elected President with a runoff provision if no one got a majority of the vote in the first round.  But in the runoff, it seems that everyone could run again, not just the top two candidates as is usually the case in presidential runoffs today.  What was the point in having this runoff if everybody could run again?

[Gary J]

The Wikipedia article on 'Presidents of Germany (1919-1945)' explains the Presidential election system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The purpose of the second round seems to be that candidates with no chance would (hopefully) withdraw and that similar groups could combine to support the same candidate.

I think that the Germans adopted the second ballot system, as it existed in the French Third Republic. The second ballot system was discussed, in a book published in 1911 (now available through the Project Gutenberg website), Proportional Representation by John H. Humphreys.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Benj]

The above is correct. Indeed, candidates did withdraw in favor of other candidates. In 1925, the second-placed SPD candidate withdrew in favor of the third-placed Zentrum candidate (as did the fifth-placed DDP candidate), while the rightists, led by the DNVP, replaced their original top-vote-getter with von Hindenburg. Had they not, I think it quite likely that Wilhelm Marx of Zentrum would have been elected, and possibly the entire rise of the NSDAP averted (because the anger may have flowed to old nationalists like the DNVP rather than the NSDAP--something resembling WWII might still have happened under a later DNVP government, but on a much smaller and less brutal scale, and without the Holocaust).

In 1932, the only significant withdrawal was the candidate of the Steel Helmets in favor of Hitler, though a significant number of votes clearly switched from Thalmann of the Communists to von Hindenburg to stop Hitler. Not that they were necessary. Indeed, the popular wisdom of the time that only Hindenburg could defeat Hitler was probably wrong, and a combined candidate of the center like Marx in 1925 probably would have won, albeit by a dangerously narrow amount. In retrospect, such a risk would have of course been worthwhile; it didn't really matter in the end whether Hitler or Hindenburg won the 1932 election.

[Famous Mortimer]

In modern day French parliamentary run-offs, there are often 3 candidates. It's either the top 3 always have the option of running or anyone who gets more than 20% has the option of running. I forget which.

[Benj]

In modern day French parliamentary run-offs, there are often 3 candidates. It's either the top 3 always have the option of running or anyone who gets more than 20% has the option of running. I forget which.

The latter, but there's also some rule about needing to get 12.5% of eligible voters (I think?) if you're in third in the first round in order to make it to the run-off, so in low-turnout elections it's always a two-candidate run-off. In theory I suppose four candidates could make it to the run-off if turnout were high and the candidates split the first-round vote quite evenly.

[Хahar 🤔]

The German system was modeled on French legislative elections in the Third Republic, for what it's worth. I'm unsure whether the system was employed throughout the Third Republic; Hashemite can speak to that better than I.

[minionofmidas]

Some German states (certainly Baden Württemberg, not sure about anywhere else) still use that for direct elections of mayors. It basically makes the first round of voting a test of strength before the actual election.

In the elections (of the representatives, by electors that were themselves popularly elected) to the Prussian Landtag during the Kaiserreich, if nobody won an absolute majority, the candidate or candidates with the least number of votes would be eliminated every round. But only from round two on - the first and second round were different only in that, in the first round, you could theoretically vote for anybody at all while in the second round you could only vote for people who had received at least one vote in the first round, so the first round effectively set the pool of candidates.

[Zuza]

In theory I suppose four candidates could make it to the run-off if turnout were high and the candidates split the first-round vote quite evenly.

Yes, and this occurred in the past. In early times of the Fifth Republic, when the threshold was lower, there were even 6-candidate run-offs.

[Rob Bloom]

Indeed, the popular wisdom of the time that only Hindenburg could defeat Hitler was probably wrong, and a combined candidate of the center like Marx in 1925 probably would have won, albeit by a dangerously narrow amount.

You might be right theoretically, but in 1932 the parties of the center would have had a hard time finding a suitable candidate who could attract voters nationwide in a short campaign. It was very difficult for newcomers to gain attention because debates in the Reichstag had become few and far between. Of the establishment, Chancellor Brüning was extremely unpopular. Prussia's prime minister Otto Braun was a member of the SPD and liberal and catholic voters tended not to vote for Social Democrats under any circumstances. On the other hand, traditional SPD-voters were disciplined enough to even vote for Hindenburg if their party leaders suggested it.

[Benj]

Indeed, the popular wisdom of the time that only Hindenburg could defeat Hitler was probably wrong, and a combined candidate of the center like Marx in 1925 probably would have won, albeit by a dangerously narrow amount.

You might be right theoretically, but in 1932 the parties of the center would have had a hard time finding a suitable candidate who could attract voters nationwide in a short campaign. It was very difficult for newcomers to gain attention because debates in the Reichstag had become few and far between. Of the establishment, Chancellor Brüning was extremely unpopular. Prussia's prime minister Otto Braun was a member of the SPD and liberal and catholic voters tended not to vote for Social Democrats under any circumstances. On the other hand, traditional SPD-voters were disciplined enough to even vote for Hindenburg if their party leaders suggested it.

I admit not knowing that much about the period, but wouldn't Wilhelm Marx have been a decent candidate in 1932 as in 1925?

[Rob Bloom]

Marx seems to have abandoned national politics since he had lost his bid for reelection as leader of the catholic "Center Party" in 1928 against Kaas. Marx was a moderate, but under the leadership of Kaas and Brüning the party moved to the right.

