EU elections with US system

[Gunnar Larsson]

Suppose that the election in 2014 (or elections in general) would be run as in the US (first-past-the-post etc.), what would happen? Which parties would form/still be relevant/disappear? Where would they be strong? Would people votes based on values or economics?

[Hatman 🍁]

With an electoral college?

[DC Al Fine]

Suppose that the election in 2014 (or elections in general) would be run as in the US (first-past-the-post etc.), what would happen? Which parties would form/still be relevant/disappear? Where would they be strong? Would people votes based on values or economics?

I think they would still primarily vote based off of EU/philia/scepticism. You would see a lot more joint tickets. For example, in Sweden, Moderates/Centre/People's/Christian Democrats would probably form one centre right ticket to oppose the socialists instead of the separate lists the maintain under the current system.

[Hatman 🍁]

Creating congressional districts would be fun. We could make the congress the same size as the European parliament, but we would have to allot the seats the same way as the US.

[Hatman 🍁]

For the House, the average population of a district would be 667,761 which is close to the US, I think- so that works well. Also, Malta- the smallest country is not that much smaller than Wyoming.

For the Senate, you could do 2 for each country, for 52 Senators but that would be rather small, and then you would have Germany and Malta with the same about of Senators which is worse than the US.

Alternatively, you could give each NUTS region 2 Senators, for a total of 194 Senators. Only problem here is you get countries like the Czech Republic with only 2 Senators, when other countries of similar sizes would have more (like Belgium).

[Gunnar Larsson]

For the House, the average population of a district would be 667,761 which is close to the US, I think- so that works well. Also, Malta- the smallest country is not that much smaller than Wyoming.

For the Senate, you could do 2 for each country, for 52 Senators but that would be rather small, and then you would have Germany and Malta with the same about of Senators which is worse than the US.

Alternatively, you could give each NUTS region 2 Senators, for a total of 194 Senators. Only problem here is you get countries like the Czech Republic with only 2 Senators, when other countries of similar sizes would have more (like Belgium).

I think 2 for each countries is the most sensible, even though the difference between Germany and Malty of course is very big. As far as I understand it the purpose of the senate and equivalent organs is to represent the "cultures" (for lack of a better word) rather than the individuals so that the smaller ones does not disappear by being overwhelmed by the bigger ones.

I guess such a system would increase the trend towards regions wanting to become independent (Scotland, Catalonia etc.).

[Gunnar Larsson]

With an electoral college?

Yes :-) I think the dynamics would be interesting, especially if there was a presidential election where the candidates would not be able to just focus on just their area/country but would need to find a way to win enough votes in the electoral college. Would it be an anti-federal ("state's rights) periphery vs. a federal centre, a socially liberal north/west vs. a socially conservative east/south or a less geographically clear economical right/left-division? The campaigning could be interesting, which states would be safe/swing?

[Gunnar Larsson]

Suppose that the election in 2014 (or elections in general) would be run as in the US (first-past-the-post etc.), what would happen? Which parties would form/still be relevant/disappear? Where would they be strong? Would people votes based on values or economics?

I think they would still primarily vote based off of EU/philia/scepticism. You would see a lot more joint tickets. For example, in Sweden, Moderates/Centre/People's/Christian Democrats would probably form one centre right ticket to oppose the socialists instead of the separate lists the maintain under the current system.

If people would vote based on their views on EU it would something like the Left, the Greens, the Sweden Democrats and perhaps the Centre party against the Social Democrats, the Liberals, the Christian Democrats and the Moderates. I think such coalitions would be rather hard to keep together...

On the other hand in the UK it would probably work much better with Tories + UKIP vs Labour + Libdem.

[Hatman 🍁]

For the House, the average population of a district would be 667,761 which is close to the US, I think- so that works well. Also, Malta- the smallest country is not that much smaller than Wyoming.

For the Senate, you could do 2 for each country, for 52 Senators but that would be rather small, and then you would have Germany and Malta with the same about of Senators which is worse than the US.

Alternatively, you could give each NUTS region 2 Senators, for a total of 194 Senators. Only problem here is you get countries like the Czech Republic with only 2 Senators, when other countries of similar sizes would have more (like Belgium).

I think 2 for each countries is the most sensible, even though the difference between Germany and Malty of course is very big. As far as I understand it the purpose of the senate and equivalent organs is to represent the "cultures" (for lack of a better word) rather than the individuals so that the smaller ones does not disappear by being overwhelmed by the bigger ones.

I guess such a system would increase the trend towards regions wanting to become independent (Scotland, Catalonia etc.).

2 per country seems small though, the Senate should ideally be at least 100 people.

[Hatman 🍁]

EU apportionment (based on the US system)

Malta   1
Luxembourg   1
Cyprus   2
Estonia   2
Slovenia   4
Latvia   4
Lithuania   5
Ireland   7
Finland   9
Slovakia   8
Denmark   9
Bulgaria   11
Austria   13
Sweden   14
Hungary   15
Portugal   16
Czech Rep.   16
Belgium   17
Greece   17
Netherlands   25
Romania   29
Poland   58
Spain   69
Italy   90
UK   93
France   97
Germany   122

[Hatman 🍁]

I've decided for the Senate, that each NUTS region will have 2 Senators except for cases where a county would have less Senators than a country with less population. This has meant making 4 exceptions.

1) Finland (would ordinarily be worth 4, but there are countries larger with 2. Aland is treated as its own NUTS region, as an autonomous area. I will have Aland elect 1 Senator for a Finland total of 3.

2) Czech Republic. Is not divided up into NUTS regions for some reason, but should have 3. So, I am making the 3 traditional regions their own Senate districts: Bohemia, Silesia and Moravia for a total of 6 Senators.

3) Italy. Italy would have too few Senators at 10. I have done something differently, and given each Region a Senator for 20.

4) France. France would have too few at 18, so I have done the same as Italy increasing the Senators from France to 26.

This makes the total 215:

Malta   2
Luxembourg   2
Cyprus   2
Estonia   2
Slovenia   2
Latvia   2
Lithuania   2
Ireland   2
Finland   3
Slovakia   2
Denmark   2
Bulgaria   4
Austria   6
Sweden   6
Hungary   6
Portugal   6
CZE   6
Belgium   6
Greece   8
Netherlands   8
Romania   8
Poland   12
Spain   14
Italy   20
UK   24
France   26
Germany   32

The EC would thus be:

Malta   3
Luxembourg   3
Cyprus   4
Estonia   4
Slovenia   6
Latvia   6
Lithuania   7
Ireland   9
Finland   12
Slovakia   10
Denmark   11
Bulgaria   15
Austria   19
Sweden   20
Hungary   21
Portugal   22
CZE   22
Belgium   23
Greece   25
Netherlands   33
Romania   37
Poland   70
Spain   83
Italy   110
UK   117
France   123
Germany   154

[Smid]

I've decided for the Senate, that each NUTS region will have 2 Senators except for cases where a county would have less Senators than a country with less population. This has meant making 4 exceptions.

You could do a Senate like the Canadian Senate, where the largest couple of countries get lots, and then the rest get far fewer.