I'll probably be adding to this, but I want to make sure it isn't lost.
Do you have a link to the supreme court decision(s)?
2012
2008
So the constitution does not specify the use of MMP? The English translation reads:
I was reading the Google translation of the decisions, so I'm probably missing nuances. But it appears that the court didn't like overhang seats, and chose to parse "general", "direct", "equal", "secret", and "whole people" in an activist way.
Was the 2008 decision in direct response to the 2005 delayed due-to-candidate-death election in Dresden, where it was quite visible that a second vote for CDU would not secure an additional seat nationally, but in sufficient numbers, could switch it to Saxony eliminating an overhang seat. So CDU supporters had an incentive to use their second vote for another party, and non-CDU supporters had an incentive to use their second vote for CDU. ??
Why was the switch to Sainte Lague made in 2005? Was that in response to a court decision or some other reason? The decision said that the overhang problem was not materially alleviated by the switch, and it sounds like it was unrelated in any case?
Why did the NPD intervene in the present case? Is it related to the 5% threshold? IIUC, the decision says that the 5% threshold is OK, because voters know that there is the potential for their vote to be discarded, so they aren't being denied equal representation.
What is meant by „Berliner Zweitstimmen“ ("Berliner second vote") at Paragraph 142?
Why does Google translate:
"Der Zuteilungsdivisor ist so zu bestimmen, dass insgesamt so viele Sitze auf die Landeslisten entfallen, wie Sitze zu vergeben sind."
as
"The divisor is determined such that a total of as many seats on the regional lists of accounts, such as seats are
up for grabs."
but if you eliminate parts of the sentences it switches to "allocates" or "awards". I thought that "up for grabs" was idiomatic?