Gustav Stresemann would have been a very good candidate for President in 1932, but he had died as Foreign Minister in 1929, aged only 51.

[windjammer]

The above is correct. Indeed, candidates did withdraw in favor of other candidates. In 1925, the second-placed SPD candidate withdrew in favor of the third-placed Zentrum candidate (as did the fifth-placed DDP candidate), while the rightists, led by the DNVP, replaced their original top-vote-getter with von Hindenburg. Had they not, I think it quite likely that Wilhelm Marx of Zentrum would have been elected, and possibly the entire rise of the NSDAP averted (because the anger may have flowed to old nationalists like the DNVP rather than the NSDAP--something resembling WWII might still have happened under a later DNVP government, but on a much smaller and less brutal scale, and without the Holocaust).

In 1932, the only significant withdrawal was the candidate of the Steel Helmets in favor of Hitler, though a significant number of votes clearly switched from Thalmann of the Communists to von Hindenburg to stop Hitler. Not that they were necessary. Indeed, the popular wisdom of the time that only Hindenburg could defeat Hitler was probably wrong, and a combined candidate of the center like Marx in 1925 probably would have won, albeit by a dangerously narrow amount. In retrospect, such a risk would have of course been worthwhile; it didn't really matter in the end whether Hitler or Hindenburg won the 1932 election.

I'm not sure that communists voted for Hindenburg. In fact, the KPD and the NSDAP had many similar views: "national-bolchevism" for the KPD. They demonstrated together in 1923 after Schlageter's death for instance. So I wouldn't be surprised if many Thalmann's supporters voted for Hitler.

What's more,

[minionofmidas]

A few notes: Of the three groups supporting Duesterberg, two issued no endorsement - only the Landbund openly switched to supporting Hitler. The overwhelming majority of Duesterberg's voters did vote for Hitler anyways, of course. (Duesterberg was one quarter Jewish by ancestry - and this is the main reason he performed below DNVP potential, a sizable minority part of their electorate voting Hitler from round one. If he hadn't declined the post he was offered, he would have been the only less-than-Aryan member of Hitler's first cabinet. )
Most of the missing Thälmann voters stayed at home; the decline in turnout between the two rounds is well correlated with the Communist strongholds (though some Center and Social Democrat voters also appear to have stayed at home, presumably because they didn't like Hindenburg and felt certain that Hitler would not win.) Some Thälmann voters also switched to Hindenburg, though they were probably mostly people who still identified more with their previous party than with the Communists that they voted for in 1932.

Very very few switched to Hitler. With local results available, this stuff isn't rocket science. The old myth of the relationship between any kind of totaliarism is just that, a useful myth perpetuated by interested parties. As far as voter appeal goes, that is, whatever you want to hold about philosophical similarities.

[windjammer]

A few notes: Of the three groups supporting Duesterberg, two issued no endorsement - only the Landbund openly switched to supporting Hitler. The overwhelming majority of Duesterberg's voters did vote for Hitler anyways, of course. (Duesterberg was one quarter Jewish by ancestry - and this is the main reason he performed below DNVP potential, a sizable minority part of their electorate voting Hitler from round one. If he hadn't declined the post he was offered, he would have been the only less-than-Aryan member of Hitler's first cabinet. )
Most of the missing Thälmann voters stayed at home; the decline in turnout between the two rounds is well correlated with the Communist strongholds (though some Center and Social Democrat voters also appear to have stayed at home, presumably because they didn't like Hindenburg and felt certain that Hitler would not win.) Some Thälmann voters also switched to Hindenburg, though they were probably mostly people who still identified more with their previous party than with the Communists that they voted for in 1932.

Very very few switched to Hitler. With local results available, this stuff isn't rocket science. The old myth of the relationship between any kind of totaliarism is just that, a useful myth perpetuated by interested parties. As far as voter appeal goes, that is, whatever you want to hold about philosophical similarities.

So I was probably wrong about Thalman's voters. However, I'm sure that KPD's program was more "national-bolchevist" than "bolchevist" to attract NSDAP's voters. For instance, a nazi hero, Richard Scheringer, became a communist. The KPD wanted to attract the left of the NSDAP, "the SA", who were really to the left on economic issues, the "Strasser faction".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser

[minionofmidas]

Not NSDAP voters as such, no - simply because "National Bolshevism" largely predates the mass NSDAP. It belongs to the 20s, not the 30s, and it never was any kind of mass movement. The meaning of the vague term could vary; at the far ridiculous end it just meant a Conservative who endorsed alliance with the Soviet Union for geostrategic reasons.
The KPD did maintain aggressive nationalistic stances on some issues for votefishing populist reasons (where that didn't collide with the Komintern line... ). Ever since the early 20s. The party did play a role in organizing the resistance to French occupation of the Ruhr and never voted for the Treaty of Versailles, after alll...

[Famous Mortimer]

Anyone who uses the term "National Bolshevism" is not a serious person.

[minionofmidas]

Anyone who uses the term "National Bolshevism" is not a serious person.

It was used by quite a few people in 1923.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The 1920s was a notoriously unserious decade.

[minionofmidas]

Yes, but here in Germany it was deadly unserious.